APSC 262 Induction Vs Gas Stoves - 0
Uploaded by
jhuascar211APSC 262 Induction Vs Gas Stoves - 0
Uploaded by
jhuascar211UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report
An Introduction to: The Investigation Between Gas and Induction Stovetops:
Andrew Borch
Gordon Evens
John Yu
University of British Columbia
APSC 262
March 31, 2011
Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions,
conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and
is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of
activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current
status of the subject matter of a project/report”.
An Introduction to:
The
Investigation
Between
Gas
and
Induction
Stovetops
Submitted
by:
Andrew
Borch
Gordon
Evens
John
Yu
Submitted
to:
Dr.
Dawn
Mills
Page
i
Date
of
Submission:
31
March
2011
ABSTRACT
With
the
new
UBC
SUB
project
nearing
completion
of
the
design
phase,
the
food
services
will
be
upgrading
its
kitchen
equipment.
The
refresh
of
the
new
appliances
gives
an
opportunity
to
explore
new
solutions
to
create
a
more
economical,
environmentally
friendly
and
beneficial
alternative.
In
order
to
examine
each
case
in
detail,
the
scope
of
this
report
will
compare
current
gas
stove
and
the
recent
induction
cooktop
technology.
Each
stovetop
has
their
advantages
and
disadvantages.
To
organize
and
examine
the
cooktops
against
each
other,
the
triple
bottom
line
analysis
is
utilized.
Using
peer-‐reviewed
journal
articles,
government
patents
and
personal
engineering
fundamentals,
each
case
can
be
examined
with
academic
sources
and
without
manufacturer
bias.
With
this
strategy,
the
team
can
confidently
recommend
that
induction
stovetop
technology
is
more
beneficial
for
the
new
UBC
SUB.
Page
ii
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
.....................................................................................................................................................
ii
LIST
OF
ILLUSTRATIONS
................................................................................................................................
v
GLOSSARY
....................................................................................................................................................
vi
1.0
INTRODUCTION
................................................................................................................................
7
1.1
BACKGROUND
..............................................................................................................................
7
1.2
SCOPE
..........................................................................................................................................
7
2.0
ECONOMICS
.....................................................................................................................................
8
2.1
BREAKDOWN
...............................................................................................................................
8
2.2
FUEL
COSTS
................................................................................................................................
12
2.2.1
Raw
Fuels
(!")
...................................................................................................................
12
2.2.1.1
Current
Day
Prices
.........................................................................................................
12
2.2.1.2
Future
Price
Forecast
Using
Supply
Side
Economics
....................................................
14
2.2.2
Fuel
Consumption
..............................................................................................................
18
2.2.2.1
Induction
Ranges
.......................................................................................................
19
2.2.2.2
Natural
Gas
Ranges
...................................................................................................
21
2.3
UPFRONT
COSTS
........................................................................................................................
23
2.3.1
Relative
Prices
of
Two
Technologies
..................................................................................
23
2.3.1.1
Gas
Ranges
.................................................................................................................
23
2.3.1.2
Gas
Ranges
.................................................................................................................
25
2.3.1.3
Cookware
...................................................................................................................
27
2.3.2
Expected
Life
and
Replacement
Costs
...............................................................................
28
2.4
KEY
INDICATORS
........................................................................................................................
31
2.4.1
Complete
Equations
...........................................................................................................
31
2.4.2
Normalized
Price
per
Output
.............................................................................................
33
3.0
ENVIRONMENT
..............................................................................................................................
34
3.1
ENERGY
CONSUMPTION
............................................................................................................
34
3.1.1
Gas
Stove
Energy
Use
........................................................................................................
35
3.1.2
Induction
Stove
Energy
Use
...............................................................................................
35
3.1.3
Efficiency:
Gas
vs.
Induction
..............................................................................................
36
3.1.4
Summary
...................................................................................................................................
36
Page
iii
3.2
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
OF
EACH
TECHNOLOGY
..................................................................
37
3.2.1
Environmental
Life
Cycle
Analysis
......................................................................................
37
3.2.1.1
Problems
associated
with
LCA`s
.....................................................................................
37
3.2.2
Eco-‐Indicator
99
Analysis
...................................................................................................
37
3.2.2.1
Eco-‐Indicator
Points
System
...........................................................................................
38
3.2.2.2
Scope
and
Limitations
of
the
Eco-‐Indicator
99
Analysis
.................................................
38
3.2.2.3
Comparison
of
Gas
and
Induction
Stoves
......................................................................
39
4.0
SOCIAL
...........................................................................................................................................
41
4.1
SCOPE
........................................................................................................................................
41
4.2
STOVETOP
MARKET
...................................................................................................................
41
4.3
WORKER
SAFETY
........................................................................................................................
42
4.4
OPERATING
CONDITION
............................................................................................................
43
5.0
CONCLUSION
.................................................................................................................................
46
6.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY
...............................................................................................................................
47
APPENDIX:
CODE
FROM
ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
.........................................................................................
49
Page
iv
LIST
OF
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figures:
Figure
1:
Discount
Pricing
Model
...............................................................................................................
10
Figure
2:
Current
Day
Electricity
Prices
in
Canadian
Cities
........................................................................
12
Figure
3
:
Current
Gas
Prices
Western
Canada
..........................................................................................
13
Figure
4:
Forecast
Range
of
Annual
Mid-‐Columbia
Wholesale
Power
Prices
............................................
14
Figure
5:
Forecast
of
Electricity
Prices
(Renewable
and
Conventional)
.....................................................
15
Figure
6:
Natural
Gas
Projections
from
Annual
Energy
Outlook
2010
......................................................
16
Figure
7:
Natural
Gas
Excel
Forecast
Model
..............................................................................................
16
Figure
8:
Coefficients
for
Gas
Pricing
Models
...........................................................................................
17
Figure
9:
Induction
Boiling
Experiment
(Adams,
A:
1985,
4)
.....................................................................
19
Figure
10:
Table
of
Energy
Consumption
with
Per
Liter
Normalized
Input
...............................................
19
Figure
11:
Dynamic
Mathematica
8
F
Applet
............................................................................................
20
Figure
12:
Natural
Gas
Consumption
for
Boiling
Water
(The
Engineering
Toolbox:
2010)
.......................
21
Figure
13:
Comparative
Boiling
Time
for
Various
Stovetop
Technologies
.................................................
21
Figure
14:
Summary
Table
of
Energy
Consumption
for
Natural
Gas
Burners
............................................
22
Figure
15:
Prices
for
Gas
Ranges
(Prices
From:
Nextag.com)
....................................................................
23
Figure
16:
Summary
Table
of
Natural
Gas
Range
Costs
.............................................................................
24
Figure
17:
Prices
for
Induction
Ranges
(Source:
Nextag.com)
...................................................................
25
Figure
18:
Probability
Plot
to
prove
normal
distribution
...........................................................................
25
Figure
19:
Summary
Table
of
Induction
Range
Costs
...............................................................................
26
Figure
20:
Cookware
Costs
Database
........................................................................................................
27
Figure
21:
Interest
Rate
Combined
with
Diminishing
Cost
Equations
.......................................................
28
Figure
22:
Interest
Rate
Combined
with
Diminishing
Cost
Equations
Lifetime
Replacement
Costs
.........
30
Figure
23:
Operation
Cost
per
year
for
Induction
Stoves.
........................................................................
32
Figure
24:
Operations
Cost
per
year
for
Natural
Gas
stoves.
....................................................................
32
Figure
25:
Summary
of
Fixed
Output
Costs
...............................................................................................
33
Figure
26
:
Eco-‐Indicator
Damage
Model
..................................................................................................
38
Figure
27
:
Estimated
emissions
per
Terajoule
of
combusted
natural
gas
energy
....................................
39
Figure
28
:
A
common
grill
gas
stovetop
(left)
and
a
typical
flat
induction
stovetop
(right).
....................
45
Page
v
GLOSSARY
Cookware
Refers
to
the
commercial
grade
pots
and
pans
that
will
be
used
in
the
UBC
foods
and
beverages
department.
Discount
Rate
The
interest
rate
used
in
determining
the
present
value
of
future
cash
flows.
Eco-‐Indicator
value
A
weighted
numerical
value
representing
the
total
environmental
impact
of
a
material
or
process.
Life
Cycle
Inventory
A
complete
detailed
list
of
all
materials
and
resource
amounts
used
throughout
the
life
time
of
a
product
Pacemaker
An
electronic
medical
device
that
send
electrodes
to
the
heart
to
increase
the
heart
rate
for
patients.
Renewable
Power
Energy/Power
which
comes
from
natural
resources
such
as
sunlight,
wind,
rain,
tides,
and
geothermal
heat,
which
are
renewable
(naturally
replenished).
RFID
Radio-‐frequency
identification:
A
technology
that
uses
radio
waves
to
exchange
data
between
a
reader
and
an
electronic
tag.
Spot
Price
The
Spot
Price
of
a
commodity,
a
security
or
a
currency
is
the
price
that
is
quoted
for
immediate
(spot)
settlement
(payment
and
delivery).
Spot
settlement
is
normally
one
or
two
business
days
from
trade
date.
Stakeholders
A
person,
group,
organization,
or
system
who
affects
or
can
be
affected
by
an
organization's
actions.
In
the
case
of
the
new
SUB
this
includes
students,
cooks,
maintenance,
administration,
government
and
financiers.
Tight
Gas
Tight
gas
refers
to
natural
gas
in
underground
reservoirs
with
low
permeability.
A
generally
accepted
industry
definition
is
reservoirs
that
do
not
produce
economic
volumes
of
natural
gas
without
assistance
from
massive
stimulation
treatments
or
special
recovery
processes
and
technologies,
such
as
horizontal
wells.
Page
vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
The
building
of
the
new
Student
Union
Building
(SUB)
will
offer
new
amenities
and
conveniences
to
many
of
the
students
enrolled
at
UBC.
