midgaard solution final report

Reducing GHG emissions in

Spisehuset Rub & Stub

Morten Martinsen

Katharina Toth

Savier Osorio

LPLK10381U Climate Solutions

2015/2016

University of Copenhagen

2 of 71

Table of content

Executive summary 6

1. Introduction and background 7

1.1 Spisehuset Rub & Stub 8

1.2 Food waste 9

2. Objectives 13

3. Greenhouse gas accounting 16

3.1 GHG accounting methodology 17

3.1.1 Boundaries 17

3.1.2 Scopes 18

Scope 1 18

Scope 2 19

Scope 3 21

3.2 Results 27

4. Identifying potential Climate Solutions 30

4.1 Methodology for the identification of potential Climate Solutions 31

4.2 Results 32

4.2.1 Technological oriented reductions 32

4.2.2 Behavioural oriented reductions 35

5. Economic analysis 39

5.1 Energy costs and savings 40

5.2 Simple payback time 40

6. Possible scenarios 44

6.1 Methodology and results 45

3 of 71

7. Multimedia project 49

7.1 Methodology 50

7.2 Results 50

8. Discussion and reflections 51

9. Conclusion 54

References 56

Appendixes 60

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 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 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.

7 of 71

1. Introduction and background

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 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 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 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 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.).

13 of 71

2. Objectives

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 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.

16 of 71

3. Greenhouse gas accounting

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

tCO

2eq

Hørkram

Surplus

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

tCO

2eq

30 of 71

4. Identifying potential climate solutions

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

39 of 71

5. Economic analysis

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 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 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 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

44 of 71

6. Possible scenarios

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


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



Food production

Electricity

Gas

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





Food production

Electricity

Gas

Scope 1 t CO2eq Scope 2 t CO2eq Scope 3 t CO2eq Gas 1 Electricity 0 Delivery of



1,27

Candles Distribution of heat

1,13


1,42



Total 1,28 4,97 24,45 30,7t CO2eq

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





Food production

Electricity

Gas

Scope 1 t CO2eq Scope 2 t CO2eq Scope 3 t CO2eq Gas 1 Electricity 11,40 Delivery of



1,27

Candles Distribution of heat 1,13


1,42



Total 1,28 16,37 24,45 42,10t CO2eq

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.

49 of 71

7. Multimedia project

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

51 of 71

8. Discussion

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 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.

54 of 71

9. Conclusion

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 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/20141203LivestockClimateChangeBaileyFroggattWellesley.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 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 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%25252Fs10584-014-1169-1.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs10584-014-1169-1*~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/Presentation_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].

59 of 71

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 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 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 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 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 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/Filter.aspx?year=41

21 kgCO2eq/t waste 7,51785*21=0,15t CO2eq

http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/Rapporter/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_arbrapporter/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 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 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)


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 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/


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69554/pb137

73-ghg-conversion-factors-2012.pdf (DEFRA)


Rental Van Tool km/year (6 times) factor of

scope 1

total kg CO2eq (annually) total tonnes

CO2eq (annually)


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 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 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 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