technology review of commercial food service …

0 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW OF COMMERCIAL

FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT

o

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for:

Natural Resources Canada Energy Efficiency Branch

Residential Regulatory and Information Programs Attention: Mr. Jim Clark

& Ontario Ministry of Environment & Energy

Attention: Mr. Dennis Conway &

Consumers Gas Company Attention: Mr. Boris Mladjen

Prepared by:

Shahrzad Rahbar, PhD & Senka Krsikapa of CGRI and

Don Fisher, Judy Nickel, Scot Ardley & David Zabrowski of Fisher Consultants

Reviewed and approved by Roger F. Barker

Confidential

This report is the copyright of the Canadian Gas Research Institute and the property of those investing in this project. This report contains Confidential and Proprietary Information and as such, copying, quotation, distribution or any use other than that agreed by CGRI and those investing in this project is strictly prohibited without the permission of the investors.

P Canadian Gas Research Institute Institut Canadien des Recherches Gazieres

55 Scarsdale Road, Toronto, Ontario M3B 2R3 Telephone: (416) 447 - 6661 Fax: (416) 447 - 6757

May 1996

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared by the Canadian Gas Research Institute (CGRI) as an account of work contracted by Natural Resources Canada, Consumers Gas and Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy.. Neither CGRI nor any of the sponsors assumes any liability with respect to the use or misuse of, or for damages resulting from the subsequent use or misuse of any information or technology contained in this report, or makes any warranty that the use of any information, appliance test method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights. Reference to appliance manufacturers, trade names, trade associations or specific commercial products in this report does not represent or constitute an endorsement, recommendation, or favouring by any of the project sponsors or CGRI of the specific appliance manufacturer, trade association or commercial product.

Technolog> Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume. I, Page.i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

FUNDING

Funding support for this project was provided by:

Natural Resources Canada,

Consumers Gas Company Ltd.

and

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy

Appreciation is extended to the above organizations for their contribution, cooperation and financial support.

COOPERATION

The success of this technology review is attributed to the cooperation of the following organizations and individuals:

Mr. Don Copithorn of Consumers Gas Company Ltd.

Mr. Nils Larsson, MRAIC of Natural Resources Canada, C-2000 Program

Major Linda Knox of Department of National Defense, Directorate of Food Services

Technical contributions from the above are gratefully acknowledged.

Technolog\ Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I, Page ii

0 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Comparison of food service outlet ratios with population ratios 10

Table 3.1 Benchmark (Full-load) cooking-energy efficiency summary 16

Table 3.2 Typical duty cycles for commercial cooking equipment 18

Table 3.3 Average energy consumption and gas/electric energy ratios for commercial cooking equipment 20

Table 4.1 Non-institutional food service sector in

Canada, 1994 22

Table 4,2 Institutional food service sector in Canada, 1994 23

Table 4.3 Commercial food service sector in Canada, 1994 24

Table 4.4 Appliance inventories assumed for the non-institutional sector 25

Table 4.5 Appliance inventories assumed for the institutional sector 26

Table 4.6 Incidence of gas and electric energy source

among commercial cooking equipment 28

Table 4.7 Fryer energy consumption in Canada 31

Table 4.8 Oven energy consumption in Canada 32

Table 4.9 Other appliance energy consumption in Canada 33

Table 4.10 Estimated annual food service energy consumption per province and territory in Canada, 1994 39

0 Technology Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume 1, Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Energy Distribution in the US among non HV AC and lighting technologies in the commercial sector 2

Figure 2.1 Operating expense ratios for the commercial

food service sector 5

Figure 2.2 Profile of Canadian food service operators 6

Figure 2.3 Distribution of food service sales 8

Figure 2.4 Distribution of food service outlets by menu type 8

Figure 2.5 1990-1994 Growth trends in the commercial food service sector in Canada 10

