4. 4 of 71
List of abbreviations
BAU Business as usual
f.i. for instance
CH4 Methane
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2eq Carbon Dioxide equivalent
DKK Danish Kroner (kr)
CFL’s Compact Fluorescent lamps
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GJ giga joule
Gt Gigaton (10^9 t)
HGV Heavy goods vehicle
Huset Huset KBH
km kilometres
kWh kilo-watt-hours
LED light emitting diode
m2 square metre
N2O Nitrous Oxide
R&S Spisehuset Rub & Stub
t Tonnes (1000 kilograms)
UK United Kingdom
US EPA US Environmental Protection
Agency
USD US Dollar
VATS Value Added Tax
5. 5 of 71
List of tables and figures
Table
no.
Description page Figure
no.
Description page
1 Scope breakdown of R&S 18 1 Total agricultural production (FBS)
vs. food wastage volumes in
million tonnes
12
2 Included fruits, vegetables and
roots for emissions associated
with food production
24 2 Overview of Scope 1-3 18
3 Overview of GHG emissions for all
Scopes
27 3 Heat, electricity and water
consumption of Huset
20
4 Investment costs, savings,
payback time and CO2eq emission
reductions for changing all
present light bulb into LED
42 4 GHG emissions of transportation
and delivery
28
5 Simple payback time of 3 different
combi-steamers
42 5 Comparison of GHG emissions
(CO2eq) from surplus food
(incineration)
and bought food (food production)
29
6 Investments, costs and savings for
a variety of solutions
43 6 People’s perception and the actual
share of global emissions from
different sectors
37
7 BAU - Present state of R&S 45 7 Comparison of power costs and
CO2eq emissions of traditional
lightning and LED lights
40
8 Scenario 1 GHG emissions 46 8 Comparison of power costs of
present and new oven
41
9 Scenario 2 GHG emissions 47 9 BAU – Annual GHG emissions 45
10 Scenario 1 – share of GHG
emissions
46
11 Scenario 2 – share of GHG
emissions
47
6. 6 of 71
Executive summary
In this report Midgaard Solutions will examine and assess the total GHG emissions of the
restaurant ‘Spisehuset Rub & Stub’. Moreover, possible GHG emission savings from the use of
surplus food will be estimated. Furthermore, based on the GHG accounting, possible solutions
to reduce the GHG emissions of the restaurant are provided.
Key findings:
> R&S’s total GHG emissions are currently 48,42t CO2eq/year:
BAU emissions from scope 1-3 includes gas use, transportation, electricity and district heating,
delivery of goods, the production of food and indirect emissions.
> R&S has saved approximately 2,3t CO2eq/year by using surplus food:
By using surplus food, R&S has saved emissions equal to 2,3t CO2eq emissions that otherwise
will be produced from the surplus food being incinerated at a waste handling facility.
> R&S total GHG emissions can be lowered by 36% equal to 17,7t CO2eq/year:
Through a variety of solutions, R&S can substantially reduce its GHG emissions. This includes:
New energy provider, new and more efficient kitchen equipment, change to LED type light
bulbs, reduced meat consumption, sustainable food management workshops, improve urban
gardening and use of eco-friendly candles.
> The implementation of all suggested solutions is economically feasible and beneficial:
An investment of nearly 70.000 kr is required to invest in a new oven and to change all light
bulbs to LED. However, the overall savings a year is equal to approximately 15.000 kr /year,
making the payback time 4 years.
8. 8 of 71
Throughout the ‘Climate Solutions’ course offered at the University of Copenhagen the
consultancy group ‘Midgaard Solutions’ was established in November 2015. Within 8 weeks
Midgaard Solutions examined how its client - the restaurant ‘Spisehuset Rub & Stub’ - could
decrease its GHG emissions and become more sustainable.
Based on a GHG inventory of the restaurant which was carried out at the beginning, possible
approaches and solutions were elaborated to reduce Spisehuset Rub & Stub’s impact on
climate change.
1.1 Spisehuset Rub & Stub
Spisehuset Rub & Stub (R&S) is a non-profit restaurant and with its opening in 2013 the first
one in Europe that fights food waste by using surplus food. It is located in the first and biggest
public culture centre Huset-KBH (Huset) in the city centre of Copenhagen (Rådhusstræde 13,
Huset-KBH, 1st Floor, 1466 Copenhagen K).
Huset was founded in 1970 and hosts around 1500 events per year from live music concerts to
spoken word and alternative movies to theatre performances. It is organised by an
administration and Foreningen Bag Huset-KBH – which is the conglomeration of 27
communities that manage Huset every day through Danish and international volunteers and
various culture experts (Huset, n.d.).
Image 1: Huset stakeholders (Huset, n.d.)
9. 9 of 71
The following information about the emergence and current state of R&S was gathered
through meetings in R&S with the project leader Sanne Stephansen and their current volunteer
Kamille Nissen Løje.
In 2012 a group of people wanted to find a place to make food for the non-profit cafés of the
RETRO association in Copenhagen. Another group wanted to reduce waste in restaurant
kitchens. Through the RETRO association the two groups got together and created the idea of a
catering business that uses surplus food for cooking meals for the non-profit cafés with the
help from volunteers. They knew that there was an unused kitchen in Huset, but then the
manager of Huset showed them the facilities of the current R&S. So the group decided to open
a non-profit restaurant that uses surplus food and is part of the RETRO association that also
invested in R&S at the beginning. Through its focus on food waste, R&S became very popular
and received a lot of media attention as well. That is why the restaurant decided to split the
R&S project from the RETRO association that rather focuses on social and educational charity
projects.
Since January 2015 R&S has a new umbrella organisation – the Danish Refugee Council.
Through this new collaboration, R&S also plans to start creating job opportunities for refugees
in spring 2016.
R&S is located in one part of the first floor in the
Huset building complex which was built between
1730 - 1750. Since 1945 it is therefore under
cultural heritage protection. The restaurant consists
of 2 large dining rooms, a kitchen, 3 storage rooms,
a wardrobe for the volunteers, 2 bathrooms, a
hallway, a storage room in the basement, another
basement for storing vegetables and a courtyard
which is used during the summer.
Image 2: R&S backyard (R&S, n.d.)
10. 10 of 71
Image 3: R&S dining room 1 (R&S, n.d.) Image 4: R&S ‘ballroom’ (R&S, n.d.)
The two dining rooms differ from each other in the way that the so called ‘ballroom’ has very
high ceilings, lots of windows and is very bright but also cooler, whereas the other dining room
has rather low ceilings, less windows and is therefore a little bit darker but warmer. Due to the
fact that the building is under cultural heritage protection it is not possible to change the
windows. However, in the ‘ballroom’ Optoglas - a continued window of tempered glass without
a frame for thermal and acoustic insulation (Optoglas, 2012) has already been installed.
Furthermore, R&S has already insulated the plumbing in areas where heating is not needed -
f.i. in the storage room.
Image 5: R&S blueprint (R&S, n.d.)
11. 11 of 71
In the summer the restaurant plants greens in the courtyard and also puts more plants in the
‘ballroom’ to create a greener atmosphere. There is also a little greenhouse in the backyard as
well as a barrel to collect rainwater for watering the plants. For shorter transactions R&S has a
cargo bike that employees or volunteers can use. R&S does not own a car, but sometimes rents
cars to travel to farmers and get surplus food directly from the field.
The restaurant is usually opened from Tuesday to Saturday from 5:30pm till around 11pm.
During this time around 50 guests per night can be expected. Moreover, R&S also hosts special
arrangements like Christmas parties, etc. at desired times. In the future the restaurant also
wants to open its facilities more during the day for workshops and other meetings. With the
turnover of around 2 million DKK/year all running costs of the restaurant are covered.
Due to the fact that R&S is a non-profit restaurant it has only 4 full-time employees: a head
chef, a sous-chef, a project leader and a coordinator. The rest is run by volunteers that work in
the service, help in the kitchen or obtain surplus food. There are over 100 volunteers working
at R&S and normally they do 3 shifts per month.
Around 60 % of all the food used in the menu of R&S is surplus food. This is foodstuffs which
local stores, farmers, bakeries or food cooperatives cannot sell for different reasons like
aesthetic demands of the consumers, several standards f.i. size or shape of a product or due to
surplus of seasonal products. One of the biggest donators is the Copenhagen food bank which
is collecting food for homeless people and is then dropping off the rest of the food which
cannot be used by the homeless people at R&S. Sometimes products also reflect political
situations like f.i. the butter that was originally produced for Russia and could not be traded
because of economic sanctions of the EU countries. Almost all the wines the restaurant offers
are samples from several suppliers. R&S gets surplus food every day – that is why the chefs
have to be very creative to create tasty recipes. In order to avoid food waste the restaurant
never offers buffets. Around 7-8 tonnes of food per year are used at R&S instead of being
wasted. If the restaurant needs other products to create a tasty menu, it tries to buy as many
organic products as possible.
12. 12 of 71
1.2 Food waste
As stated before, reducing food waste is a major goal of R&S. Therefore some facts about food
waste in the world and Denmark are provided in the following.
FAO refers to food waste as “food appropriate for human consumption being discarded,
whether or not after it is kept beyond its expiry date or left to spoil. Often this is because food
has spoiled but it can be for other reasons such as oversupply due to markets, or individual
consumer shopping/eating habits” (FAO, 2013).