The
new
SUB
will
offer
a
place
for
students
to
meet,
share
ideas,
study,
and
socialize.
As
UBC
continues
to
strive
to
be
a
global
leader
in
campus
sustainability,
we
endeavoured
on
a
class
wide
project
to
analyse
different
aspects
of
the
new
SUB’s
design
to
understand
the
social,
environmental,
and
economical
implications
of
technological
choices
available.
Our
group
took
a
detailed
and
concentrated
look
at
different
cooktop
technologies
that
have
been
considered
for
the
new
SUB’s
commercial
kitchens.
With
information
provided
by
the
new
SUB
planning
team,
the
food
and
beverage
department
is
one
of
the
largest
users
of
resources
on
campus.
Due
to
this
high
resources
consumption
rate,
our
team
felt
that
this
was
the
most
worth
while
project
to
tackle
as
its
outcome
could
lead
to
a
large
reduction
in
resource
use.
A
triple
bottom
line
accounting
method
was
used
to
compare
induction
and
natural
gas
ranges,
the
two
leading
candidates
for
commercial
cooktop
technology.
By
implementing
a
triple
bottom
line
analysis
we
were
able
to
reach
a
concrete
recommendation
backed
by
research.
1.2
SCOPE
With
a
general
reader
in
mind,
this
formal
report
will
describe
the
analysis
and
justification
for
our
final
recommendation
for
cooktop
technology
at
the
SUB.
The
emphasis
in
this
report
is
on
the
triple
bottom
line
methodology,
and
the
research
conducted
to
support
our
conclusions.
The
topics
include:
• Economic
Analysis
• Environmental
Analysis
• Social
Analysis
• Final
Recommendation
Page
7
2.0 ECONOMICS
2.1
BREAKDOWN
Within
the
three
pillars
of
triple
bottom
line
accounting
lays
the
economic
arm
of
the
project
analysis.
Some
considers
the
economic
analysis
the
cornerstone
of
the
triple
bottom
line
accounting
as
project
finances
and
budget
act
as
a
catalyst
for
many
decision.
Due
to
the
large
scope
of
the
financial
arm
of
the
triple
bottom
line
accounting
method,
it
has
been
further
subdivided
as
to
attain
a
higher
resolution
for
each
component
that
affects
the
out
come.
The
deconstruction
of
the
project
economics
into
each
variable
allows
higher
understanding
and
adaptability
to
current
pricing
conditions.
The
break
down
of
the
economic
analysis
is
as
follows:
1. Fuel
Cost
a. Raw
Fuels
i. Current
Day
Prices:
Vancouver
British
Columbia
ii. Future
Price
Forecasts
using
Supply
Side
Economics
b. Fuel
Consumption
i. Natural
Gas
Ranges
ii. Induction
Ranges
2. Upfront
Costs
a. Relative
Prices
of
Two
Technologies
i. Ranges
ii. Cooking
Utensils
b. Expected
Life
and
Replacement
Costs
3. Key
Indicators
a. Complete
Equations
b. Normalized
Price
per
Output
Once
each
aspect
of
the
financial
analysis
has
been
investigated,
we
are
then
able
to
develop
a
mathematical
architecture
that
can
be
used
to
model
the
economics
of
each
technology
given
a
unique
set
of
current
and
future
conditions.
This
approach
lets
the
economics
of
the
project
to
be
quantified
and
manipulated
based
on
real
time
information.
This
induced
model
flexibility
provides
an
advantage
for
investors
and
stakeholders.
The
proceeding
is
the
formulation
of
the
mathematical
model
that
will
be
deployed
to
assess
and
compare
the
economics
of
each
option.
Page
8
Flexible
Mathematical
Model
The
cost
of
both
stovetop
technologies
can
be
broken
into
two
separate
sections.
Fixed
cost,
which
describe
upfront
costs
of
using
the
technology,
and
Induced
costs,
which
models
the
day-‐
to-‐day
costs
for
using
the
technology.
The
upfront
costs
are
described
as
autonomous
cost
in
this
model
because
these
cost
are
established
outside
of
the
model
and
are
not
flexible;
hence
not
a
function
of
hours
used
or
power
output.
The
induced
variables
are
functions
of
hours
used.
Flexibility
in
this
model
pertains
to
the
notion
that
not
all
variables
are
known;
uncertainty
is
most
evident
in
the
future
spot
prices
for
energy
inputs
but
expands
past
this.
The
hours
used
per
day,
number
of
days
used
per
year,
number
of
burners,
daily
capacity
(always
firing
at
full
power
vs.
off
for
most
of
the
day),
and
inflation
all
affect
the
economics.
Working
with
appropriate
ranges
for
these
values
we
are
able
to
“create”
thousands
of
different
environments
in
which
economic
comparison
could
be
done.
The
flexible
modeling
method
is
primarily
used
to
avoid
becoming
obsolete
in
the
case
of
any
predicted
or
assumed
conditions
being
incorrect.
Autonomous Variables
Expected Life Time: !!
Burner Unit Cost: !! /!!
Burner Quantity: N
Cook Ware Cost: !!
In
order
to
simplify
the
expression,
each
cost
was
divided
in
order
to
attain
cost
per
unit.
This
allows
the
autonomous
portion
of
the
equation
to
be
a
function
of
only
one
free
variable,
N.
Cook Ware Cost Per Unit (!! /!): !!
A
discount
formula
was
estimated
for
unit
pricing.
Full
price
is
enforced
for
up
to
5
units
purchased,
then
a
sinusoidal
bulk
discount
formula
is
deployed
to
provide
a
discount
that
reaches
a
maximum
of
70%
full
unit
price
at
20
units
purchased.
Below
is
the
graphical
discount
expression
(!! ) with
formula.
Page
9
Figure
1:
Discount
Pricing
Model
1, !<5
!
0.15 ∗ cos ! + 5 + 0.85 , 5≤!≤2
!! = ! ! = 15
0.7, 20 < !
**The
model
can
conversely
be
run
for
full
unit
price,
independent
of
number
of
units
purchased.
Induced Variables
Energy Cost: !!
Energy Quantity per Hour per Unit: !
Replacement Costs: !!
Unit Lifetime (hours): !!
All of the induced variables expressed in terms of hours used and units.
Below
is
the
combination
of
autonomous
and
induce
costs
for
the
stovetop
analysis.
As
you
can
see
there
are
two
equations
that
take
the
same
form,
one
of
gas
and
one
for
induction.
Once
values
are
determined
the
graphs
are
overlaid
to
compare
the
economics
of
each.
You
will
notice
that
the
number
of
burners,
and
discount
rate
are
the
same
for
both;
this
is
based
on
the
following
assumptions:
-‐ A fixed number of stovetops will be used, regardless of technology.
Page
10
-‐ Discrepancies
in
efficiencies
between
the
two
will
be
accounted
in
hours
ran
in
order
to
complete
task,
not
by
using
more
stovetops.
-‐ Discounts
from
supplier,
if
any,
will
be
the
same.
-‐ We
assume
that
the
sub
is
kitchen
is
to
last
at
least
25
years.
!! (N, !! , !! ))=(!!" (!! ) + !!" )(N∙ !! ) +(!!" ∙ !! (!))(!) + (!!" (!) ∙ !!" )(!)
!! (N, !! , !! ))=(!!" (!! ) + !!" )(N∙ !! ) +(!!" ∙ !! (!))(!) + (!!" (!) ∙ !!" )(!)
These
equations
will
output
the
unit
cost
per
year.
To
attain
the
full
lifetime
cost
you
have
to
integrate
function
from
time
2010
to
2035.
The
proceeding
section
of
the
economic
analysis
uses
research
to
attain
values
for
each
variable
in
order
to
achieve
the
most
accurate
cost
for
both
induction
and
natural
gas
cook
tops.
Page
11
2.2
FUEL
COSTS
The
two
stovetop
technologies
use
significantly
different
sources
of
fuel
to
power
their
operations.
Natural
gas
stoves
use
natural
gas
as
their
fuel.
This
gas
is
commercially
available
and
can
be
supplied
by
local
companies.
Induction
stovetops
use
electricity
power
that
will
be
supplied
to
the
SUB.
In
the
75%
schematic
of
the
SUB
(“New
SUB
Project:
2010,
74)
the
source
of
this
electricity
has
not
yet
been
determined,
thus
for
comparison
we
will
use
both
conventional
and
renewable
electricity
costs.
The
assumptions
that
are
used
in
the
fuel
analysis
are
as
follows:
-‐ Infrastructure
for
gas
lines
will
exist
regardless
of
the
stovetop
choice,
thus
installation
of
gas
lines
are
exogenous
to
this
model
and
are
not
included
cost.
-‐ Though
onsite
electric
generation
is
an
option
for
the
new
SUB,
with
using
excess
heat
to
generate
power
a
feasible
solution,
the
electricity
generated
is
not
free.
Onsite
generated
power
still
has
an
opportunity
cost
associated
with
it,
which
is
the
open
market
price.
This
is
because
the
power
can
either
be
consumed
by
the
sub
or
sold,
because
of
this
dynamic
the
power
has
a
definite
and
measurable
cost.
2.2.1
Raw
Fuels
(!! )
2.2.1.1 Current Day Prices
Electricity
Figure 2: Current Day Electricity Prices in Canadian Cities
(Manitoba Hydro: 2010)
Page
12
The
following
table
from
Hydro
Manitoba
compares
current
day
prices
of
electricity
across
the
country.
Vancouver
is
listed
as
7.347
cents/kWh.
This
will
be
used
as
a
baseline
cost
for
power.
Renewable
power
is
estimated
by
the
Sub’s
75%
schematic
as
market
price
plus
a
30%
premium.
This
estimator
costs
renewable
energy
at
9.5511
cents/
kWh.