Figure 2.6 Simplified distribution of commercial food service

outlets 10

Figure 2.7 Typical energy consumption in food service outlets 11

Figure 4.1 Total population of commercial cooking appliances

Canada, 1994 27

Figure 4.2 Incidence of gas and electric energy source 29

Figure 4.3 Fryer consumption, Canada, 1994 31

Figure 4.4 Oven consumption, Canada, 1994 32

Figure 4.5 Other appliance consumption, Canada 1994 33

Figure 4.6 Energy consumption of commercial cooking appliances in Canada 35

Figure 4.7 Population of commercial cooking appliances in Canada, 1994 35

Figure 4.8 Energy consumption by the institutional and non-institutional food service sector in Canada 37

Figure 4.9 Estimated food service energy consumption per province and territory, 1994 39

Figure 5.1 Prediction of energy consumption trends 42

Technologv Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I, Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Disclaimer \ Acknowledgment ii List of Tables iii List of Figures iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objective 2 1.3 Scope Of Work 2 1.4 Approach 3 1.5 Format and Structure of Report 4

2. COMMERCIAL FOOD SERVICE MARKET OVERVIEW 5

2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Market Characteristics 6

2.2.1 Dynamic and Volatile 6 2.2.2 Dominated by Independents, Driven by Chains 6 2.2.3 Largely Supplied by Single Cooking Equipment

Manufacturer 7 2.3 Classification of Commercial Food Service Sector 7

2.3.1 Food Service Classification Adopted in This Study 8 2.4 Commercial Food Service Data Breakdown by Province 9 2.5 Energy Distribution in the Commercial Food Service Sector 11

3. OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMERCIAL COOKING EQUIPMENT 12 3.1 Introduction 12 3.2 Status of Performance Regulation 13 3.3 Notes on Performance Data Used 14 3.4 Efficiency of Commercial Cooking Equipment 15 3.5 Energy Consumption of Commercial Cooking Equipment 17

4. ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF THE COMMERCIAL FOOD SERVICE SECTOR 21

4.1 Overview of Methodology 2) 4.2 Total Population of Food Service Establishments in Canada 22

4.3 The Total Population of Cooking Equipment in Canada 24 4.4 Estimate for Incidence of Gas and Electric Energy Source

Among Cooking Appliances in Canada 28 4.5 Baseline Energy Consumption Estimates for the Commercial

Food Service Sector in Canada 30

Technology Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I, Page v

0

0

4.6 Energy Consumption and Population of Natural Gas Fired Commercial Cooking Equipment 35

4.7 Energy Consumption within the Institutional and Non-Institutional Food Service Sector 37

4.8 Cooking Energy Consumption by Province and Territory Across Canada 38

5. ENERGY CONSERVATION POTENTIAL AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 41 5.1 Introduction 41 5.2 Future Consumption Predictions 41 5.3 Energy Conservation Potential 42 5.4 Drivers for Energy Conservation 44 5.5 Gas Appliance Research and Development Opportunities 45

5.5.1 R&D Opportunities for Improving Existing Appliances 46 5.5.2 New Appliance Development Opportunities 48

6. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 50 6.1 Conclusions 50

6.2 Recommendations 51

REFERENCES 52

BIBLIOGRAPHY 54

Technology Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I. Page vi

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

The commercial food service sector is among the top ten energy users in Canada. Typical energy consumption of restaurant operations has been reported at 160 kWh/ft2 (550 kBtu/ft2) compared with 30 kWh/ft2 (100 kBtu/ft2) for other commercial sub-sectors.

The objective of the present study was to obtain market information on the food service sector in Canada broken down by province and territory, conduct a detailed review of commercial cooking technologies (focus on gas fired appliances but include electric), and finally to integrate the results of the market study with the technology review to establish energy consumption and energy saving potential in this sector.

The study focused on eight categories of commercial cooking equipment: fryers, griddles, broilers, ranges, ovens, tilting skillets, steam kettles and steamers. This equipment is found in most institutional and non-institutional food service establishments.

In 1994 the commercial food service industry in Canada was worth $30 billion, with 74.5% generated by the non-institutional sector and 25.5% generated by the institutional sector. Market analysis, using 1994 data, identified 89,500 commercial food service outlets in Canada with the total population of commercial cooking equipment for the eight appliance categories amounting to around 938,500 units.