On a global level around 1/3 of all food produced for human consumption is wasted or lost
each year, which corresponds to 1,3 Gt of eatable food. This is unfortunately a big amount of
food when compared to 6 Gt of total annual agricultural production (not only food production).
When looking at the GHG emissions deriving from produced but not eaten food (without taking
into account land use change emissions), food wastage (= food loss and food waste) is the
biggest emitter after the USA and China. With USD 750 billion (precluding fish and seafood) the
economic cost of food wastage equals the GDP of Turkey or Switzerland in 2011 (FAO,2013).
Figure 1: Total agricultural production (FBS) vs. food wastage volumes in million tonnes (FAO, 2013)
In Denmark 700.000 t of food is wasted every year, whereby the food industry is responsible
for 133.000 t of food waste and households for 260.000 t each year. Hence, the yearly
economic costs of food waste for Danish consumers account for 11 billion DKK (United against
food waste, n.d.).
14. 14 of 71
The main interest of R&S in this collaboration is to find out if and how much GHG emissions it
saves by using surplus food. Another target is to reduce its GHG emissions through taking
smaller initiatives on a daily basis and thereby inspire other people as well to reduce their own
GHG emissions.
Hence, the major purpose for Midgaard Solutions in this investigation is to compare the GHG
emissions of surplus food with the ones from normal bought food. Another aim is to reduce the
GHG emissions of R&S through smaller initiatives that are feasible in terms of R&S’s budget.
Therefore the objectives of Midgaard Solutions are:
● Performing an overall GHG inventory of the status quo emissions of R&S
● Determining focus areas with high reduction potentials based on the GHG inventory
and thereby recommending possible solutions to reduce the GHG emissions of R&S
● Examining the economic feasibility of the suggested solutions
● Provide 3 different scenarios and their impacts for R&S total emissions
● Creating a video that helps R&S to communicate its initiatives to customers and the
general public
Based on the conducted investigations the following target areas could be identified:
● Providing data comparing R&S with a simplified restaurant supply chain model that
does not use surplus food for an estimated comparison of savings in GHG emissions
● Lightning – reducing the electricity use by changing to LED lights
● Heating optimisation through small interventions
● Changing to an energy provider that offers energy partly or only from renewable energy
sources
● Replacing present kitchen equipment with more efficient ones to save energy and
emissions
● Communicating R&S’s initiatives to reduce its GHG emissions to its own employees and
volunteers as well as to customers and the general public through a multimedia project
In the following chapters of the report these target areas will be further explained by showing
the results of the GHG inventory and the consequent possible solutions. Furthermore, the
15. 15 of 71
actual economic feasibility is represented through an economic analysis and a description of
the suggested communication of R&S’s initiatives is provided as well. At the end a discussion
about the investigation and the recommendations and a conclusion can be found.
Please note, due to the relatively limited time frame of this report, not all objectives can be
investigated in full depth. By request from R&S, the main focus is to estimate the possible
savings from the use of surplus food and possible solutions to reduce their carbon footprint.
17. 17 of 71
3.1 GHG accounting methodology
The GHG accounting includes all greenhouse gasses within the Kyoto protocol and is presented
as CO2 equivalents (CO2eq). These are calculated by emission factors from various calculation
tools, such as Climatecompass.dk, DEFRA, ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart,
emissionfactors.com and foodemissions.com (see Appendixes).
Please note that, based on the data Midgaard Solutions got provided, 1 year refers to 10
months, whereby the average working days per month are 18,4 days in our calculations.
3.1.1 Boundaries
In order to determine which data is required, definition of specific operational boundaries for
GHG accounting is established and presented in the following section:
Organizational boundaries
The organizational boundaries and GHG accounting for R&S are based upon the ‘control
approach’, defined by the Greenhouse Protocol as “...company accounts for 100 % of the GHG
emissions from operations over which it has control” (Greenhouse Gas protocol, 2004). Control
is either defined as financial or operational control. For this report and GHG accounting, we
define control as operational control, meaning that R&S has full control to implement and
introduce operational policies (Greenhouse Gas protocol, 2004).
This method is chosen over the ‘equity share approach’, where a company is held accountable
for its emission relative to its share of operations (Greenhouse Gas protocol, 2004). By
choosing this approach rather than the equity share approach, we can neglect any emissions
that the Danish Refugee Council or Huset might produce.
18. 18 of 71
3.1.2 Scopes
Figure 2: Overview of Scope 1-3. Scope 1 is related to onsite activities resulting in direct emissions, such as
transportation, fuel combustion or gas use. Scope 2 is indirect emissions and relates to purchased electricity and
heating, while Scope 3 is indirect emissions from the production of purchased materials such as food and goods.
When applying the Scope model of Figure 2 to R&S, this would result in the following Scope
breakdown:
Table 1: Scope breakdown of R&S
Scope 1 (direct) Scope 2 (indirect) Scope 3 (indirect)
Gas Electricity Delivery of Goods
Transportation District heating Food
Waste incineration
Transmission and distribution
of electricity and heat and
steam, production of gas
Scope 1
As shown in Figure 2, Scope 1 emissions refer to direct, onsite emissions from sources that are
owned and controlled by the company. For R&S this includes gas use and transportation.
19. 19 of 71
Gas use
R&S only uses gas for cooking on the stove. From January till June
2015 the restaurant used 23 pieces of 10 kg PrimaDonna/Ragasco
filled with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Therefore we assume
that the average use is 4 pieces per month, so the yearly use of
LPG is 400 kg of LPG (which is 779,07 litres of propane gas). In our
calculation we used the LPG factors for CO2-eq emissions (CO2,
CH4, N2O) from 3 different tools. In the emissionfactors.com and
climatecompass.dk tools it was possible to choose the location
Denmark. The third tool from DEFRA uses UK factors.
Image 5: 10 kg PrimaDonna/Ragasco (Primagaz, 2014)
Transportation
Throughout the year of 2015, R&S used a Petrol Class I Commercial Van from Renault Trafic as
a rental to pick up vegetables (approximately 500 kg) for production in the restaurant around
4-6 times a year. They travel from Copenhagen
to Odsherred municipality which is about 95
km. Therefore we assumed that they went 6
times round trip to this location and back to
Copenhagen. This is a total of 1,140 km a year.
Midgaard Solutions used three carbon
accounting tools: DEFRA, Ecometrica and
ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart. Image 6: Renault Trafic (driveon.net, n.d.)
Scope 2
Scope 2 emissions are deriving from purchased electricity and district heating of R&S.
Electricity
We calculated the GHG emissions arising from electricity based on the 2015 electricity bills of
R&S. The electricity bills include all facilities of the restaurant except the storage rooms in the
basement. We used the factors of 3 different calculation tools for accounting CO2eq emissions
deriving from electricity:
20. 20 of 71
In the ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart tool we could pick Scope 2 emissions and then
Denmark as location. However, CO2eq emissions (not only CO2 emissions) were only available
for the UK – that is why we used the UK factor in the end. DEFRA also uses UK emission factors
and divides them into scope 2 and scope 3 (see Scope 3 – transmission and distribution
emission losses) factors. This scope division is also used by climatecompass.dk - but this tool
uses emission factors for the location Eastern Denmark.
District Heating
R&S uses district heating. It has no own heating bill – the heating costs are included in the rent
which it has to pay to Huset. We know that each m2 of Huset uses 70 kWh/year (see Figure 3).
Hence, we multiplied the area of R&S (293 m2) with 70 kWh/year and thereby got the heating
use of the restaurant. Again we used the factors of 3 different calculation tools for accounting
the CO2eq emissions deriving from heating:
In the ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart tool we could pick Scope 2 emissions and then used the
UK district heat and steam factor for CO2eq emissions. DEFRA (UK factor) uses the division of
CO2eq factors into scope 2 and scope 3 (see Scope 3 – transmission and distribution emission
losses) also for heat and steam. So does climatecompass.dk, but again this tool uses emission
factors for the location Eastern Denmark.
Varme El Vand
Lavt forbrug Lavt forbrug Lavt forbrug
A
D
J
Højt forbrug Højt forbrug Højt forbrug
70 kWh 22,48 kWh 0,48 M3
Årligt forbrug pr. m² Årligt forbrug pr. m² Årligt forbrug pr. m²
Figure 3: Heat, electricity and water consumption of Huset (Huset KBH)
21. 21 of 71
Scope 3
Scope 3 includes indirect emissions from sources and activities outside R&S and of which R&S is
not in direct control of.
This includes transportation and delivery of food and goods, waste handling, incineration and
production of food and other indirect emissions.
Transportation and delivery of food
Transportation was calculated with 3
different carbon accounting tools
(DEFRA, emissionfactors.com and
ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart). The
most practical way of calculating these
emissions was by comparing R&S’s
surplus food deliveries with R&S
receiving all its supplies from one mega Image 7: Horkram delivery truck outside of R&S
supplier (Hørkram) for vegetables, meats,
herbs and other food supplies over 10 months. We then used the location of R&S as the ‘last
stop’ of surplus food with a 10 km radius of suppliers. We also used the location of R&S as the
last stop and the location of Hørkram for travelling distance of 95,4 km.
Midgaard Solutions did not use data from other suppliers that deliver products to the mega
supplier Hørkram for any mathematical equations. So when looking at Image 8 below, we just
used data from the 2 sectors at the top end of this simplified restaurant supply chain model.