Natural Gas
When
the
sub
was
contacted
to
inquire
on
the
price
of
natural
gas
they
were
paying
it
as
found
that
the
current
sub
is
not
metered
and
thus
the
cost
could
not
be
determined
with
this
model.
Instead
we
are
using
the
Natural
Gas
Spot
price
on
the
TMX,
in
particular
The
AECO
“C”
spot
price,
which
is
the
Alberta
gas-‐trading
price.
This
spot
price
has
become
one
of
North
America’s
leading
price-‐setting
benchmarks.
Below
is
the
current
spot
as
of
March
2011.
(TMX:
2011)
Figure 3 : Current Gas Prices Western Canada
The following chart is a summary of initial conditions for energy prices
Natural Gas ($/ GJ) Electricity ($/MWh) Renewable Electricity ($/MWh)
3.3776 73.47 95.51
Page
13
2.2.1.2
Future
Price
Forecast
Using
Supply
Side
Economics
Electricity
A
forecast
of
future
prices
is
being
used
to
attain
a
better
idea
of
what
technology
is
more
suited
for
the
future.
It
was
agreed
on
by
our
group
that
having
a
fixed
energy
price
for
the
life
of
the
product
doesn’t
offer
an
accurate
picture.
Due
to
this
observation,
price
forecasting
has
been
developed
to
create
multiple
pricing
scenarios
that
depict
possible
future
conditions.
By
running
multiple
scenarios
we
are
able
to
see
under
what
pricing
conditions
does
each
technology
flourish.
The
decision
makers
then
can
have
more
information
rich
model
that
can
aid
in
the
technology
selection.
Three
energy-‐pricing
equations
are
used
for
each
fuel
type,
a
high,
medium,
and
conservative
price
estimate.
By
plotting
each
of
these
pricing
equations
on
the
same
graph
we
are
able
to
create
a
feasible
energy
price
band
that
can
be
useful
in
qualitative
comparison.
The
following
is
a
price
estimation
of
wholesale
electricity
prices
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
(Northwest
Power
and
Conservation
Council:
2010,
Appendix
D
p4).
The
North
West
Power
Planning
Committee
(NWPPC)
generated
this
forecast
in
2009,
on
the
basis
of
demand
side
economics
and
online
power
generation
supply.
The
report
figures
are
in
US
dollars
and
use
a
2006
base
year
for
comparison,
thus
this
needed
to
be
manipulated
to
model
our
project
conditions.
Below
are
the
forecasted
energy
prices
from
the
NWPPC,
along
with
our
normalized
figures
and
equations.
Figure 4: Forecast Range of Annual Mid-‐Columbia Wholesale Power Prices
Page
14
The
following
equations
are
used
as
functions
for
different
electricity
forecast:
Low Forecast: !! ! = !. !"##!! − !"#$ + !"#$!
Medium Forecast: !! ! = −!. !"#"!! − !"#. !" + !"#$%&
High Forecast: !! ! = !. !"#$ − !"#. !"# + !"#$%!
Low Renewable: !! ! = !. !"#$!! − !"". !" + !"#$#
Medium Renewable: !! ! = −!. !"#$!! + !"#. !" + !"#$#$
High Renewable: !! ! = !. !"#"!! − !"#. !"# + !"#$$%
*The
following
equations
are
all
expressed
in
2010
Base
Year
Canadian
Dollars.
All
equations
above
were
second
order
polynomial
fits
with
a
minimum
R
squared
value
0.98.
Forecast of Electricity Prices
250
High Forecast
Price ($/MWh)* 2010 Base Year
200
High
Renewable
Forecast
150
Meduim
Forecast
100
Medium
Renewables
Forecast
50
Low
Forecast
0
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Low
Renewable
Forecast
Year
Figure 5: Forecast of Electricity Prices (Renewable and Conventional)
Page
15
Natural
Gas
Projection
estimates
were
not
nearly
as
detailed
for
natural
gas
as
they
were
for
electric
prices.
With
Liquid
Natural
Gas
(LNG)
and
tight
gas
plays
emerging
in
recent
years,
natural
gas
prices
are
estimated
to
stay
within
a
narrow
range
for
the
next
35
years.
The
increase
in
demand
is
to
be
tempered
with
advances
these
technologies.
The
following
is
a
graph
and
formulas
for
two
natural
gas
spot
prices.
Due
the
Alberta
AECO
spot
price
estimation
not
being
available
Henry
and
Lower
48
spot
prices
were
used
to
develop
mathematical
equations
that
were
later
normalized
to
the
Alberta
AECO
“C”
spot
price.
Figure 6: Natural Gas Projections from Annual Energy Outlook 2010
(US Energy Information Administration: 2010, 79)
8
Natural
Gas
Price
Forecast
Price
($/GJ)
*2010
Base
Price
7
6
Low
AECO
5
High
AECO
4
Poly.
(Low
AECO)
3 Poly. (High AECO)
2
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Year
Figure 7: Natural Gas Excel Forecast Model
Page
16
Based
on
the
upper
and
low
forecasts
we
used
regression
algorithms
in
MATLAB
to
attain
an
equation
for
their
behavior.
Below
is
the
general
equation
form
with
a
table
of
coefficients.
!! ! = !"! + !"! + !"! + !" + !
Figure 8: Coefficients for Gas Pricing Models
Page
17
2.2.2
Fuel
Consumption
The
consumption
of
resources
plays
a
critical
role
in
the
economics
of
these
two
technologies.
The
fuel
consumption
is
based
off
both
the
efficiency
of
the
range
technology,
the
intensity
of
the
operation
preformed
by
the
stovetop,
and
the
amount
of
time
the
stovetop
is
used.
Due
to
this
complexity
we
have
outlined
a
framework
that
will
allow
for
realistic
comparison
of
the
two
models,
which
include
the
three
variables
outlined
above.
The
frameworks
goal
is
to
roll
three
variables
into
one
that
we
have
named
Energy
Quantity
per
Hour
per
Burner
Unit
(F).
This
index
value
F
is
in
the
case
of
Natural
gas
is
the
amount
of
Gigajoules
to
complete
day
worth
of
tasks.
As
for
electricity
the
index
value
F
is
the
amount
of
MWh
needed
to
complete
the
exact
same
day
worth
of
tasks.
Below
is
a
demonstration
of
how
F
is
used
in
the
formula:
$ !"
!! ∙ !! = !"#$%"& !"# !"#$# !"# !"#
!" !"#
$ !"#
!! ∙ !! = !"#!"#$!$"% !"#$# !"# !"#
!"# !"#
In
order
to
generate
the
value
for
F
we
need
to
establish
a
baseline
activity
to
calculate
fuel
consumption.
For
this
we
use
the
activity
of
boiling
1
liter
of
water.
Using
published
values
from
research
for
induction
and
natural
gas
stoves
we
are
able
to
use
multiples
of
this
energy
use
to
estimate
daily
activities.
The
summation
of
all
daily
activities
is
to
be
converted
to
equivalent
liters
of
water
brought
to
boil.
The
following
is
information
that
we
used
to
attain
values
for
Fi
and
Fg.
Page
18
2.2.2.1
Induction
Ranges
The
main
source
of
data
was
taken
from
research
conducted
by
the
Department
of
Hotel
Catering;
in
the
test
a
240V
main
supply
at
50Hz
was
used
to
power
a
30kHz
coil
with
a
test
surface
diameter
of
0.25m.
Though
out
the
experiment
the
power
was
at
maximum
level.
The
pan
that
was
used
was
a
pan
that
is
common
in
commercial
settings.
These
specifications
are
thought
to
be
comparable
to
models
used
in
the
SUB.
Below
is
the
data
obtained
from
this
study.
Figure
9:
Induction
Boiling
Experiment
(Adams,
A:
1985,
4)
This
data
was
entered
into
a
spreadsheet
to
calculate
the
power
used
in
each
test.
From
this
an
average
power
to
boil
one
liter
of
water
was
estimated.
Figure
10:
Table
of
Energy
Consumption
with
Per
Liter
Normalized
Input
Page
19
Based
on
the
power
calculations
we
concluded
the
following
general
performance
parameters:
Parameter or Characteristic Value
Average Boil Time 3 minutes 15 seconds (3.26 min)
Maximum Liters Boiled per Hour 18.4 Liters
Average Watt Hours per Liter 127.55 Wh
Using these characteristics we were then able to establish an index value for F with flexibility
for the capacity (! ) that the kitchen is being run at and hours per day (!).
!" ! ! !"# !"#$%
!! = !"#. !! ∙ !". ! ∙ ! ∙ ! ∙ !
! !"#! !" !" !"#
!! = !. !!"#$%&" ∙ ! ∙ !
**Note Units of F is in MWh/day.
Figure
11:
Dynamic
Mathematica
8
F
Applet
*Figure
11
is
a
screenshot
of
a
dynamic
applet
used
to
produce
F
for
various
capacity
and
hours.
The
top
slider
controls
the
capacity
while
the
drop
down
button
selects
hours
per
day.
The
value
of
Fi
is
displayed
in
the
box.
Page
20
2.2.2.2
Natural
Gas
Ranges
Figure
12:
Natural
Gas
Consumption
for
Boiling
Water
(The
Engineering
Toolbox:
2010)
Figure
13:
Comparative
Boiling
Time
for
Various
Stovetop
Technologies
(Adams, A: 1985, 6)
Page
21
Using
the
data
above
attained
from
Engineering
Toolbox
we
were
able
to
calculated
the
numerical
values
for
key
parameters
in
the
table
below
(Figure
14).
Note
data
for
the
time
to
boil
was
provided
with
no
measure
of
the
fuel
quantity,
it
is
assumed
that
comparable
models
were
used,
thus
a
ratio
of
boil
times
was
taken
to
determine
the
maximum
output.