The total energy consumption of the eight commercial cooking appliance categories considered in the present study was estimated at 76,140.37 GBtu or 80,332.7 TJ in Canada in 1994, with 45% consumed by the non-institutional sector and 55% consumed by the institutional sector. Food service energy consumption in Canadian provinces and territories followed the population ratio in general. The major consumers were Ontario (39.3%) and Quebec (23.7%), followed by British Columbia (13.7%), Alberta (9.6%), Manitoba (3.5%), Saskatchewan (3.2%), Nova Scotia (2.9%), New Brunswick (2.1%), Newfoundland (1.4%), Prince Edward Islands (0.5%), Northwest Territories (0.1%) and Yukon (0.1%).

Gas appliances accounted for 63% of the total commercial cooking appliance inventory and consumed 83% of the total commercial energy utilized by cooking appliances. Gas fired ranges, broilers and fryers respectively accounted for 27%, 16%, and 15% of the total energy consumed by commercial cooking appliances. The lower cost of natural gas in comparison

Technology Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I, Page vii

to electricity across Canada which results in lower comparative energy costs for food service operators as well as an operational preference for natural gas has lead to a dominant market share for gas fired appliances within the commercial cooking sector. Efficiencies for cooking appliances are measured using ASTM performance test methods. Seven ASTM performance test methods have been published, another nine are in the process of adoption and a further six are under development. Cooking energy efficiencies measured by the ASTM procedures are comparable to steady state efficiency measurements for other appliances, no provision exists for estimating the equivalent of annual fuel utilization efficiency.

Cooking energy efficiencies for the gas fired commercial cooking equipment ranged from 10% to 40% for standard efficiency equipment and 35% to 60% for the current stock of high efficiency appliances. Electric fired appliances had cooking energy efficiencies ranging from 35% for standard efficiency appliances to 95% for high efficiency appliances. Real in-kitchen utilization efficiencies for commercial cooking equipment are much lower than cooking energy efficiencies. The main reasons are the very high idle times (typically 80%) for cooking appliances and their poor performance under light load cooking conditions. In-kitchen utilization efficiencies for commercial cooking equipment can be as low as 5-10% for gas fired appliances and 20-30% for electric appliances. The market is in general first cost driven and dominated by low efficiency appliances.

The commercial food service sector in Canada had an average annual growth of 4.7% in the period 1985-1994. Assuming a similar average growth rate, if no action is taken, energy consumption of commercial cooking equipment can increase by 66% by the year 2004 to over 120,000 TJ. A planned annual growth in the market penetration of higher efficiency equipment can slow down or stabilize the energy consumption of cooking appliances over the next decade.

Availability of low cost medium to high efficiency equipment with productivity enhancements to give a short pay back period is a prerequisite for market penetration of high efficiency appliances. The research and development focus needs to be on improving part-load performance of gas cooking equipment and reducing the cost premium associated with producing more efficient equipment. No fundamental technical barriers were identified for the development of high efficiency commercial cooking equipment.

Technology Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I, Page viii

o

0

There is a good opportunity to impact the introduction of higher efficiency commercial cooking appliances into the institutional sector which is in the process of major transformation. In the non-institutional sector working with the large food service chains and the one manufacturer which dominates the Canadian cooking equipment market can impact a large market penetration of the commercial cooking equipment. Non-technical factors such as industry / public awareness and the regulatory environment will have a major impact on increasing the market penetration of higher efficiency products within the commercial cooking sector. Targeted training courses and workshops aimed at food service operators, commercial kitchen designers, equipment suppliers and manufacturers as well as culinary schools will raise industry awareness and promote energy conservation measures. A testing program to measure cooking energy efficiency per ASTM performance standards will provide a data base on energy performance of commercial cooking equipment. This performance data base is essential in driving energy conservation activity, both voluntary industry operated initiatives and regulatory measures.

Technolog> Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I, Page ix

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND Minimum energy efficiency regulations in Canada date back to the Ontario Energy Efficiency Act of 1988 which was followed by provincial regulations in British Columbia (1990), Quebec (1991) and Nova Scotia (1991). In 1992 the Federal Energy Efficiency Act was enacted by Parliament. The legislation authorises the creation of federal regulations specifying minimum efficiency standards for energy-using products. The objective of the equipment regulatory program is to reduce carbon dioxide (C02) and other atmospheric emissions through the establishment of minimum energy efficiency standards for energy-using products.