Image 8: Simplified restaurant supply chain model
22. 22 of 71
Assumptions for delivery of food:
- Vehicle use for surplus food Rigid HGV 3.5-7.5 t
- Vehicle use for bought food Rigid HGV 17 t
- The vehicle for bought food is only 50% loaded with supplies for R&S and for the surplus
food the van is 100% loaded with supplies for R&S.
- Midgaard Solutions calculated the average of the 3 accounting tools because uk.gov
only includes the greenhouse emission of refrigerated trucks.
- CO2eq emissions
- Restaurant supply chain model for bought food would be from one mega supplier
Food
For food bought by R&S, emissions are calculated by 4 different tools. However, these
calculation tools are based upon very different data assets - foodemissions.com is based data
from crops grown in North America, where unilever.com is mostly from Danish produced food.
In addition, it is nearly impossible and very time consuming to obtain exact information for
each purchased food, regarding its whole life and production cycle. Second, none of the
calculation tools contains all emission factors - that is- some is missing specific types of food
and products that R&S buys.
Emission factors from organic food are also very hard to obtain, so all emissions from food are
calculated as non-organic food types, even though R&S has an organic share of over 65%. In
general, emissions from organic food are dependent on the specific type of food and its supply
chain. F.i. will organic orange juice have higher emissions than conventional orange juice, since
transportation of organic juice requires refrigerated transportation, thus making it more energy
dense to transport. However, in general organic food seem to have lower emissions than
conventional: vegetables is estimated to have around 10-35% lower emissions and 10-21%
lower for dietary products, mainly due to lower energy consumption in the production process
(Shader et al, 2010; Ziesmer, 2007; University of Michigan, 2015).
It is important to remember that GHG emissions are only one dimension when assessing the
possible climatic and environmental impacts of conventional and organic foods.
23. 23 of 71
In order to emphasize that purchasing organic food plays an important role for R&S, we shortly
describe 3 organic suppliers of the restaurant (please note that the food is bought via
Hørkram).
Øllingegaard Mejeri
This company sells 100% organic dairy products like milk, crème fraiche, yoghurt, butter and
cheese. It is located in North Zealand and its daily milk
suppliers are 11 organic farms in Zealand. Hence, the main
customers are from Greater Copenhagen and North
Zealand. The company is mainly using its own cars for the
delivery of the products, only the school milk is delivered
by Frederiksberg Milk Supply. Øllingegaard Mejeri is
independent because it is owned by Solstice, a charitable foundation. Rewards for several
products and the best Danish butter show, that Øllingegaard Mejeri can be labelled as one of
the most innovative organic companies in Denmark within its field of operation (Øllingegaard
Mejeri, n.d.).
SØRIS
Søris is a family business located in North Zealand. It
supplies organic vegetables grown by a family of
over 3 generations that believe in heritage value
based community agriculture and tries to make
healthy, tasty raw food accessible to as many people
as possible. Moreover, they use wood from their own forest to operate their bio fuel plant – so
one can see that they place value on an overall picture (SØRISGAARD, 2015).
Skyttes
Skyttes is a market garden in central Fyn that supplies organic food
products. Over 30 years the company has dealt with organic farming
and hold up to important values of recycling, biodiversity and
accountability. Skyttes tries to maintain its high credibility to its
customers by being transparent and constantly pursuing to achieve the
24. 24 of 71
organic ideal by protecting nature and environment as much as possible through its way of land
management (Skyttes, 2011).
The datasheet provided by R&S with purchased goods from Hørkram included in GHG
accounting is:
- Milk products
- Cereals
- Vegetables / Fruits
- Meat, fish and Eggs
- Honey and Sugar products
These categories are unfortunately very broad and aggregated – f.i. will meat (and the type of
meat) have significantly different emissions compared to fish and eggs, and vegetables and
fruits will also have very different emissions. F.i. red meat is estimated to be 150 % more GHG
intensive than chicken or fish (Weber et al 2008).
Therefore, fruits and vegetables are based upon average from some of the most common
vegetables and fruits in Denmark:
Table 2: Included fruits, vegetables and roots for emissions associated with food production (in random order)
Fruits Vegetables and
Roots
apples potato
blackcurrant beans
cherry peas
pears cabbages
plums carrots
Raspberry spinach
Strawberry cauliflower
Bananas onions
Oranges beetroots
Lemon cucumbers
For the meat, fish and eggs category the emission factor is based upon average from beef,
pork, tod and non-organic eggs.
25. 25 of 71
Please note that the numbers presented in section 3.2 is thus a very rough and uncertain
number in nature, since it is based upon these very broad categories with average emission
factors.
Assumptions for food emissions:
- Types of food are grouped together into larger categories – f.i. all types of dietary and
milk products (milk, yoghurt, cream etc.) are grouped in one single group and treated as
one major type of food
- Emission factors for these categories are based upon an average from each tool. F.i., for
vegetables and fruits it is based upon the 10 most common vegetables and fruits in
Denmark
- Each tool provides different emission factors dependent on site of origin of production.
Unilever.com uses Danish numbers, but lacks many of the products R&S buy. Other
tools are, however, used as well and used to test the robustness of the calculated result
and an average of all tools will be presented.
Calculations and emission factors are listed in Appendix A4.1.
Surplus food
In general it is very hard to assess and estimate the exact emissions from waste incineration
due to the fact that different components of waste have different chemical probabilities.
According to Lone E. Olsen from Amager Ressource Center: “We do not have an average
emission factor for the burning of food waste - CO2 emissions arise when organic solids and dry
matter are burned. Thus, the emissions from 1kg of melon vs. 1 kg of rye bread is very
different”.
Therefore, calculations of surplus food and its associated emissions are based upon the
following assumptions:
- The faith of the surplus food would have been incineration at a waste handling facility, if
the surplus food have not been used by R&S
26. 26 of 71
- the surplus food consist of only one type of organic matter, even though the surplus
food actually contains of very different types of organic waste, including various canned
and plastic sealed foods
- The calculated average is based upon 4 different calculation tools (see Appendix A4.2)
For surplus food, two approaches have been used to calculate the average emissions from
waste burning:
1. Assessment of how many giga joules (GJ) energy can be extracted from a specific
amount of waste and - how many tons of CO2 is released per GJ of energy from waste
material. The total amount of energy extractable is calculated by multiplying the
calorific value of domestic waste (IGNISS ENERGY n.d) by the weight of the waste.
2. Kg of CO2 released per kg waste incinerated.
The results are presented in section 4.
Please note that waste incineration emissions are not included in the overall GHG inventory for
R&S, since they cannot be held responsible for the associated emissions.
The emissions from waste incineration of surplus food are calculated upon request from R&S in
order to assess the potential savings.
Transmission and distribution emission losses
The GHG protocol (2012) suggests including transmission and distribution (T&D) emission
losses of electricity and district heating into Scope 3, if a business does not own any part of the
T&D system, but purchases the electricity/district heating from it. That is why we used 2
different tools (DEFRA and climatecompass.dk) that are able to differ between Scope 2 and
Scope 3 CO2eq emissions arising from electricity and district heating.
27. 27 of 71
3.2 Results
Table 3: Overview of GHG emissions for all Scopes
SCOPE1 t CO2eq Scope 2 t CO2eq Scope 3 t CO2eq
Gas 1 Electricity 12,73 Delivery of
purchased
goods
3,39
Transportation 0,28 District
Heating
4,97 Delivery of
surplus food
1,27
Distribution of
heat
1,13
Distribution of
electricity
1,75
Production of
gas
0,08
Food
production
21,82
Total 1,28 17,7 29,68 48,42t
CO2eq
Gas use
Only 2 tools considered production of gas (which is Scope 3 emissions) in their calculation. That
is why we present the average CO2eq emissions from gas use (Scope 1 and Scope 3) of these 2
tools which are 1 t CO2eq emissions per year (see Appendix A1).
Transportation
All three tools gave us an emission factor (kg CO2eq/ km) and so we decided to take the
average of all three, because the difference was very miniscule. The average emissions
converted are 0,23 t CO2eq per year (see Appendix A5.3).
Electricity
Only 2 tools considered transmission and distribution emission losses of electricity (which is
Scope 3 emissions) in their calculation. That is why we present the average CO2eq emissions
(Scope 2 and Scope 3) of these 2 tools deriving from the total electricity use which are 14,89 t
CO2eq emissions per year (see Appendix A2).
28. 28 of 71
District heating
Similar to electricity, we only present the average amount of the 2 tools (DEFRA and
climatecompass.com) which considered transmission and distribution emission losses of district
heating. Hence, the total CO2eq emissions/year of district heating in R&S are
4,97 t CO2eq (Scope 2 and Scope 3) (see Appendix A3).
Transmission and distribution emission losses
The total amount of CO2eq emissions emerging from T&D system losses (electricity and district
heating) is 2,88 t CO2eq. Please note that this is just an extra presentation of CO2eq emissions
- the amount of CO2eq emissions from T&D emission losses is already included in the electricity
and district heating calculation (see Appendix A2, A3).
Transportation and delivery of goods
The total amount of CO2e emission for delivery goods for the surplus food transport is 1,27 t
CO2eq and transport of bought food from Hørkram 3,3907 t CO2eq per year (see Appendix
A5.1).