Figure
14:
Summary
Table
of
Energy
Consumption
for
Natural
Gas
Burners
Based on the power calculations we concluded the following general performance parameters:
Parameter or Characteristic Value
Average Boil Time 3 minutes 19 seconds (3.31 min)
Maximum Liters Boiled per Hour 18.1 Liters
Average Fuel Used per Liter 0.000846648 GJ
Using
these
characteristics
we
were
then
able
to
establish
an
index
value
for
F
with
flexibility
for
the
capacity
(!
)
that
the
kitchen
is
being
run
at
and
hours
per
day
(!).
!" ! !"#$%
!! = !. !!!"#$$ ∙ !". ! ∙ ! ∙ !
! !"#$ !"#
!! = !. !"#$%# ∙ ! ∙ !
**Note
Units
of
Fg
is
in
GJ/day.
Page
22
2.3
UPFRONT
COSTS
2.3.1
Relative
Prices
of
Two
Technologies
The
upfront
cost
of
the
stovetop
plays
a
large
role
in
the
economics,
especially
as
upfront
cost
are
relatively
high.
The
upfront
costs
also
act
as
a
mental
threshold
in
the
decision
making
process.
The
following
are
cost
estimated
for
implementing
the
two
stovetop
technologies.
In
order
to
generate
the
scope
of
prices
for
each
technology,
prices
of
multiple
models
were
collected
and
a
high
and
low
estimate
for
total
cost
and
cost
per
burner
were
established.
For
the
direct
comparison
the
price
per
burner
is
the
most
useful
as
it
is
assumed
that
equal
amounts
of
burners
are
needed
regardless
of
the
technology
choice.
This
same
method
of
generating
a
price
range
for
stovetops
was
conducted
to
determine
the
price
for
cookware.
When
modeling
the
upfront
costs
for
the
stovetops
and
cookware
it
was
assumed
that
they
were
to
be
purchased
with
cash
in
one
single
lump
sum.
Financing
and
longer-‐term
payment
plans
would
add
extra
variables
that
we
did
not
have
sufficient
information
to
accurately
model.
2.3.1.1 Gas Ranges
A small database of natural gas commercial ranges was generated to establish an estimate for
the price. Gas ranges had a large variance in sizes, amount of burners, and other features. Due
to this six ranges were selected that had comparable features. The following is table includes
the ranges and a summary of prices used in the model. Adding or subtracting half a standard
deviation from the mean constructs the high and low estimates, this gives a 67% cumulative
probability range.
Figure
15:
Prices
for
Gas
Ranges
(Prices
From:
Nextag.com)
Page
23
Probability
Plot:
Natural
Gas
Stoves
100
100(i-‐0.5)/n 80
60
40 Series1
Linear
(Series1)
20
0
0
200
400
600
800
x(i)
Figure
15:
Probability
Plot
to
prove
normal
distribution
Figure
16:
Summary
Table
of
Natural
Gas
Range
Costs
Page
24
2.3.1.2
Gas
Ranges
The
same
techniques
as
the
natural
gas
stoves
were
used
to
collect
price
data
on
induction
stoves
and
later
formulate
a
predicted
price.
There
was
a
large
discretion
in
the
types
of
commercial
ranges
available;
unlike
gas
the
majority
of
induction
are
single
burner.
Computing
the
price
per
range
attempts
to
make
this
comparable
but
there
is
a
built
in
error
as
single
cooktops
are
usually
more
expensive.
The
results
and
summary
are
as
follows.
Figure
17:
Prices
for
Induction
Ranges
(Source:
Nextag.com)
Probability Plot: Inducdon Stoves
100
80
100(i-‐0.5)/n
60
40 Series1
Linear
(Series1)
20
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
x(i)
Figure 18: Probability Plot to prove normal distribution
Page
25
Figure
19:
Summary
Table
of
Induction
Range
Costs
*Note
The
Cooktech
MWG7000
was
removed,
as
it
was
an
obvious
outlier
and
affected
the
mean
and
standard
deviation
too
much.
Page
26
2.3.1.3
Cookware
It
was
originally
thought
that
the
price
in
cookware
difference
would
have
a
profound
effect
on
the
economics
of
the
two
technologies.
Once
a
formal
investigation
to
the
price
of
cooking
pots
and
pans
began
it
was
determined
that
the
quality
of
the
utensil
had
a
much
larger
difference
on
the
price,
rather
then
the
technology
it
is
compatible
with.
The
following
is
a
short
list
of
comparable
pots
with
prices
listed.
As
you
can
see
the
range
is
massive,
and
thus
a
model
cannot
be
accurately
developed
that
predicts
the
effect
of
price
differences
to
the
overall
economics.
It
is
predicted
the
induction
cookware
will
on
average
cost
more
but
this
trend
is
weakly
supported
by
data.
For
the
model
we
will
set
the
price
of
cookware
to
an
arbitrary
value
of
$50
per
pot.
This
value
doesn’t
affect
the
direct
comparison
because
both
equations
will
be
divided
by
!! .
Figure
20:
Cookware
Costs
Database
*Based
off
the
proceeding
table
we
assume
that
!!" = !!"
Page
27
2.3.2
Expected
Life
and
Replacement
Costs
As
with
all
technologies,
the
lifetime
of
the
product
is
finite.
In
order
to
have
an
accurate
picture
to
overall
finances
we
have
to
put
thought
into
the
expected
life
of
each
technology.
It
is
important
not
to
overlook
the
relative
life
of
these
technologies
as
replacing
this
unit
is
very
pricy
and
can
greatly
affect
the
economics
in
the
long
term.
This
does
pose
a
great
challenge
because
we
are
unable
to
predict
the
upcoming
changes
to
induction
and
natural
gas
technologies,
and
in
turn
how
these
technological
strives
are
going
to
affect
the
price
of
the
units.
Like
future
predictions
for
energy
input
costs
we
have
used
a
range
of
scenarios
to
model
future
conditions.
It
is
a
well
knows
phenomena
the
price
of
a
fixed
technology
decreases
with
time.
That
is
new
technologies
are
expensive
at
first
but,
years
later
the
cost
to
obtain
the
exact
same
technology
decreases
substantially
(usually
in
a
exponential
manner).
Due
to
the
relatively
new
introduction
of
induction
stoves
to
the
commercial
setting
we
might
infer
that
future
model
could
cost
significantly
less
in
the
future.
Natural
gas
stoves
are
in
the
opposite
side
of
the
spectrum,
due
to
its
heavy
use
in
commercial
settings
the
prices
seem
to
have
settled.
Based
on
the
two
observations
above
we
have
developed
a
multiple
scenario
model.
Below
is
a
screen
shot
of
an
applet
along
with
a
description
of
the
three
scenario,
and
assumptions.
Figure
21:
Interest
Rate
Combined
with
Diminishing
Cost
Equations
Page
28
-‐ The
two
top
lines
(pgas,
pind)
are
used
two
select
the
prices
used
select
the
starting
price
for
each
technology.
The
options
available
in
the
applet
are
the
low,
medium,
and
high
estimate
from
the
prior
section.
-‐ The
bottom
two
lines
(iind,
igas)
are
the
discount
rates.
The
first
option
-‐0.02
is
the
expected
price
using
a
2%
inflation
estimate.
The
second
option
is
0;
this
indicates
that
the
rate
of
price
reduction
for
a
constant
technology
is
equal
to
inflation.
The
proceeding
options
are
different
discount
rates
for
each
technology
spanning
from
%2
to
10%
discount
pre
year.
Further
consulting
with
a
professional
would
allow
for
a
better
estimate
of
this
value.
The
model
was
built
off
a
present
value-‐pricing
model
used
for
bonds
(see
equation
below).
This
does
an
excellent
job
at
capturing
the
current
day
price
for
future
purchases
at
discount
rates,
but
doesn’t
exhibit
exponential
decays
for
new
technology
pricing.
Present Value = Future Value *(1+yearly discount rate)^(year period)
!" = !" ∙ (1 + !)!
Now
that
pricing
for
future
replacements
have
been
established,
we
now
have
to
determine
the
replacement
period
for
each
of
the
technologies.
Information
was
very
limited
for
commercial
units,
thus
residential
lifetimes
were
used.
A
consensus
from
multiple
websites
yields
the
following:
Natural Gas Life: 19 years
Electric Life: 16 years
Combining
this
new
information
with
the
discount
applet
above,
we
a
new
now
have
a
model
that
can
predict
the
combination
of
upfront
and
replacement
costs
for
multiple
scenarios.
One
example
of
unit
expenditure
is
shown
in
figure
22
below.
Page
29
Figure
22:
Interest
Rate
Combined
with
Diminishing
Cost
Equations
Lifetime
Replacement
Costs
Page
30
2.4
KEY
INDICATORS
2.4.1
Complete
Equations
Section
1-‐3
of
the
economic
section
of
the
report
outlined
the
variables
used
to
develop
comparison
equations,
and
point
estimates
for
these
variables.
Below
is
the
original
governing
equations
and
equations
with
manipulation
to
augments
them
into
a
per
burner
form.
(1) !! (N, !! ))=(!!" + !!" )(N∙ !! ) +(!!" ∙ !! )(! ∙ !) + (!!" ∙ !!" )(! ∙ !)
(2) !! (N, !! ))=(!!" + !!" )(N∙ !! ) +(!!" ∙ !! )(! ∙ !) + (!!" ∙ !!" )(! ∙ !)
-‐ Divide
each
equation
by
(N)
based
on
assumptions
outlined
on
p.x.
-‐ Subtract
unit
cost
from
(1)
and
(2)
as
investigation
yielding
no
proof
of
a
concrete
price
difference.
-‐ Discount
formula
drops
out
in
the
per
burner
form.
(3) !! (!! )=!!" +(!!" ∙ !! )(!) + (!!" ∙ !!" )(t)
(4) !! (!! )=!!" +(!!" ∙ !! )(!) + (!!" ∙ !!" )(!)
Equations
3
and
4
will
be
used
for
the
direct
comparison
between
the
two
technologies.
