CARBON MEASUREMENT


support that. Re-educating manufacturers about inputting the right data, where she has seen many errors, is another priority. More urgent, however, is to keep embodied carbon in perspective. Mudie conducted the


world’s first full life cycle carbon analysis as part of her PhD in the context of a large review of the carbon situation in commercial foodservice. She believes operational carbon should be the top priority. “I found that embodied


carbon was only 10% of the overall carbon footprint,” she explains. “So, manufacturers should spend money on operational carbon. Tat is the bit their customers care about. As the grid decarbonizes, operational carbon will become a smaller proportion and embodied carbon will become larger. You have to look at embodied carbon in a broader context, otherwise you could make the situation much worse.” Sustainability discussions


focused on operational carbon for many years, and some see the emergence of embodied carbon as a distraction from more important issues. Ultimately, the right balance must be struck. Te industry must, after all, look at the big picture of total carbon. Te challenge in measuring


embodied carbon is complexity and the lack of a standardized approach. Te problem with measuring operational carbon is that values provided for a machine’s energy consumption, for example, are measured in laboratory conditions, not in real life applications.


46


“As the grid decarbonizes, operational carbon will become a


smaller proportion and embodied carbon will become larger”


“It is like the quoted


miles per gallon for a car’s fuel efficiency – it is meaningless because that is tested in a specific set of circumstances and performance under test conditions is not replicated in real life,” says David Bentley, specification director for Meiko UK. “Both operational and embodied carbon are tricky. Embodied carbon should be simple, as components have the same information each time and you just need to tick boxes, but how far back down the manufacturing chain do you go?” “Operational carbon is


harder,” he adds. “At what level do you test the equipment? Combi ovens with multiple programs and which can be used in many different ways become complicated. Going forward we need a more standardized carbon measurement process. A standardized format will emerge, but for operational carbon we might need a multi- pronged approach, taking in different usage scenarios.”


All parts of industry will need to continue to navigate the way ahead on carbon


TOWARDS A CLEAR VIEW OF CARBON


It is important that the industry does not over-emphasize embodied carbon at the expense of operational emissions, but it cannot neglect it either. “Operational carbon is about 70% of the problem,” says Hunter. “Te difference is that embodied carbon relies on manufacturers, whereas operational carbon is an everybody problem. “We don’t know how


much energy equipment uses in a specific installation. Realistically, we need a joined- up approach across industry with data from hospitals, pubs, restaurants, and schools, pooled and shared.” With effort and dedication,


however, manufacturers can make great strides. Alto-Shaam, for example, has spent four years looking to get ahead of the embodied carbon issue, and has gone back through 20 years of product development to understand its portfolio. As vice president of international sales Simon Parke-Davis explains, it has gained a competitive advantage by doing so.


“Te customer may understand operational carbon better, but every journey begins with embodied carbon,” he says. “Is it built with good materials? Is it reliable? How long will it last? And then what does it cost to run? Te first question should be about embodied carbon. Te second question should be about operational carbon, though they should receive equal attention.” “A clear global standard


would be a brilliant next step but I don’t see that happening first,” he adds. Te Palace Framework is


a significant step forward, but many more steps must follow. “It was an initial call to arms,”


says Slater. “It recognized that TM65 does not go far enough, has highlighted its pitfalls, and has shown the industry has a long way to go to get the information it needs, but it didn’t recommend the next step.” “Te next five years will be


transformative and we will get there,” says Hunter. “People are talking about embodied carbon and whole-life carbon, so the debate is moving. We need specific rules for each type of equipment and that could be achieved globally.” Tere are clearly


disagreements in terms of priority, and when it comes to common standards the foodservice sector is still finding its way, but the big goal of getting manufacturers, consultants and clients to talk about everything that contributes to the carbon footprint has been achieved. Meaningful change has already happened, and there is plenty more to come.


FOR MORE GO TO FCSI.ORG


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72