Figure 4: GHG emissions of transportation and delivery
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
Hørkram Surplus
tCO2eq
Hørkram
Surplus
29. 29 of 71
Food
The estimated yearly emissions from food production are 12,45t CO2eq using unilever.com.
Using the average emission factors from all 4 tools the total emissions from food is 21.82t
CO2eq/year.
Surplus Food
Emissions from incineration of surplus food at a waste facility plant are calculated to be
approximately 2,3t CO2eq/year. This is what R&S ‘saves’ for using surplus food.
Figure 5: Comparison of GHG emissions (CO2eq) from surplus food (incineration)
and bought food (food production)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Surplus food inceneration Bought food production
tCO2eq
30. 30 of 71
4. Identifying potential climate solutions
31. 31 of 71
4.1 Methodology for the identification of potential climate solutions
The GHG inventory of R&S is used as point of departure to identify hotspots of emissions and
possible solutions to reduce these emissions.
These are categorized as either ‘technological’- or ‘behavioural’ oriented reductions.
Technological oriented reductions are defined as changes in infrastructure, operation facilities,
technological etc.
This provides an easy, obtainable and measurable reduction of GHG emissions when
introduced.
Behavioural oriented reductions refer to solutions related to human behaviour, increased
awareness and engagement in climate change related issues. These are more uncertain and
difficult to measure.
Please note that in the end every solution could be treated as behavioural solution at some
point, because f.i. changing to more energy efficient products is still a voluntary choice based
on environmentally friendly behaviour.
In addition, possible solutions have to be cheap, since R&S is a non-profit organization with
limited budget for implementation of new solutions.
Thus, the main focus is inexpensive solutions with relatively short payback time.
Calculation of energy price per kWh is based upon a yearly average from January till October
2015 from the electricity bills provided by R&S (Appendix A2.1).
32. 32 of 71
4.2 Results
4.2.1 Technological oriented solutions
Change to LED lights
R&S’s present light bulbs and lamps mainly consists of regular halogen spots (4 in total), light
tubes (10) and traditional Compact Fluorescent lamps (41) (CFL’s). The total daily power
consumption for these light bulbs is estimated to be 9,7 kWh (see appendix A6.3).
An easy possible solution for R&S would be to change to LED light bulbs in order to lower the
overall power consumption and GHG emissions.
Yearly savings in GHG emissions is calculated as 426,8 kg CO2eq
(Appendix A6.3).
For economical analysis and the feasibility of LED lights, please see
section 5.
Please note that it is highly recommendable to seek professional
guidance regarding LED lights, since the temperature and colour of
the light varies substantially from regular light bulbs, in order to
pick the exact type of lightning that suits R&S.
The different types of LED bulbs used for this calculation are only
used to estimate the potential savings and are not a direct
suggestion for R&S.
Image 9: Variety of different LED light bulbs (apartment therapy, 2013)
Replacement of old oven
The GHG accounting has shown that there is a great potential in reducing the energy use of the
restaurant. Since the old oven is run by electricity and over 13 years old, a solution could be to
replace it by a new, more energy efficient oven. By contacting several combi-steamer experts
(see section 5) we assume that the energy efficiency has improved by 30 % since the old
combi-steamer was produced in 2002. Thus, the investment in a new oven would result in
major savings: 7352,64 kWh/year corresponding to 15841,14 kr/year (see section 5).
33. 33 of 71
Heating optimisation
Although the heat consumption of Huset (no extra data for R&S) is classified as A (see Figure 1),
there is still a possibility to optimise the heating consumption in R&S. The following solutions
are based on the recommendations of the energy consultant Janus Hendrichsen from
EnergiTjenesten København.
Radiator foil or panels
Normally radiators warm the wall behind them too which is a waste of energy, especially when
the building is not insulated well and there is a high temperature difference between the back
side of the radiator and the wall. By simply putting a reflecting (aluminium) foil behind the wall
of the radiator some of this wasted energy will get reflected back into the room, hence heating
up the room faster and using less energy to do so. This solution is very cheap and easy to
install.
Another slightly more expensive but still cheap solution is the use of radiator panels. These
have two different layers, one reflective layer which have to be put towards the radiator, and
one insulating layer which keeps most of the heat away from the walls behind the radiator.
Radiator panels are also easy to install by just cutting them into the preferred size and then
fixing them to the wall behind the radiator. The special ‘saw tooth profile’ of radiator panels
from Heatkeeper are designed to “stimulate convection currents which improve heat
circulation, helping to eliminate cold spots in the room” (Heatkeeper, 2015).
Image 10: Heatkeeper panels (Heatkeeper, 2015)
Energy use regulators
Another opportunity is to install energy use regulators on the radiators. With the end user
friendly terrier i-temp, a programmable radiator control (PRC) of the company Pegler Yorkshire,
it is possible to fine-tune time and temperature in each room. Thereby the user can
34. 34 of 71
concentrate the heat in particular rooms where it is needed. The terrier
i-temp is very easy to programme and there are extra features like
“future potential energy saving, window opening detection, set back and
comfort settings and child lock features” (Pegler Yorkshire, 2015).
Image 11: terrier i-temp - programmable radiator control (Pegler Yorkshire, 2015).
Use solar powered string lights in the backyard
During the summer R&S is using a normal chain of lights with 10 light bulbs in the backyard. By
introducing solar powered string lights with rechargeable LED lights the restaurant could use
the sun as energy source and lower its electricity use as well. Solar powered string lights usually
consist of a string with LED lights connected to a 2-6 V solar panel which can be placed f.i. in a
flowerbed that is exposed to enough direct sunlight during the day. In this way the lights will
charge during the day and -
when fully charged - will run up to 8 hours
during the night. So far, R&S is opened from
5.30 pm until around 11pm, so if the sun is
shining enough during the day the running time
will perfectly fit to the restaurant’s opening
hours. Solar powered string lights are very
cheap and normally cost 70-100 kr (AliExpress,
2015). Therefore this solution would be easy to
install and might also be an incentive for
customers to change their own chain of light
bulbs.
Image 12: Solar powered string lights
(AliExpress, 2015)
35. 35 of 71
4.2.2 Behavioural oriented solutions:
Change of energy provider or subscription
R&S is supplied with energy from Dong Energy, with a relatively high amount of non-renewable
energy sources (Dong, 2014). By changing energy provider or subscription plan, R&S can easily
and nearly effortlessly reduce their GHG emissions from their energy consumption significantly.
R&S’s present energy provider is Dong Energy with the ‘Basis El’ subscription.
Proposed suggestion is to pick a different subscription at Dong Energy such as “Dansk Havvind”,
which provides certificated climate friendly power from windmills (Dong Energy, n.d.) or a new
energy provider such as Natur Energi A/S which supply customers with 100% green, renewable
energy from danish windmills (Natur Energi, n.d.). Changing energy provider will also grant
R&S a ‘green’ certificate, verifying that they buy and support renewable energy.
Please note that the energy is slightly more expensive, thus increasing the monthly costs for
electricity for R&S (see section 5 for an economical analysis for this solution).
Please note that this solution might involve some legal issues, since R&S is located in a
protected building, owned by the municipality of Copenhagen. In addition, R&S is not the only
one residing in the building (Huset) and a new energy provider might require all users of the
house to change.
Even though, we consider the potential gain from changing provider or subscription of high
significance. We highly advice R&S to investigate the possibilities to implement this solution.
Use of eco-friendly candles
Currently R&S is using 208 kg of normal tea lights with 6 hours burning time made out of
paraffin wax (Gala, 2010) per year. Paraffin wax can be defined as “colourless or white,
somewhat translucent, hard wax consisting of a mixture of solid straight-chain hydrocarbons
ranging in melting point from about 48° to 66° C. Paraffin wax is obtained from petroleum by
dewaxing light lubricating oil stocks” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2016).
Some scientists argue that, when used excessively, paraffin candles might be harmful to
people’s health, because “paraffin-based candles produce ‘clear sharp peaks’ for many
chemicals, mainly because burning candles does not produce high enough temperatures to
combust hazardous molecules such as toluene and benzene” (BBC, 2009).
36. 36 of 71
Due to the lack of literature regarding GHG emission
factors for paraffin candles we did not include it in our
GHG accounting. But, although there is no clear
scientific evidence about paraffin emitting more GHG
emissions, it can be clearly stated that using vegetable
wax or beeswax is more sustainable because it is made
out of renewable resources.
Hence, replacing the paraffin tea lights by vegetable
wax tea lights or candles made out of beeswax would
be a bit more expensive, but way more sustainable and
healthier in the long run (Honey Candles, 2013).
Image 13: Beeswax candle (Honey Candles, 2013)
Improve urban gardening
Currently R&S is using its backyard for growing some greens during the summer. The restaurant
uses some flower boxes and a very small greenhouse for doing so. Our suggestion would be to
increase the use of seasonal home-grown food products, especially herbs in the summer.
Thereby R&S can save GHG emissions deriving from transport, packaging and cooling of food
and also create awareness to their customers that there is the possibility to grow a lot of
seasonal food in urban gardens during the summer (Royte, 2015).