Below
are
graphical
visualizations
of
equation
3
and
4.
Note
the
slide
bars,
drop
down
menus,
and
buttons
allow
for
the
changing
of
variable’s
in
each
of
the
equations
to
create
new
pricing
“environments”.
Page
31
Figure 23: Operation Cost per year for Induction Stoves.
Figure 24: Operations Cost per year for Natural Gas stoves.
As
you
can
see
from
Figure
23
and
24,
the
economics
for
natural
gas
stoves
with
the
same
capacity,
hours
per
day,
and
days
per
year,
favor
the
natural
gas
technology.
Just
by
inspection
you
can
see
that
once
you
integrate
these
two
curves
to
obtain
total
cost,
the
induction
stoves
are
close
to
order
of
two
times
more
expensive.
We
ran
a
large
batch
of
different
pricing
Page
32
models
using
different
combinations
of
operation
and
pricing
models.
In
almost
all
of
the
cases,
natural
gas
was
the
clear
favorite
in
terms
of
economics.
The
only
time
in
which
induction
stovetops
became
more
economically
feasible
is
when
there
was
a
difference
in
the
capacity.
It
is
feasible
that
you
could
have
a
much
lower
capacity
for
induction
stove
tops
as
they
are
only
on
when
you
need
to
use
them,
while
natural
gas
stoves
may
be
running
at
all
times.
This
discrepancy
in
capacities
is
what
brings
the
economics
into
the
same
range.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
relationship
of
independent
capacities
exists
on
a
mathematical
level,
but
is
not
directly
supported
by
research
of
any
kind.
This
observation
does
merit
further
research
into
the
capacity/
operation
conditions
of
real
commercial
kitchens.
2.4.2
Normalized
Price
per
Output
A
key
indicator
that
we
based
our
recommendation
around
is
the
normalized
price
per
unit
of
output.
For
this
indicator
we
used
empirical
data
used
in
section
XX
of
the
report
to
find
the
price
in
current
day
dollars
to
boil
one
liter
of
water.
This
value
was
extrapolated
from
the
analysis
we
conducted
to
determine
the
energy
input,
fuel
cost,
and
technology
efficiency
in
prior
sections.
Figure
25:
Summary
of
Fixed
Output
Costs
We
compared
the
data
in
the
summary
table
above
with
published
data
on
the
efficiencies
of
these
two
technologies.
A
consensus
between
various
sources
indicates
efficiency
levels
around
80-‐85%
for
induction
with
35-‐50%
for
natural
gas.
From
our
own
analysis
we
found
that
we
were
inline
with
published
data,
comparatively
natural
gas
we
determined
to
be
half
as
efficient
as
induction.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
while
the
efficiency
of
induction
stoves
are
much
higher
(54%
of
energy
used
in
natural
gas),
the
price
is
almost
three
times
higher
on
a
normalized
basis.
This
led
us
conclude
again,
that
natural
gas
stoves
are
highly
favorable
from
an
economic
standpoint.
Page
33
3.0 ENVIRONMENT
3.1
ENERGY
CONSUMPTION
It
is
important
to
analyze
the
lifespan
energy
usage
and
efficiency
values
for
both
stove
technologies.
Total
energy
usage
values
give
an
indication
of
a
variety
of
environmental
impacts
as
they
enable
the
calculation
of
total
lifespan
emissions.
These
lifespan
emission
values
represent
the
bulk
of
the
associated
environmental
costs
for
both
stove
types,
and
are
thus
of
key
importance.
The
energy
efficiency
of
both
stoves
is
also
an
important
environmental
consideration
as
it
indicates
each
product’s
ability
to
limit
the
amount
of
waste
energy
in
the
cooking
process.
The formula used to calculate lifetime energy use was as follows:
E = P * N * D * L * (3600s/hour)
E = Lifetime Energy Input (GJ)
P = Average power input (GW)
N = Hour usage per day (hours)
D = Day usage per year (days)
L = Stove lifespan (years)
In calculating E for both stoves we assumed the following values for the time usage parameters:
N = 8 hours per day
D = 250 days per year
L = 19 years
Page
34
3.1.1 Gas Stove Energy Use
Based
on
test
data
from
an
in-‐kitchen
appliance
performance
report
from
the
Food
Service
Technology
Center,
the
median
power
input
to
a
high
power
six
burner
gas
range
stove
is
approximately
30
kBtu/h
per
burner
(Yap
et
al:
1998,
iii).
First a conversion factor n is applied where:
n = 2.9307107 × 10-7 (GW)/(kBtu/h)
Thus,
assuming
all
time
parameters
to
be
accurate,
and
assuming
full
capacity,
the
lifetime
energy
input
to
a
six
burner
180
kBtu/h
gas
stovetop
is:
E = n P N D L (3600s/hour)
= (2.9307107 × 10-7)(180)(8)(250)(19)(3600)
EG = 7216 GJ (1203 GJ per burner)
It
must
be
noted
that
in
all
likelihood
the
gas
stove’s
capacity
will
vary
unpredictably
on
an
hourly
basis,
and
thus
actual
lifetime
energy
input
E
will
in
all
likelihood
be
lower
than
calculated.
3.1.2 Induction Stove Energy Use
Based
on
data
for
the
Garland
2.5KW
Induction
Range
Top,
the
median
power
input
to
this
single
plate
induction
stove
cooker
was
measured
as
2.61KW
(Cesio
et
al:
1996,
3-‐1).
Assuming
that
all
input
time
parameters
are
correct,
and
assuming
full
capacity,
the
lifetime
energy
input
to
a
six
plate
(15.66KW)
induction
stovetop
is:
E = P N D L (3600s/hour)
= (0.00001566)(8)(250)(19)(3600)
EI = 2142GJ (342GJ per plate)
Page
35
It
must
be
noted
that
to
find
lifespan
energy
use
in
terms
of
GJ
of
gas
used
at
the
gas/steam
power
plant,
the
E
value
for
the
induction
stove
must
be
divided
by
the
efficiency
of
the
plant.
Thus
for
an
assumed
plant
efficiency
of
50%,
the
indirect
lifespan
gas
energy
use
of
the
induction
stove
would
be
E/(0.5)
=
4284GJ
(684GJ
per
plate).
It
must
also
be
noted
that
due
to
internal
energy
management
systems
present
in
most
induction
cookers,
this
value
should
be
taken
as
a
maximum
value.
It
assumes
that
during
each
stove’s
daily
eight
hour
use
each
plate
is
constantly
cooking,
with
very
minimal
downtime.
As
with
the
gas
stove,
this
E
value
will
in
reality
be
lower
due
to
unpredictable
cooking
patterns.
3.1.3 Efficiency: Gas vs. Induction
When examining the energy efficiency of induction and gas range stoves, it is important
to find the relationship between the stove’s energy input (in terms of fuel or electricity), and its
output (effective heat energy that is ultimately transferrable to food). It must also be
recognized that a stove’s efficiency will depend on a variety of factors including cooking
method, stove technology, temperature, and humidity (Jungbluth et al: 1997, 6).
Sources
indicated
a
maximum
gas
stove
efficiency
of
just
over
50%
(Jungbluth
et
al:
1997,
6),
and
a
maximum
induction
stove
efficiency
of
84%
(Sorensen
et
al:
2008,
3-‐3).
From
direct
energy
input,
induction
stoves
are
almost
twice
as
efficient
at
transferring
energy
to
food.
The
power
source
for
the
new
Student
Union
Building,
however,
must
be
taken
into
account
here.
If
the
current
source
is
to
continue
being
used,
the
efficiency
of
the
gas/steam
generated
electricity
conversion
process
must
be
looked
at.
By
assuming
a
realistic
plant
energy
conversion
efficiency
of
50%,
it
can
be
concluded
that
induction
stoves
in
the
new
sub
would
experience
reduced
indirect
efficiencies
comparable
to
those
of
gas
stoves.
3.1.4
Summary
Assuming
correct
time
input
parameters
and
a
gas/steam
plant
efficiency
of
50%,
as
well
as
not
taking
into
account
variable
cooking
patterns
(both
stoves
at
full
capacity),
the
induction
stove
will
indirectly
use
4284GJ
of
gas
generated
energy,
while
the
gas
stove
will
use
7216GJ
of
gas
generated
energy,
both
in
their
respective
nineteen
year
life
spans.
Page
36
3.2
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
OF
EACH
TECHNOLOGY
3.2.1 Environmental Life Cycle Analysis
All areas of a product’s life will inevitably have environmental effects, from the extraction of
raw materials to the manufacturing and packaging processes, and most importantly, the
lifetime usage of energy. In order to definitively compare technologies in terms of the
environmental impact they have throughout their lifespan, a standardized life cycle analysis
(LCA) system must be used. Without the use of such a system we are left with a very
ambiguous task of quantifying each technology’s environmental impact.
3.2.1.1 Problems associated with LCA`s
To date, the problems associated with these systems are mainly due to the difficulty of
interpreting the results yielded by LCA’s. While it is possible to definitively find a technology’s
impact in certain environmental areas such as the greenhouse effect and ozone layer depletion,
it is difficult to compile and produce a total environmental impact encompassing all areas of
environmental concern (Jungbluth, 1997).
Another
obstacle
to
correct
interpretation
of
LCA’s
is
the
expensive,
time
consuming
nature
of
gathering
environmental
data
over
the
course
of
a
product’s
lifespan.
In
most
cases
a
detailed
comprehensive
LCA
cannot
be
completed
during
the
design
of
a
particular
technology.
3.2.2 Eco-‐Indicator 99 Analysis
The Eco-‐Indicator 99 is a tool developed by several companies, research institutes and
the Dutch government that offers solutions to the main problems with LCA’s. The goal of this
tool is to allow designers and engineers to easily compare multiple technologies in terms of
their environmental impacts. Each material process contributing to the working life of a
product is ultimately given an Eco-‐Indicator number, with a higher number corresponding to a
higher environmental impact. The designer or customer then creates a life cycle inventory of
individual components, processes and energy inputs that are present throughout a
technology’s lifespan. Once this is complete the indicators are looked up for each process and
totaled.