Offer less meat or no meat meals/just surplus meat
As a restaurant R&S uses several meats including chicken, pork and beef in their daily menus
for customers. Midgaard Solutions highly recommend the reduction of bought beef products to
reduce their carbon footprint. The production of 1 kg of beef produces 14 to 32 kg CO2eq
emissions and has the largest land/energy use of all meat categories including pork and
chicken. The production of 1kg of chicken is 3,7-6,9 kg CO2eq and the production of 1kg pork is
3,9 to 10 kg CO2eq (de Vries et al, 2010). Other studies confirm this as well. For instance,
Scarborough et al (2014), finds a positive relationship between GHG emissions and the amount
of animal products consumed.
37. 37 of 71
When comparing people’s perception of the share in global emissions deriving from different
sectors with the actual share of global emissions, it can be seen that meat consumption is
totally underestimated (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: People’s perception and the actual share of global emissions from different sectors (Bailey et al, 2014)
With the provided data from de Vries’s et al paper (2010) we could conclude that as a whole
meat production has an extraneous impact on the environment. The best solution would be to
cut bought meat completely off the menus, but this solution might result in a decline of
customers. The first steps to a more carbon friendly meal would be to phase out beef products
initially and, if this solution is not plausible the other would be to have greater emphasis in
surplus beef. The use of surplus helps mitigate some of the impacts on R&S’s carbon footprint.
Another possible solution is to reduce the amount of purchased meat by 25%. This solution and
its impact on R&S’s GHG emissions is presented in section 6, as a part of the possible scenarios
for R&S.
Get green certificate
Midgaard Solutions recommends that R&S applies for this green certificate award from Natur
38. 38 of 71
Energi. Having this eco-label might assist with
promoting R&S concepts to other institutes or
locations. Gaining any green certificate would
enhance credibility of R&S’s business values and
the impact that the restaurant is having in the local
community of Copenhagen.
Image 14: Certificate for using renewable energy of Natur Energi (Natur Energi, n.d.)
Sustainable food management workshop
R&S markets itself as an eco-friendly restaurant that focuses its dialogue on food waste in
Denmark. The proposed suggestion is to develop a food waste workshop that can inform the
customers and other restaurants of how they can reduce food waste, in an attempt to alter
human behaviour.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) from 2012 to 2014 there were
about 805 million starving people on Earth. US EPA also states that if food waste was
eradicated we would have sufficient surplus of food to eliminate world hunger. R&S could be
the origin of a ripple effect if they commence some type of educational workshop. It was
mentioned to Midgaard Solutions that other projected restaurants have contacted R&S to
adapt a similar business model regarding the use of surplus food. So there is already a demand
for knowledge from management in R&S from other businesses. This could be an opportunity
to have greater impact on a local scale.
40. 40 of 71
As mentioned before, R&S is a non-profit restaurant. That is why it cannot afford greater
acquisitions and has to get funding for larger purchases such as f.i. new kitchen equipment.
Based on the GHG accounting Midgaard Solutions saw that R&S has a great potential in
reducing the amount of electricity use. Hence we suggested the use of LED lights and to
replace the old oven by a new, more energy efficient one. Based on the recommendations of
Brian Jacobsen, a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Food and Natural Resources Economics
of the University of Copenhagen, we included the following factors in our economic analysis:
5.1 Energy and cost savings
Led Lights
An initial investment of approximately 5300 kr is required to change all the 55 different light
bulbs into LED type bulbs. The associated savings from reduced power consumption is
estimated to 220 kr/month and 2637 kr/year.
Figure 7: Comparison of power costs and CO2eq emissions of traditional lightning and LED lights
41. 41 of 71
Alternatively, only light bulbs with high power consumption (the 4 halogen spots accounts for
nearly 25% of the total power use of the current light bulbs) can be changed, thus lowering the
initial investment costs.
Oven
By contacting several combi-steamer experts from the companies Rational, Retigo, Bentbrandt
and Stölner Ges.m.b.H., we assume that the energy efficiency of new combi-steamers has
improved by 30 %. Hence, based on the data we found about the old combi-steamer which
uses 18,5 kWh (peak use), the energy savings from a new one would be 612,72 kWh/month.
When using the average energy price of 2015 (1kWh = 2,15 kr) the cost savings through a new
combi-steamer would be 1320,10 kr/month (see Appendix A6.1).
Figure 8: Comparison of power costs of present and new oven
New energy provider or subscription
The current kWh/kr price at Natur Energi A/S is 32,95 øre for western Denmark (Natur Energi,
n.d.) and 2,27kr/kWh with all taxes and VATS (Elpristavlen.dk, n.d.).
Compared to the present price that R&S pays at the moment, this is approximately 5% higher
per kWh, resulting in an annual price increase in 4117 kr on electricity, when assuming the
same power consumption as in 2015 (34314 kWh).
When implemented with the other suggested solutions, yearly reductions from a new oven
with 30% improved energy efficiency and LED lights is equal to 6431,14 kWh, reducing R&S’s
52804
36963
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Present oven New oven
DKK
Present oven New oven
42. 42 of 71
total yearly power consumption to 27881 kWh. In this case, the price increase will be 3345 kr
(see Appendix A2.1).
5.2 Simple payback time
In order to convince possible investors to finance the LED lights and the new oven, we also
calculated the simple payback time for both solutions. It is calculated by dividing the initial
investment by the cost savings of the solutions. By doing so it is possible to see how many years
it will take to recover the initial investment through the energy savings. A disadvantage of the
simple payback time is that it does not consider fluctuations of the energy price.
LED Lights
The payback time for an investment in LED type light bulbs is estimated to be around 2 years,
assuming that all present light bulbs are changed into LED. Investment, costs, savings and
payback time is summarized in table 4.
Table 4: Investment costs, savings, payback time and CO2eq emission reductions for changing all present light bulb
into LED
Total investment in DKK 5285
Monthly savings (traditional vs LED) in DKK on electricity 220,8
Yearly savings (traditional vs LED) in DKK on electricity 2637,1
Payback time in years 2,0
Oven
Based on the requirements of R&S for a new oven, we choose 3 different offers for combi-
steamers to calculate the simple payback time (see Appendix A6.1):
Table 5: Simple payback time of 3 different combi-steamers
Model Zanussi Kombiovn
EasySteam el 10x1/1 GN
Retigo O1011ic Retigo B1011i
Initial investment [DKK] 65695,5 50023,91 63382,42
Savings [DKK/year] through
improved energy efficiency
by 30 %
15841,14 15841,14 15841,14
Simple payback time
[years]
4,15 3,16 4,00
43. 43 of 71
Table 6 shows investments, costs and savings for a variety of solutions. Please note that ‘new
energy provider’ is a cost, not a saving, thus making it negative.
Table 6: Investments, costs and savings for a variety of solutions
Solution Investment in DKK Savings / year in DKK
Oven - Retigo B1011i 63382 15841,1
LED lights 5285 2637,1
New Energy provider 0 -3345
Total 68667 15132,4
Payback time in years 4,5
45. 45 of 71
6.1 Methodology and results
This section presents 3 different scenarios. The scenarios are chosen upon what Midgaard
Solutions consider to be the easiest solutions to implement.
Table 7: BAU - Present state of R&S - these numbers reflect the results of taking no action and no implementation
of suggested solutions.
Scope 1 t CO2eq Scope 2 t CO2eq Scope 3 t CO2eq
Gas 1 Electricity 12,73 Delivery of
purchased goods
3,39
Transportation 0,28 District Heating 4,97 Delivery of surplus
food
1,27
Distribution of heat 1,13
Distribution of
electricity
1,75
Production of gas 0,08
Food production 21,82
Total 1,28 17,7 29,68 48,42t
CO2eq
Figure 9: BAU – Annual GHG emissions
0
5
10
15
20
25
BAU - Annual GHG emissions
Transportation
District Heating
Delivery of purchased goods
Delivery of surplus food
Distribution of heat
Distribution of electricity
Food production
Electricity
Gas
46. 46 of 71
Scenario 1: All solutions - this includes: New oven, change to LED lights, new energy provider
and reduction of meat consumption by 25%.
Table 8: Scenario 1 GHG emissions
Figure 10: Scenario 1 – share of GHG emissions
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Scenario 1
Transportation
District Heating
Delivery of purchased goods
Delivery of surplus food
Distribution of heat
Distribution of electricity
Food production
Electricity
Gas
Scope 1 t CO2eq Scope 2 t CO2eq Scope 3 t CO2eq
Gas 1 Electricity 0 Delivery of
purchased goods
3,39
Transportation 0,28 District Heating 4,97 Delivery of surplus
food
1,27
Candles Distribution of
heat
1,13
Distribution of
electricity
1,42
Food production 17,16
Production of gas 0,08
Total 1,28 4,97 24,45 30,7t
CO2eq
47. 47 of 71
Scenario 2: All solutions, but with present energy provider.
Table 9: Scenario 2 GHG emissions
Figure 11: Scenario 2 – share of GHG emissions
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Scenario 2
Transportation
District Heating
Delivery of purchased goods
Delivery of surplus food
Distribution of heat
Distribution of electricity
Food production
Electricity
Gas
Scope 1 t CO2eq Scope 2 t CO2eq Scope 3 t CO2eq
Gas 1 Electricity 11,40 Delivery of
purchased goods
3,39
Transportation 0,28 District Heating 4,97 Delivery of surplus
food
1,27
Candles Distribution of heat 1,13
Distribution of
electricity
1,42
Food production 17,16
Production of gas 0,08
Total 1,28 16,37 24,45 42,10t
CO2eq
48. 48 of 71
Scenario 1 and 2 vary in the implementation of the new energy provider, since there might be
some legal constraints, thus making this solution impossible. This is described in further detail
in section 4.2.2.
50. 50 of 71
7.1 Methodology
Midgaard Solutions decided to go with a video project as the source for the multimedia project.
The accessibility of a video made it our top choice because it is easily communicated through
online networks for example business website, social networks or advertising.
Our video is about 8 minutes long and all content was filmed by Midgaard Solutions.
7.2 Results
Midgaard Solutions was able to produce a video that is accessible via Youtube.com. We believe
this resource will extend R&S’s network to increase its objectives of reducing food waste in
Denmark and globally.
The video starts with an introduction of Midgaard Solutions. This is followed by what was
conducted at Spisehuset R&S for analyzing our GHG accounting. It further includes interviews
with Sanne Stephansen (general manager of R&S), Morten Martinsen (student consultant) and
Savier Osorio (student consultant). In the end some results are presented. This video will assist
in the branding of R&S as taking initiatives to progress in the reduction of GHG.
https://youtu.be/Nnknr6oLwPA
52. 52 of 71
In this section, we present a brief discussion of the provided results and solutions.
GHG emissions from electricity and district heating
Unfortunately only one of our GHG emission calculation tools uses factors from Eastern
Denmark, the others use UK factors. Due to the fact that UK has a different energy mix than
Denmark with a higher share of energy from fossil fuels (Evans, 2015 and energinet.dk, 2016)
the GHG emissions deriving from electricity and district heating might be lower than our
estimated results.
GHG Emissions from food
As described earlier, the calculated emissions from the production of food contains a relatively
high amount of uncertainty.
We tried to deal with this in various ways, but due to our short time frame for this report and
experience, we argue that these numbers are valid for the purpose of this report.
To reduce the uncertainty and get a more robust and precise number would require us to know
the exact emissions for each purchased food - this would require us to investigate over 400
different types of food, including their production, site of origin and means of transportation.
This would simply be an impossible task.
For the same reason will the provided numbers from the various calculator tools vary
substantially. For instance gives unilever.com an estimate approximately 12t CO2eq, while the
total average for all calculators is nearly 22t CO2eq.
The low estimate for unilever.com is mainly due to the fact that it does not contain all of the
purchased food and the emission factor for fish, eggs and meat are lower compared to the
other tools.
New energy provider or subscription
As one of the possible easy solutions, we suggest a new energy provider.
In our calculations we set the associated emissions to zero when choosing a new energy
provider, even though the emissions can never be zero even from a renewable source.
53. 53 of 71
In addition, purchasing wind power does not guarantee you that power provided in your power
plugs is renewable. However, by changing energy provider or subscription, R&S will support
and help increasing the total demand for more renewable energy in the electricity grid.
Energy efficiency of combi-steamers
In our calculations we supposed that new combi-steamers improved their energy efficiency by
30%. This assumption is based on the opinions from different combi-steamer experts (see
section 5.1). Unfortunately they could not provide us any data or reference for their
presumptions. Therefore we had to take the average of the assumed energy efficiency
improvement percentage of 4 different experts. If there would have been more time to further
investigate the energy efficiency improvement of several kitchen equipment, it is likely that we
would have included more kitchen equipment and better references for our assumptions.
To sum up, a lot of our calculations and solutions could have been more accurate if we would
have had more specific data and time.
55. 55 of 71
This report has examined and assessed R&S’s total GHG emissions through various methods
and tools. In addition, the possible GHG savings from the use of surplus food have been
estimated.
Through GHG accounting, this report has highlighted hotspots of emissions and provided a
variety of possible solutions to reduce these emissions. The feasibility and economical aspects
for the solutions is assessed as well.
A multimedia project in the form of a video has been provided as a tool to be used by R&S to
communicate the efforts and solutions by Midgaard Solutions.
In order to reduce emissions, R&S is advised to implement both technological and behavioural
oriented solutions. These include:
- Change to LED lights
- New and more efficient kitchen equipment, such as a new oven
- Heating optimisation, such as installing radiator foils or panels and heat use regulators
- Use solar powered string lights in the backyard
- Change to a new energy subscription or provider which supplies R&S with renewable
energy
- Use of eco-friendly candles
- Improve urban gardening
- Offer less meat or no meat meals/just surplus meat
- Get green certificate
- Sustainable food management workshop
If all the above mentioned solutions are included, R&S is able to reduce its GHG emissions by
36% equal to 17,72t CO2eq/year.
It is highly advisable that R&S use the provided information, suggestions and solutions to
reduce their GHG emissions in the future.
56. 56 of 71
References
Ac.els-cdn.com (2016). Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of
life cycle assessments [online]. Available at: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1871141309003692/1-s2.0-
S1871141309003692-main.pdf?_tid=7084afb8-bf06-11e5-9836-
00000aab0f01&acdnat=1453247188_bb4cfe472641bad6900e836eb1e248c0 [Accessed 20 Jan.
2016].
AliExpress (2015). Best Price 10 LED Solar Power Chinese Lantern Garden String Lights Lamp for
Wedding Party Holiday Decoration White Colorful [online]. Available at:
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Best-Price-10-LED-Solar-Power-Chinese-Lantern-Garden-
String-Lights-Lamp-for-Wedding-Party-
Holiday/32377917830.html?spm=2114.40010708.4.43.UNsD5V [Accessed 19 January 2016].
apartment therapy (2013). Best of the Bulbs: 2013 LED Light Bulb Buyers Guide [online].
Available at: http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/10-bright-ideas-for-led-lighting-190699
[Accessed 21 January 2016].
Bailey, R. et al (2014). Livestock – Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector Global Public Opinion on
Meat and Dairy Consumption [online]. Available at:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20141203Live
stockClimateChangeBaileyFroggattWellesley.pdf [Accessed 20 January 2016].
BBC (2009). Candle use linked to cancer risk [online] 20 August. Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8211543.stm [Accessed 20 January 2016].
Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan (2015). “Carbon Footprint Factsheet.”
Pub. No. CSS09-05. October 2015 [online]. Available at:
http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS09-05.pdf. [Accessed 19 January 2016].
de Vries, M. and de Boer, I. (2010). Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A
review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science, 128(1-3), pp.1-11.
Dong Energy (n.d.) Dansk Havvind [online]. Available at
https://www.dongenergy.dk/erhverv/produkter-og-priser/klimal%C3%B8sninger/dansk-
havvind [Accessed 07 January 2016].
Dong Energy (2014). Generel deklaration 2014 [online]. Available at:
https://assets.dongenergy.com/DONGEnergyDocuments/dk/Generel%20deklaration%202014_
1.pdf [Accessed 21 January 2016].
driveon.net (n.d.). Den store og den lille [online]. Available at:
https://www.driveon.net/Biler/Den-store-og-den-lille.aspx [Accessed 21 January 2016].
Elprisavlen.dk (n.d.). Mulige elprodukter for postnumer 1466 [online]. Available at:
https://www.elpristavlen.dk/Elpristavlen/Soegeresultat.aspx?kwh=34314&postnr=1466&netco
57. 57 of 71
mpany=DONGnet&customer-group=private&ratetype=VariableRate [Accessed 17 January
2016].
Encyclopædia Britannica (2016). Paraffin wax [online]. Available at:
http://global.britannica.com/science/paraffin-wax [Accessed 20 January 2016].
energinet.dk (2016). Power right now [online]. Available at:
http://energinet.dk/EN/El/Sider/Elsystemet-lige-nu.aspx [Accessed 21 January 2016].
Epa.gov (2016). Sustainable Management of Food Basics | Sustainable Management of Food |
US EPA. [online]. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/sustainable-
management-food-basics#what [Accessed 20 January 2016].
Evan, S. (2015). Five charts show the historic shifts in UK energy last year [online]. Available at:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/five-charts-show-the-historic-shifts-in-uk-energy-last-year
[Accessed 21 January 2016].
FAO (2013). Food wastage footprint. Impacts on natural resources [pdf]. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf [Accessed 03 January 2016].
GHG protocol (2012). FAQ [online]. Available at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-
tools/faq [Accessed 14 January 2016].
Heatkeeper (2015). What are Heatkeeper® Radiator Reflectors? [online]. Available at:
http://heatkeeper.co.uk/#how [Accessed 18 January 2016].
Honey Candles (2013). Beeswax vs. Other Waxes [online]. Available at:
http://www.purebeeswaxcandles.com/Beeswaxvsotherwaxes [Accessed 20 January 2016].
Huset (n.d.). About Huset [online]. Available at: http://huset-kbh.dk/about/?lang=en [Accessed
09 January 2016].
IGNISS ENERGY (n.d.) - Calorific value (CV) of waste [online]. Available at:
http://www.igniss.pl/en/calorific_value_of_waste.php [Accessed 10 December 2016].
Management, H. (2016). How an Operations Manager Can Improve Supply Chain Management
- For Dummies [online]. Available at: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-an-
operations-manager-can-improve-supply-chain.html [Accessed 20 January 2016].
Natur Energi (n.d.). Certifikat Ren Energi [online]. Available at: https://www.natur-
energi.dk/wp-content/uploads/natur-energi-certifikat.pdf [Accessed 21 January 2016].
Natur Energi (n.d.) ELDEKLARATION - 100% grøn strøm [online]. Available at:
https://www.natur-energi.dk/eldeklaration-2/ [Accessed 07 January 2016].