Page
37
3.2.2.1
Eco-‐Indicator
Points
System
Indicators
have
already
been
calculated
for
a
variety
of
processes,
including
steel,
aluminum,
thermoplastics,
and
paper
production,
as
well
as
actual
manufacturing
processes
(injection
molding,
rolling,
turning,
welding…etc.).
Indicators
have
also
been
produced
for
a
variety
of
energy
generation
and
waste
process
(Goedkoop,
Effting,
&
Collignon,
2000).
This
comprehensive
list
of
eco
indicators
for
many
processes
allows
a
designer
to
list
off
amounts
of
each
material
and
types
of
processes
used
in
the
lifespan
of
a
product
and
compile
their
respective
eco-‐indicator
values
to
find
a
total
value
for
the
entire
product.
3.2.2.2 Scope and Limitations of the Eco-‐Indicator 99 Analysis
A potential drawback to this method of life cycle analysis is that it requires specific target levels
of emissions for each material and process. These target levels have to be decided on
collectively by scientists, and there is often disagreement on the required target values. There
is also inevitably a degree of subjectivity in the decided weighting of each environmental
impact. The figure below shows the damage model path taken to assign Eco-‐Indicator values
to each material process. Each step as expected contains some degree of subjectivity, and that
should be taken into account when using the final eco-‐indicator value.
Figure 26 : Eco-‐Indicator Damage Model
It
should
be
recognized
that
this
method
of
environmental
analysis
allows
the
comparison
of
two
products
based
on
standards
with
a
degree
of
subjectivity.
It
is
important
to
use
this
analysis
in
a
way
that
adheres
to
specific
assumptions.
In
this
analysis,
obtaining
material
inventories
for
induction
stove
production
was
not
possible.
This
analysis
only
encompasses
Page
38
environmental
impacts
due
to
lifespan
energy
consumption
which,
as
stated
earlier,
has
by
far
the
largest
environmental
impact
for
both
stove
types.
3.2.2.3 Comparison of Gas and Induction Stoves
As calculated earlier, the estimated lifespan energy consumptions for both specified stove
models at maximum full time capacity were:
Six Burner180kBtu/h Gas Stove: 7216GJ (7.216TJ)
Six Plate 15.66KW Induction Stove: 4284GJ (4.284TJ)
The
table
below
gives
figures
for
estimated
emissions
in
kg
per
terajoule
(TJ)
due
to
the
combustion
of
natural
gas
(Jungbluth
et
al:
1997,
10).
Figure 27 : Estimated emissions per Terajoule of combusted natural gas energy
Based
on
values
in
column
seven,
the
significant
total
lifespan
emissions
for
both
stove
tops
can
be
found.
The
table
below
shows
lifetime
emissions
of
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx),
Carbons
(C),
and
Carbon
Dioxide
(CO2)
for
both
stove
types.
Emission
Unit
Amount
(kg/TJ)
Gas
Stove
Emissions
Induction
Stove
Emissions
For
7.216TJ
(kg)
For
4.284TJ
(kg)
NOx
26.0
187.6
111.4
C
25.0
180.4
107.1
CO2
55500
400488
237762
Page
39
Because
of
the
induction
stove’s
assumed
electrical
source,
we
are
able
to
compare
emissions
due
to
both
stove
types.
In
all
categories
the
induction
stove
indirectly
produces
lower
emissions
than
the
gas
stove
throughout
a
nineteen
year
lifespan.
Using
the
Eco
Indicator
99
Annex
for
heat
generation,
the
eco-‐
indicator
for
industrial
gas
combustion
is
5.3
millipoints
per
megajoule
(Goedkoop
et
al:
2000,
Annexe
4).
Total
indicators
are
shown
below.
I = E* (1000000MJ/TJ)*0.0053
I = Eco-‐Indicator for Life time Stove Energy Use
E = Life time Stove Energy Use
Gas Stove Energy Use Indicator IG = 7.216(1000000)(0.0053)
IG = 38245
Induction Stove Energy Use Indicator II = 4.284(1000000)(0.0053)
II = 22705
As
expected,
the
Induction
Stove
has
lower
indirect
emissions
than
the
Gas
Stove
and
thus
a
lower
Indicator
score
(smaller
environmental
impact).
Based
on
this
data
it
is
our
conclusion
that
choosing
induction
stove
tops
is
the
more
favourable
option
in
terms
of
overall
life
time
environmental
impact.
Page
40
4.0 SOCIAL
4.1
SCOPE
When
investigating
the
social
aspect
of
the
comparison
between
gas
and
induction
stovetops,
the
analysis
is
broken
down
into
the
stovetop
market,
employee
safety
and
continuous
operations.
Examining
the
current
market
is
crucial
in
determining
the
current
state
of
the
gas
and
induction
stovetops
and
how
the
public
perceives
each
technology.
The
safety
implications
of
each
stovetop
are
analyzed
as
the
health
of
the
UBC
employees
cannot
be
ignored.
Finally
the
operation
of
the
stovetop
technology
including
physiological
stresses,
maintenance
and
cooking
techniques
are
examined.
With
these
components
analyzed,
the
best
stovetop
technology
for
the
new
UBC
SUB
can
be
determined.
4.2 STOVETOP MARKET
The social aspect of the comparison between gas and induction stovetops is crucial in
determining the optimal choice for the UBC SUB. Although economics and environment are
contributing factors, the public’s perspective and acceptance has a significant impact on the
success of new technology. In today’s generation, gas stovetops became a commercial
appliance since the 1880s with the growth of the gas pipe networks. In the United States, the
first long distance natural gas lines began in 1930. These gas transportation pipelines soon
extended to large gas fields such as the North Sea, Middle and Siberia (Bizzo et al: 2004, 61).
About 30 to 60% of the population in most European and American countries rely on liquefied
petroleum gas around the world creating a large market for gas stovetops (Brauer, M et al:
1996, 412).
On
the
other
hand,
commercial
induction
stovetops
for
cooking
are
still
fairly
recent
technology
with
patents
of
“Wireless
Transmissions
of
Temperature”
invented
by
John
Harnden
dating
back
to
1973
(Harnden:
1973).
With
a
century
lead
in
growth,
gas
stovetops
have
a
deeper
impact
on
the
public’s
views
and
experiences
than
the
induction
stovetop
as
most
North
American
family’s
homes
are
equipped
with
gas
technology.
Although
induction
stovetops
are
considered
a
more
recent
technology,
there
is
a
significant
growth
in
the
development
of
this
appliance
with
28
patents
referencing
Harden’s
original
filing.
These
patents
evolve
the
basic
induction
technology
with
greater
features
and
efficiency
such
as
grilling
units
and
RFID
control
chips.
According
to
Schultheiss’
article
on
“The
Power
of
Induction,”
manufacturers
in
Europe
and
Asian
began
experimenting
with
induction
technology
to
cooking
uses
by
the
1970s.
In
2008,
65
commercial
induction
stovetops
were
introduced
in
the
market
from
major
manufacturers
including
Bosch,
Electrolux,
GE
and
Kenmore.
In
a
commercial
business
vendor
perspective,
the
Page
41
purchaser
for
Sears,
Rick
Demert,
commented
on
how
induction
stovetops
are
an
“expanding
category”
and
growing
from
3
models
to
20
by
year-‐end.
The
article
also
observes
that
mainstream
manufacturers
such
as
GE,
Kenmore
and
Viking
are
marketing
induction
appliances
under
their
high-‐end
lines
(Schulthesiss:
2008,
149).
With
this
marketing
approach,
the
public
acceptance
of
this
technology
is
more
settle
in
entering
the
market.
As
discussed
earlier
in
this
research,
induction
stovetops
need
a
greater
capital
for
implementation.
The
up-‐front
costs
for
induction
stoves
are
greater
than
gas
stoves.
With
a
new
SUB’s
catering
kitchen
being
renovated,
this
is
an
opportunity
to
implement
a
more
efficient
solution
and
help
develop
a
new
technology
for
the
mainstream
market.
Consumers
need
different
choices
when
selecting
a
product
and
new
technologies
are
difficult
to
surface
in
a
fully
developed
market.
With
commercial
projects
such
as
the
UBC
SUB,
they
can
indirectly
support
new
innovations
creating
a
stovetop
market
with
more
options.
4.3 WORKER SAFETY
Health and safety of the operators are crucial in the consideration for the most optimal
stovetop. The public has a strong perceptive on the safety of the product they will be using.
The health hazards associated with gas and induction stovetop will be discussed to determine
the safest option of the new UBC SUB.
Gas
stovetops
require
the
burning
of
liquefied
petroleum
gas
which
creates
a
high
intensity
flame
to
heat
up
the
cooking
element.
This
generation
of
heat
of
around
18000
BTUs
causes
a
high
probability
of
serious
burn
injuries.
A
study
conducted
by
Dr.
Powell
and
Dr.
Tanz
investigated
burns
of
children
associated
with
the
use
of
microwave
ovens
and
conventional
stoves.
Over
a
five
year
period,
41198
burns
were
associated
with
gas
stovetops
and
5160
burns
were
connected
with
microwaves
which
is
73.6%
increase.
The
majority
of
stove
burns
(74%)
were
thermal
and
seven
percent
involved
a
body
surface
area
greater
than
25%
(Powell
et
al:
1993,
346).
Five
percent
of
gas
stovetop
injuries
required
hospital
admission.
The
study
concluded
that
stove
burns
are
more
frequent
and
more
severe
than
microwave
ovens
and
“burn
prevention
efforts
should
emphasize
the
hazards
of
stoves”
(Powell
et
al:
1993,
348).