Øllingegaard Mejeri (n.d.). Øllingegaard [online]. Available at:
http://øllingegaardmejeri.dk/%C3%B8llingegaard/ [Accessed 20 January 2016].
58. 58 of 71
Optoglas (2012). Optoglas® forsatsvinduer [online]. Available at: http://www.optoglas.dk/
[Accessed 10 January 2016].
Pegler Yorkshire (2015). SIMPLE INNOVATION WITH MAXIMUM IMPACT [online]. Available at:
http://www.pegleryorkshire.co.uk/EN/News/climate-control-news/TerrierItemplaunch
[Accessed 18 January 2016].
Scarborough, P- et al (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters,
vegetarians and vegans in the UK [online]. Available at:
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/694/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10584-014-1169-
1.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs10584-014-
1169-
1&token2=exp=1453291408~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F694%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs1
0584-014-1169-
1.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%2
52Fs10584-014-1169-
1*~hmac=a62fcdb9c4dd6d9100c40ef8a416804c083b4e7c11a9e9ace0a705c5568176dd
[Accessed 20 January 2016].
Schader, C., Lindenthal, T., Markut, T. and Hörtenhuber, S. (2010). Carbon Footprint of Organic
products [online]. Available at:
https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/de/oesterreich/arbeitsschwerpunkte/Klima/Present
ation_Schader_Biofach_1002.pdf [Accessed 19 January 2016].
Skyttes (2011). Gartneriet [online]. Available at: http://www.skyttes.com/gartneriet/ [Accessed
20 January 2016].
SØRISGAARD (2015). OM SØRIS [online]. Available at: http://www.soeris.dk/om-soeris/
[Accessed 20 January 2016].
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (2004). A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard REVISED
EDITION [online]. Available at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/public/ghg-protocol-
revised.pdf. [Accessed 09 January 2016].
United against food waste (n.d.). Facts about food waste [online]. Available at:
http://unitedagainstfoodwaste.com/facts-about-food-waste.html [Accessed 03 January 2016].
Weber, C. L. and Matthews, H.S. (2008). Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food
Choices in the United States [online]. Available at:
http://pubs.acs.org.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/doi/pdf/10.1021/es702969f [Accessed 18 January
2016].
Ziesemer, J. (2007). Energy Use in Organic Food Systems. Natural Resources Management and
Environment Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [online].
Available at: http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/233069/energy-use-oa.pdf [Accessed 19
January 2016].
60. 60 of 71
APPENDIX
A1. Gas use for stove
Tools factor LPG litres
(Scope 1)
factor LPG litres
(Scope 3)
gas use
litres
t CO2-eq
Scope 1
t CO2 eq
Scope 3
t CO2-eq
1)
emissionfactors.com
1,50590601 779,07 1,17320118 0,60
2) DEFRA 1,53260000 0,19180000 779,07 1,19399758 0,14942 1,34
3)
climatecompass.dk
779,07 0,65000000 0,01200000 0,66
average 2) + 3) 1,00
Reference conversion factors kg LPG (propane gas*) -> litres LPG factor kg/l (8°C) kg
LPG
litres LPG
http://www.langegas.com/alte_daten/umrele.htm 1,90800 400 763,20
http://www.elgas.com.au/blog/389-lpg-conversions-kg-litres-mj-kwh-and-m3 1,96000 400 784,00
http://www.lpg-solutions.co.uk/how-will-a-supplier-calculate-the-cost-of-lpg-
to-an-end-user/
1,97500 400 790,00
average 779,07
*http://www.primagaz.at/index.php/unsere-produkte/flaschengas
61. 61 of 71
A2. Electricity
tool kWh/y
ear
factor
Scope 2
factor
Scope 3
Scope 2 t
CO2-eq
Scope 3 t
CO2-eq
total t
CO2-eq
1) DEFRA 34314 0,48234 0,03802 16,55 1,30 17,86
2) ukconversionfactorscarbon
smart
34314 0,46219 15,86 15,86
3) climatecompass.dk 34314 9,73 2,20 11,93
average 1) + 3) 12,73 1,75 14,89
A2.1 Calculation of electricity price
kWh DKK DKK/kWh
January 2015 2542 5553,79 2,184811172
February 2015 3795 8328,66 2,194640316
March 2015 4074 8779,05 2,154896907
April 2015 3665 7894,06 2,153904502
May 2015 3699 7863,33 2,125798865
June 2015 3467 7331,87 2,114759158
July 2015 1737 3622,6 2,085549799
August 2015 3219 6966,1 2,164057161
September 2015 3978 8594,05 2,160394671
Oktober 2015 4138 9128,53 2,20602465
sum 21,5448372
average 2,15448372
62. 62 of 71
A3. District heating
tool kWh/y
ear
factor
Scope 2
factor
Scope 3
Scope 2 t
CO2-eq
Scope 3 t
CO2-eq
total t
CO2-eq
1) DEFRA 20510 0,22005 0,04988 4,5132255 1,0230388 5,54
2)
ukconversionfactorscarbonsma
rt
20510 0,223608 4,58620008 4,59
3) climatecompass.dk 20510 3,16 1,24 4,40
average 1) + 3) 4,97
63. 63 of 71
A.4 Emissions from food
A4.1 Purchased food
For purchased food emissions are calculated as:
type of food in kgs * emission factor
For vegetables and fruits, the 10 types are selected and an average emission factor for fruit and
vegetables is used. The average emission factor for vegetables is calculated as
(0,23+0,25+0,29+0,12+0,11+0,34+0,29+0,05+0,14+0,31)/10=0,213 kgCO2/kg for
foodemissions.com,
and (0,18+0,29+0,7+0,25+0,15+0,25+0,39+0,15+4,3)/9 = 0,74 kgCO2/kg for unilever.com.
Please note that unilever.com does only have information on 9 of the 10 selected vegetables.
For CO2list.org and Weact.ch numbers are already presented as average and these are used
directly.
[1] [2] [3] [4] Average emission factor
Product group kgCO2eq/kg kg CO2eq/kg kgCO2eq/kg kgCO2eq/kg kgCO2eq/kg
Meat (Beef) 13,3 17,59 22 26,2 19,7725
Meat (Pork) 3,2 6,09 3,44 4,24333
Cheese 8,4 9,8 12,20 10,1333
Milk products 0,93 1,02 4 1,2 1,7875
Fish 3,2 n/a 6 3,24 4,14667
Eggs 2 2,02 6 1,4 2,855
Vegetables 0,16 0,213 2 0,74 0,77825
Fruits 0,4 0,23666667 2 0,391 0,75692
Cereals n/a n/a 3 n/a 3
Oils, sweets,
condiments
2 2
64. 64 of 71
BAU Food emissions
Product group Purchased
food (kg)
kg CO2eq
(average
from all
tools)
Milk Products 824,61 147381
Cereals 3,59 10,77
Vegetables /Fruits 2048,6 1572,456
Meat, Fish and Eggs 1203,1 18657,96
Honney and sugarproducts 56,19 112,38
Brewages 151,98
Spice and Herbs 443,86
Misc. 2301,8
Total 2015 (kg) 7033,6 21827,54
t CO2eq on food production 21,82
25% less meat:
Product group Purchased
food (kg)
kg CO2eq
(average
from all
tools)
Milk Products 824,61 147381
Cereals 3,59 10,77
Vegetables /Fruits 2048,6 1572,456
Meat, Fish and Eggs 1203,1 13993,46
Honney and sugarproducts 56,19 112,38
Brewages 151,98
Spice and Herbs 443,86
Misc. 2301,8
Total 2015 (kg) 7033,6 21827,54
t CO2eq on food production 17,16
[1]
http://www.cam.weact.ch/sites/ethz.weact.ch/files/website/downloads/1.3_Food_Emission
_Factors.pdf
[2] http://www.foodemissions.com/
[3] http://www.co2list.org/files/carbon.htm#RANGE!food
[4] http://www.unileverfoodsolutions.dk/inspiration-til-dig/your-menu/klimasmart/CO2-
beregner
65. 65 of 71
A4.2 Incineration of surplus food
Total amount of surplus food received in 2015 (january - october):7517,85kg equal to 7,5t .
Waste incineration emission factors:
Two approaches has been used to calculate the average emissions from waste burning:
1. Assessment of how many giga joules (gj) energy can be extracted from a specific
amount of waste (in our case, 17,04 t) and - how many tons of CO2 is released per GJ of waste
incinerated). The total amount of energy extractable is calculated by multiplying the calorific
value of domestic waste(IGNISS ENERGY n.d) by the weight of the waste:
10MJ/kg *7517,85kg /1000 = 75,17 GJ of energy.
2. Kg of CO2eq released per kg waste incinerated.
Source Emission Factor total Emissions
http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/Filte
r.aspx?year=41
21 kgCO2eq/t waste 7,51785*21=0,15t CO2eq
http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/Rapporte
r/Utveckling/U2004-15.pdf
0,8 kgCO2eq/ kg
waste
75117,85*0,8=0,006 t CO2eq
http://envs.au.dk/en/knowledge/air/emissions/emission-
factors/co2_ef_waste_incineration/
37 kgCO2eq/ GJ 75,17*37=2,78t CO2eq
http://www2.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_arbrap
porter/rapporter/AR200.pdf
17,6 kgCO2eq/ GJ 75,17*17,6=1,32t CO2eq
The average emission from waste incineration is calculated to be 2,3t CO2eq.