A
by-‐product
of
gas
stoves
is
nitrogen
dioxide
(NO2)
which
has
adverse
effects
on
respiratory
health.
A
study
conducted
by
D.
Jarvis
and
the
Department
of
Public
Health
Medicine
of
United
Medical
and
Dental
Center
in
London
investigates
the
concerns
of
gas
stoves
to
respiratory
health.
Traditional
gas
stoves
can
emit
pollutants
which
may
cause
respiratory
infections,
chronic
lung
disease,
heart
disease
and
eye
irritation
after
long
exposures
in
confined
spaces.
Other
effects
of
liquefied
petroleum
gas
include
vertigo
or
dizziness
at
high
concentrations
(Bizzo
et
al:
2004,
65).
Using
gaseous
fuel
as
a
source
of
energy,
the
adverse
health
effects
of
Page
42
gas
emissions
cannot
be
neglected
and
may
cause
long
term
concerns.
These
effects
are
exhibited
for
long
exposures.
In
an
industrial
setting,
cooking
equipment
may
accidentally
be
turned
on
when
not
in
use.
With
gas
stoves,
unintended
release
of
gaseous
fuel
poses
a
great
risk
if
an
ignition
source
is
present.
This
can
lead
to
“property
damage
and/or
bodily
harm,
and
possibly
an
explosion”
(Bizzo
et
al:
2004,
65).
Although
the
situation
is
exceptionally
rare,
the
danger
of
gas
needs
to
be
considered
when
comparing
different
types
of
stovetops.
With
induction
stovetops,
energy
is
only
transfer
when
in
contact
with
a
specialized
pot
and
the
risk
of
any
release
of
energy
is
improbable.
The
effect
of
induction
stovetops
is
that
emission
of
the
time-‐varying
electromagnetic
waves
due
eddy
currents
in
the
coils.
Electrical
interference
is
common
with
strong
electromagnetic
fields
and
the
safety
of
cooks
with
artificial
medical
devices
should
be
considered.
A
study
published
in
the
European
Society
of
Cardiology
investigates
the
effects
of
induction
stovetops
on
cardiac
pacemakers.
The
study
examines
eleven
induction
stovetops
and
the
measures
the
voltage
through
the
patient’s
body
for
different
operating
condition
including
pot
position,
pot
sizes
and
pot
handling.
The
experimental
results
concluded
that
the
patient
is
potentially
endangered
if
they
are
close
to
the
cooktop
and
the
pot
is
positioned
extremely
eccentrically.
These
situations
are
rare
and
may
affect
14.8%
of
the
total
pacemaker
population
but
the
safety
implications
cannot
be
ignored
(Irnich
et
al:
2006,
383).
Induction
stovetop
uses
electric
and
magnetic
fields
to
heat
up
of
the
pot
and
produces
no
flames
or
smoke.
Due
to
the
physics
of
vessel’s
material
properties
to
heat
the
content,
there
is
no
heat
generated
on
the
stove
itself.
This
reduces
the
probability
of
direct
burns
or
accidentally
contacting
the
range
which
significantly
decreases
the
burn
injuries
compared
to
gas
stoves
as
the
hazard
is
essentially
eliminated
by
the
induction
technology.
Furthermore
the
emissions
from
gas
stoves
can
have
adverse
respiratory
effects
under
certain
conditions.
On
the
other
hand,
induction
stovetops
may
have
negative
effects
to
people
with
artificial
pacemakers.
Although,
electromagnetic
interference
is
a
concern
to
a
small
population,
the
social
aspect
of
equal
employment
must
be
considered.
UBC
can
achieve
a
higher
standard
of
safety
for
their
employees
with
the
implementation
of
induction
stovetops
for
the
SUB
catering
services.
4.4 OPERATING CONDITION
Although operating quality and operational health goes hand in hand, the conditions that the
cook experiences throughout the work shift is a social application that needs to be investigated.
This social aspect considers more than the physical conditions but also the physiological
responses with working in a kitchen using gas and induction stoves. The environment of the
Page
43
food
service
industry
is
considers
to
the
difficult
due
to
long
irregular
working
hours
and
standing
in
high
temperature
conditions.
A
comprehensive
study
was
conducted
by
Dr.Matsuauki
and
his
team
of
medical
experts
to
examine
the
stress
caused
by
induction
and
gas
stoves.
A
controlled
experiment
was
developed
featuring
a
mock
kitchen
and
12
individuals
using
an
induction
stove
and
a
gas
stove.
Measurement
devices
were
recorded
to
analyze
the
physiological
responses.
Body
temperatures,
body
weight,
heart
rate,
oxygen
uptake,
blood
pressure,
posture,
and
physical
activities
were
monitored
for
the
two
stove
scenarios
(Matsuauki
et
al:
2008,
361).
Thermal
stress
is
a
crucial
issue
in
a
kitchen
environment
as
it
could
lead
to
increased
heart
rate
causing
high
stress.
The
radiant
heat
index
from
the
gas
stove
was
10
times
higher
that
the
induction
stove
and
over
time
increased
significantly.
The
physiological
response
to
the
gas
stove
included
higher
heart
rate,
blood
pressure,
oxygen
uptake,
skin
temperature.
Furthermore,
subjects
responded
to
heat
stress
significantly
more
to
gas
stoves
by
using
avoidance
postures
and
actions,
such
as
turning
their
body
and
face
away
(Matsuauki
et
al:
2008,
367).
Induction
stoves
yielded
better
results
in
terms
of
physiological
responses
which
lead
to
a
better
work
environment.
Cooking
technique
is
another
social
aspect
that
affects
the
effectiveness
of
implementing
a
new
type
of
stovetop
in
an
industrial
setting.
The
induction
stovetop
technology
utilizes
high-‐
frequency
electromagnetic
waves
to
transfer
energy
from
the
stove
to
the
pot
material.
This
requires
direct
contact
of
the
cooking
pot
to
the
stove
in
order
to
produce
heat.
The
use
of
a
wok
is
common
in
the
food
service
industry
and
current
induction
stovetops
are
not
adequate
due
to
the
required
contact
of
the
pot
to
the
element.
Although,
a
United
States
patent
for
a
specialized
induction
wok
has
been
designed,
the
complexity
of
a
dual-‐plate
bowl
is
unfeasible
and
is
currently
unavailable
in
the
market
(Loong-‐Chiang:
1992).
The
maintenance
of
the
kitchen
is
important
in
an
industrial
environment
and
lifetime
of
the
stovetops
needs
to
be
considered.
In
order
to
examine
the
general
maintenance
of
both
gas
and
induction,
the
typical
patents
for
both
technologies
are
examined.
The
“Wireless
Transmissions
of
Temperature”
patent
discussed
earlier
and
the
“Gas
Cooktop
Appliance”
patents
are
analyzed
(Kitabayashi:
2000).
Since
gas
stovetops
are
more
developed
and
dominant
in
the
market,
maintenance
troubleshooting
and
procedures
are
more
mature
than
induction
stovetops.
Cleaning
is
a
crucial
factor
for
health
and
safety
in
the
food
service
industry
and
having
an
easy
to
clean
system
is
important.
According
to
the
patents
of
the
two
technologies,
the
induction
stove
patent
has
a
smooth
surface
counter
while
the
gas
stovetop
uses
heating
burner
element
to
contact
the
pot
shown
in
the
figure
below.
Due
to
the
smooth
surface
of
the
induction
Page
44
stove,
cleaning
is
more
efficient
and
the
chance
of
food
scarp
accumulation
is
unlikely
than
the
gas
stovetop.
Figure 28 : A common grill gas stovetop (left) and a typical flat induction stovetop (right).
Page
45
5.0 CONCLUSION
In
using
the
triple
bottom
line
analysis
method,
our
team
was
able
to
conduct
sufficient
research
to
come
to
a
recommendation
in
stovetop
technology
for
the
food
service
needs
of
the
new
Student
Union
Building.
By
breaking
down
each
major
area
of
consideration
we
were
able
to
see
which
technology
was
favourable
in
each
branch
of
the
analysis.
While
it
was
concluded
through
extensive
economic
modelling
that
natural
gas
ranges
would
be
the
cheaper
technology,
the
environmental
analysis
and
social
analysis
both
leaned
towards
induction
stovetop
technology
as
the
more
favourable
option.
Implementation
of
Induction
technology
would
yield
lower
long
term
emissions
when
compared
to
gas
range
technology,
as
well
as
offer
significant
safety
and
practicality
benefits
to
cooks.
Based
on
our
research
it
was
concluded
that
the
increased
costs
associated
with
induction
stovetops
would
be
justified
by
the
environmental
and
social
benefits
offered
by
the
technology.
Page
46
6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, A., & Palin, M. (1985). An Investigation into the Efficiency of Induction if Induction Cooking
and a Comparison of its Performance with other Cooking Methods: Department of Hotel Catering
and Institutional Management
Bizzo, W., & Calan, B. (2004). Safety issues for clean liquid and gaseous fuels for cooking in the scope
of sustainable development. Energy for Sustainable Development, 3, 60-67.
Brauer, M., & Kennedy, S., (1996). Gas stoves and respiratory health. Lancet. 347. 412-415.
Cesio, C., & Young, R. (1996). FTSC Report 5011.95.30 : Garland 2.5kW Induction Range Top. San
Francisco: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Engineering Toolbox, The (2010) .Natural Gas Consumption. Retrieved January 28, 2011 from
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/natural-gas-consumption-d_172.html
Goedkoop, M., Effting, S., & Collignon, M. (2000). The Eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for
Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Amersfoort: PRé Consultants B.V.
Harnden, J. (1973). Induction Cooking Appliance including Wireless Transmission of Temperature Data.
United States Patent. 3742179.
Irnich, W., & Bernstein A. (2006). Do induction cooktops interfere with cardiac pacemakers?. European
Society of Cardiology, 8, 377-384.