66. 66 of 71
A5 Transportation of Delivery of Goods
Frequency of Deliveries:
Spisehuset R&S (bought food)
- transportation distance 95.4 km round trip of one drop off delivery by weekly basis
from Horkram
- Hørkram Address: Centervej 1, 3600 Frederikssund
Spisehuset R&S (surplus food)
- transportation distance 10 km radius one way from supplier on daily basis (Tues-
Saturday) and weekly basis is 50 km
- Spisehuset R&S Address: Rådhusstræde 13, 1466 København
Vehicles:
- R&S Bought Food HGVs (all diesel) Rigid (>17 tonnes)
- R&S Surplus Food HGVs Rigid (3.5-7.5 tonnes)
Calculations:
Calculations: Formula: GHG emission= activity data X emission conversion factor
Accounting Tool
(math):http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/Filter.aspx?year=41
HGVs refrigerated (all diesel) Rigid (>17 tonnes) and Rigid (3.5-7.5 tonnes)
R&S Bought Food- (95.4 km X 0.940445 kgCO2eq/km) = 89.718453kgCO2eq
weekly basis & one round trip
R&S Surplus Food- (50 km X 0.624626 kgCO2eq/km) = 31.2323kgCO2eq daily basis Tues-
Saturday & one way
BOTH THESE ARE NOT CALCULATED AS A REFRIGERATED VEHICLE
http://emissionfactors.com/activities/
Ecometrica
67. 67 of 71
R&S Bought Food- (95.4 km X 0.69178 kgCO2eq/km) = 65.9958 kgCO2eq
R&S Surplus Food- (50 km X 0.5653 kgCO2eq/km) = 28.265 kgCO2eq
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69554/pb137
73-ghg-conversion-factors-2012.pdf (DEFRA)
R&S Bought Food- (95.4 km X 0.79109 kgCO2eq/km) = 75.46998 kgCO2eq
R&S Surplus Food- (50 km X 0.54919 kgCO2eq/km) = 27.4595 kgCO2eq
A5.1 Transportation and Delivery R&S Bought Food
tool km/year
(10
months)
factor of
scope 3
total kg
CO2eq
(weekly)
total kg
CO2eq (10
months)
total
tonnes
CO2eq (10
months)
1) ukconversionfactorscarbon
smart
95.4 0.940445 89.718453
3938.64
2)Ecometrica 95.4 0.69178 65.9958 2897.21
3)DEFRA 95.4 0.79109 75.46998 3320.07
Total of all 3 tools 237.1842 10155.92
Average 1-3 77.0614 3385.30 3.3853
A5.2 Transportation and Delivery R&S Surplus Food
Tool km/year (10 months) factor of scope
3
total kg
CO2eq
(weekly)
total kg
CO2eq (10
months)
total tonnes
CO2eq (10
months)
1) ukconversionfactorscarbon
smart
50 0.6446 31.2323 1371.09
2)Ecometrica 50 0.5653 28.265 1240.83
3)DEFRA 50 0.5491 27.4595 1205.47
Total of all 3 tools 86.9568 3817.39
Average 1-3 28.9 1272.46 1.27459
68. 68 of 71
A5.3 Rental Van
Frequency of usage:
- 4-6 times a year
- Location: Odsherred 190 km round trip back to Spisehuest R&S
Vehicle:
- Class I Light Commercial Van (petrol)
- Renault Trafic via Drive On
Calculations:
Calculations Formula: GHG emmission= activity data X emmission conversion factor
1 year’s worth of km usage using maximum use of 6 times: (190km x 6) = 1140 km/year
Accounting Tool
(math):http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/Filter.aspx?year=41
(1140 km X 0.19949 kgCO2eq/km) = 227.41 kgCO2eq
http://emissionfactors.com/activities/
(1140 km X 0.2124 kgCO2eq/km) = 242.136 kgCO2eq
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69554/pb137
73-ghg-conversion-factors-2012.pdf (DEFRA)
(1140 km X 0.190714 kgCO2eq/km) = 217.4139 kgCO2eq
Rental Van
Tool km/year (6 times) factor of
scope 1
total kg CO2eq (annually) total tonnes
CO2eq (annually)
1) ukconversionfactorscarbon
smart
1140 0.19949 227.41
2)Ecometrica 1140 0.2124 242.136
3)DEFRA 1140 0.190714 217.4139
Total of all 3 tools 686.95
Average 1-3 228.98 0.22898
69. 69 of 71
A6 Economic analysis
A6.1 Oven
old oven
kW use 18,5
hours/day 6
kWh/day 111
kWh/month 2042,4
DKK/kWh 2,15448372
DKK/day 239,1476929
DKK/month 4400,31755
DKK/year 52803,8106
average working days/month 18,4
new oven Zanussi
kW use 17,5
hours/day 6
kWh/day 105
DKK /kWh 2,15448372
DKK /day 226,2207906
DKK /month 4162,462547
DKK /year 49949,55056
initial investment 65695,5
energy savings kWh/day 6
energy savings kWh/month 110,4
energy savings kWh/year 1324,8
energy savings DKK /month 237,8550027
energy savings DKK /year 2854,260032
30 % improved energy efficiency payback time (years) 4,15
new oven Retigo O1011ic
kW use 17,6
hours/day 6
kWh/day 105,6
DKK /kWh 2,15448372
DKK /day 227,5134808
DKK /month 4186,248047
DKK /year 50234,97657
initial investment 50023,91
energy savings kWh/day 5,4
energy savings kWh/month 99,36
energy savings kWh/year 1192,32
energy savings DKK /month 214,0695024
energy savings DKK /year 2568,834029
30 % improved energy efficiency payback time (years) 3,16
30 % improved energy efficiency
kW use 12,95
hours/day 6
kWh/day 77,7
kWh/month 1429,68
DKK /kWh 2,15448372
DKK /day 167,403385
DKK /month 3080,222285
DKK /year 36962,66742
savings kWh/month 612,72
savings kWh/year 7352,64
savings DKK /month 1320,095265
savings DKK /year 15841,14318
70. 70 of 71
new oven Retigo B1011i
kW use 17,6
hours/day 6
kWh/day 105,6
DKK/kWh 2,15448372
DKK /day 227,513481
DKK /month 4948,41821
DKK /year 59381,0185
initial investment 63382,42
energy savings kWh/day 5,4
energy savings kWh/month 117,45
energy savings kWh/year 1409,4
energy savings DKK /month 253,044113
energy savings DKK /year 3036,52935
30 % improved energy efficiency payback time (years) 4,00
A6.2 Payback time and price difference for new energy provider
With same energy consumption as present:
Present energy costs assuming 2,15 DKK /kWh *343313 kWh = 73772,95 DKK/year
Natur Energi renewable energy price : 2,27 DKK / kWh * 343313 kWh = 77890,51 DKK /year
(Elpristavlen n.d. )
Price difference : 73772,95 - 77890,51 = 4417 DKK /year
With new oven and LED lights, the total power consumption of R&S is reduced to 27881 kWh -
the price difference is thus:
2,15 DKK /kWh * 27881 kWh - 2,27 DKK / kWh * 27881 kWh = 3345,82 DKK /year
A6.3 - LED light
Assumptions:
Energy Price in DKK/kWh 2.15
Total days with light on 221
Daily Use in Hrs (11-23) 12
CO2 Emission factor (kg CO2/ kWh)
(climatecompass.dk)
0.348
Current light equipment Amount Power Consumption (W) Total consumption in %
Halogen 4 50 24,69
Fluorescent lamps 10 20 24,69
Normal lightbulbs (CFL) 41 10 50,61
Total power consumption in W 810
Daily Consumption kWh 9.72
Monthly Consumption in kWh 296.46
Yearly Consumption kWh 2148.12
71. 71 of 71
Daily opration costs 20.898
Monthly power costs in DKK 637.4
Yearly power costs DKK 4618.5
Yearly kg CO2eq 747.5
LED lights:
Proposed change Amount Power Consumption (W)
LED Spots 4 5.5
LED Tube 10 10
LED BULBS 41 5.5
Total power consumption in W 347.5
Daily Consumption kWh 4.17
Monthly Consumption in kWh 127.185
Yearly Consumption kWh 921.57
Daily operation costs 8.9655
Monthly power costs 273.4
Yearly power costs 1981.4
Yearly CO2 (kg) 320.7
Amount Price in
DKK
LED SPOTS (https://www.greenline.dk/k/led-paerer/led-paerer-gu10/p/thomson-gu10-led-paere-5-5w) 4 59
LED Tubes (https://www.greenline.dk/k/led-paerer/led-lysstofror/p/frostlight-led-lysstofsror) 10 99
LED BULBS ( https://www.greenline.dk/k/led-paerer/led-paerer-e27/p/philips-corepro-6w-led-paere ) 41 99
Please note that these light bulbs have been chosen randomly and should not be used in the
final solution. These are used for calculation of investment and payback time.
We advise R&S to seek professional guidance in order to pick the right LED type bulbs with
colour and temperature that suits R&S.
Total investment in DKK 5285
Monthly savings (traditional vs LED) in DKK on electricity 363.9
Yearly savings (traditional vs LED) in DKK on electricity 2637.1
Payback time in years 2.0
Yearly kg CO2eq savings 426.8