Jungbluth, N. (1997). Life Cycle Assessment for Stoves and Ovens. Zurich: Chair of Environmental
Natural Sciences and Social Science Interface.
Kitabayashi, J. (2000). Gas Cooktop. United States Patent. 421694.
Loong-Chiang, H. (1992). Electric Wok. United States Patent. 3129314.
Powell, E., & Tanz R. (1993). Comparison of Childhood Burns Associated With Use of Microwave
Ovens and Convectional Stoves. Paediatrics. 91, 344-349.
Schultheiss, S. (2008). The Power of Induction. Money.3. 01494953.
Manitoba Hydro. (2010) Utility Rate Comparisons. Retrieved January 16, 2011, from
Page
47
http://www.hydro.mb.ca/regulatory_affairs/energy_rates/electricity/utility_rate_comp.shtml
Matsuzuki, H., Ayabe, M,. Haruyama, A., Seo, A., Katamoto, S., Ito, A., & Muto, T. (2008). Effects of
Heating Appliances with Different Efficiencies on Associations among Work Environments,
Physiological Responses, and Subjective Evaluation of Workload. Industrial Health. 46, 360-368.
New Sub Project (2010) 75% Schematic Design Report
Northwest Power and Conservation Council.(2010) Sixth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power
Plan Appendix D. Retrived February 2, 2011, from
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/6/final/SixthPowerPlan.pdf
Sorensen, G., & Zabrowski, D. (2008). FSTC Report 5011.08.02 : Diva 10-CT Induction Cooktop
Performance Test. San Francisco: Food Service Technology Center.
TMX. (2010) NGX Alberta Market Price. Retrieved February 2, 2010, from
http://www.ngx.com/adepenergysum.html
US Energy Information Administration (2010) Annual Energy Outlook 2010: With Projections to 2035
Yap, D., Chester, J., Young, R., & Knapp, S. (1998). FSTC Report 5011.98.64 : Montague Model V136-5
Heavy Duty 30,000 Btu/h Open Top Gas Range. San Francisco: Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
Page
48
APPENDIX:
CODE
FROM
ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
All code is run natively on Mathematica 8
Inflation Modeling
low
=
325;
high
=
623;
Manipulate[
Plot[{pgas/((1
+
igas)^x),
pind/((1
+
iind)^x)},
{x,
0,
25}],
{pgas,
{low,
high}},
{pind,
{851,
1727}},
{iind,
-‐0.02,
0.1},
{igas,
-‐0.02,
0.1}]
Manipulate[
Plot[{Piecewise[{{pgas,
x
<
19},
{pgas
+
(pgas*((1
+
igas)^19)),
x
>=
19}}],
Piecewise[{{pind,
x
<
16},
{pind
+
(pind*((1
+
iind)^16)),
x
>=
16}}]},
{x,
0,
25},
PlotRange
-‐>
{0,
3000}],
{pgas,
{325,
480,
635}},
{pind,
{850,
1289,
1727}},
{iind,
{0.02,
0,
-‐0.05,
-‐
0.1}},
{igas,
{0.02,
0,
-‐0.02}}]
Dynamic Modeling of Fi and Fg
Manipulate[
0.00234692*capacity*hours,
{capacity,
0,
100},
{hours,
{7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12}}]
Manipulate[
0.015324329*capacity*hours,
{capacity,
0,
100},
{hours,
{7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12}}]
Page
49
Master
Induction
Model:
a1
=
0.1233;
a2
=
-‐0.0353;
a3
=
0.0691;
a4
=
0.1603;
a5
=
-‐0.0459;
a6
=
0.0898;
b1
=
-‐496;
b2
=
146.1;
b3
=
-‐274.64;
b4
=
-‐644.8;
b5
=
189.3;
b6
=
-‐357.05;
c1
=
49874;
c2
=
-‐150964;
c3
=
273062;
c4
=
64898;
c5
=
196262;
c6
=
354998;
Manipulate[
Plot[Piecewise[{{(((a*(X^2))
+
(b*X)
+
(c))*0.00234692*capacity*hours*days)
+
pind,
X
<
2030},
{pind
+
(pind*((1
+
iind)^19))
+
(((a*(X^2))
+
(b*X)
+
(c))*0.00234692*
capacity*hours*days),
X
>=
2030}}],
{X,
2010,
2035}],{iind,
0.02,
-‐0.1},
{a,
{a1,
a2,
a3,
a4,
a5,
a6}},
{b,
{b1,
b2,
b3,
b4,
b5,
b6}},
{c,
{c1,
c2,
c3,
c4,
c5,
c6}},
{capacity,
0,
1},
{hours,
{7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12}},
{days,
0,
365},
{pind,
{53.1875,
80.56,
107.93}}]
Page
50
Master
Gas
Modeling:
a1
=
-‐0.0000749175760025817;
a2
=
-‐0.000175956865979117;
b1
=
0.606552794;
b2
=
1.42335468071715;
c1
=
-‐1841.54427;
c2
=
-‐4317.67271161274;
d1
=
2484909.731;
d2
=
5821061.58089501;
e1
=
-‐1257383531;
e2
=
-‐2942959936.86264;
Manipulate[
Plot[Piecewise[{{(((a*(X^4))
+
(b*(X^3))
+
(c*(X^2))
+
(d*X)
+
(e))*0.015325*
capacity*hours*days)
+
pgas,
X
<
2030},
{pgas
+
(pgas*((1
+
igas)^19))
+
(((a*(X^4))
+
(b*(X^3))
+
(c*(X^2))
+
(d*
X)
+
(e))*0.015325*capacity*hours*days),
X
>=
2030}}],
{X,
2010,
2035}],
{igas,
0.02,
-‐0.1},
{a,
{a1,
a2}},
{b,
{b1,
b2}},
{c,
{c1,
c2}},
{d,
{d1,
d2}},
{e,
{e1,
e2}},
{capacity,
0,
1},
{hours,
{7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12}},
{days,
0,
365},
{pgas,
{17.15,
25.3,
33.45}}]
Page
51
You might also like
- An Investigation Into Implementing Induction Stovetops at The UBC Student Union BuildingNo ratings yetAn Investigation Into Implementing Induction Stovetops at The UBC Student Union Building22 pages
- Presentation2 Power Point/ Improve Cooking StoveNo ratings yetPresentation2 Power Point/ Improve Cooking Stove67 pages
- Research Methods - Chapter 1 (Version 2)No ratings yetResearch Methods - Chapter 1 (Version 2)7 pages
- Improved Stove Manual for PractitionersNo ratings yetImproved Stove Manual for Practitioners234 pages
- Comparing Energy Consumption and Costs From Cooking Across The MECS ProgrammeNo ratings yetComparing Energy Consumption and Costs From Cooking Across The MECS Programme18 pages
- Rocket Stoves Paving Way To Green Technology: Arun, Eee Iiird Year, Giridhar, Eee Iiird Year, Jaya Engineering CollegeNo ratings yetRocket Stoves Paving Way To Green Technology: Arun, Eee Iiird Year, Giridhar, Eee Iiird Year, Jaya Engineering College5 pages
- Development of An Enhanced Biomass Gasifier Charcoal StoveNo ratings yetDevelopment of An Enhanced Biomass Gasifier Charcoal Stove9 pages
- Nordica - A Laboratory Comparison of The Global Warming Impact of Five Major Types of Biomass Cooking Stoves ESD 2008No ratings yetNordica - A Laboratory Comparison of The Global Warming Impact of Five Major Types of Biomass Cooking Stoves ESD 200810 pages
- Improved Wood Waste and Charcoal Burning StovesNo ratings yetImproved Wood Waste and Charcoal Burning Stoves235 pages
- Design Principles For Wood Burning Cook Stoves100% (4)Design Principles For Wood Burning Cook Stoves40 pages
- Design Principles For Wood Burning Cook Stoves100% (1)Design Principles For Wood Burning Cook Stoves40 pages
- Chapter 7 Fooservice Facilties Engineering and ArchitectureNo ratings yetChapter 7 Fooservice Facilties Engineering and Architecture37 pages
- Clean Burning Biomass Cookstoves 2021 Edition Part-1No ratings yetClean Burning Biomass Cookstoves 2021 Edition Part-1118 pages
- Design and Performance Evaluation of SupplementalNo ratings yetDesign and Performance Evaluation of Supplemental12 pages
- Household Technologies 2013 Puzzolo ReportNo ratings yetHousehold Technologies 2013 Puzzolo Report302 pages
- Introducing Physical Geography 6th Edition Alan H. Strahler Ebook Multi Format Option100% (5)Introducing Physical Geography 6th Edition Alan H. Strahler Ebook Multi Format Option107 pages
- E7015 Electrode for High Strength WeldingNo ratings yetE7015 Electrode for High Strength Welding1 page
- Optimization of EDM Process For Multiple Performance Characteristics Using Taguchi Method and Grey Relational AnalysisNo ratings yetOptimization of EDM Process For Multiple Performance Characteristics Using Taguchi Method and Grey Relational Analysis8 pages
- Bainite Transformation in Medium Carbon SteelNo ratings yetBainite Transformation in Medium Carbon Steel11 pages
- Canguilhem, Georges - The Decline of The Idea of ProgressNo ratings yetCanguilhem, Georges - The Decline of The Idea of Progress24 pages
- Resume - Cindy Breen - Psychology, Social Services & Crisis Care Professional100% (1)Resume - Cindy Breen - Psychology, Social Services & Crisis Care Professional3 pages
- Principles of Supply Chain Management 2nd Editoin by Richard E. Crandall Instant DownloadNo ratings yetPrinciples of Supply Chain Management 2nd Editoin by Richard E. Crandall Instant Download38 pages
- Certificate - ARK-CVM08623100211 - Tanasa 1No ratings yetCertificate - ARK-CVM08623100211 - Tanasa 14 pages
- National Professional Standards For Teachers Sep 2012No ratings yetNational Professional Standards For Teachers Sep 201228 pages