Energy efficiency is a good proxy for C02 emissions. Any incremental increase in efficiency translates to a corresponding decrease in C02 emissions. However there is no correlation between equipment energy efficiency and emissions of either carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) or oxides of sulphur (SOx). Energy efficiency can not be used as a proxy for NOx, SOx or CO emissions. The actions taken by the Federal and Provincial governments to increase the efficiency of energy using products must make sense from both an economical and technological viewpoint. Since energy efficient products may cost more to manufacture, the energy saved through the production and sale of these products must offset the cost involved in undertaking the investment. The minimum efficiency standard levels set by regulation must be technically attainable. The determination of appropriate minimum efficiency standards will require that the Federal and Provincial regulatory bodies obtain technical and market information for the products that will be regulated.

The equipment currently identified for regulation under the Federal Act includes major residential appliances. Additional consumer products which consume significant amounts of energy and some commercial products are also potential candidates for regulation.

Technology Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I, Page 1

Other

Refrigeration

Water Heating

Cooking

Figure 1.1 - Energy distribution in the USA among non-HVAC and lighting technologies in the commercial sector [1]

In the commercial sector, lighting, heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) end-uses have been emphasised in energy conservation programs, since these end -uses account for the highest consumption of energy in this sector. Lighting and HVAC together account for 78% of the commercial sector energy use. Figure 1.1 shows US data[1] on energy distribution among non-HVAC and lighting technologies with

Office Equipment significant energy use in commercial buildings. The remaining end-uses are further subdivided into logical equipment types. In case of refrigeration, office equipment, vending machines, water coolers, and electronics, electricity is the only fuel type. For cooking, water heating, and laundry more than one fuel type applies.

A recent Canadian study by Centre de recherche industrielle du Quebec (CRIQ) titled Ranking Of Commercial And Industrial Energy Using Equipment ' ] also places the commercial food service within the top ten energy users in Canada.

The present study focuses on energy used by commercial food services equipment, the most intensive energy users in the commercial building sector and the second largest non-HVAC and lighting end-use with both gas and electric equipment. Typical energy consumption for restaurant operations has been reported at 160 kWh/ft2 (550 kBtu/ft2) compared with 30 kWh/ft2 (100 kBtu/ft2)[3] for other commercial subsectors (offices, retail, institutional).

1.2 OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study is to provide technical and market information on gas fired equipment used in the commercial food service sector in Canada and in each province or territory. The focus of this study is to provide the information necessary to assess the energy consumption of the commercial cooking sector, key trends, and potential energy savings in this sector.

1.3 SCOPE O F WORK

This study is focused on commercial cooking equipment found in institutional and non-institutional food service establishments.


o The cooking end-use is rather diverse in equipment types. We identified eight major types of cooking equipment and analysed them in detail. In each case these were further subdivided by gas and electric fuel. Categories of appliances selected for detailed market and technology review in this study include:

•open deep fat •kettle ■pressure ■flat bottom:

-chicken / fish / donut

4 Ranges . ■open burner element ■hot top •oriental (wok)

6 Tilting skillets •Tilting skillets/Braising Pans

0

2 Griddles/grills •single sided:

-flat -grooved

•double sided

5 Ovens ■''■ ■''■ ■' ■;MJS. '.;'.yss^ms.".. ■ •standard ■convection

-full size/ half size /deck •deck

7 Steam kettles

3. Broilers •under fired •overtired

-upright -salamanders -cheesemelter

•conveyor

: : : ■ : ' - . '

5 Ovens continued1

■combination oven / steamers •rotisserie •conveyor

8 Compartment steamers

•pressurized -high/low/variable

•pressureless -convection/broiler

Toasters, melters, holding appliances, and microwave ovens, though substantial in number of units, are relatively less significant from an energy use point of view and were therefore not included.

1.4 APPROACH

The project is composed of three distinct activities:

1. Obtaining market information on the food service sector in Canada, broken down for each province and territory. The expected market information is to result in an appliance inventory for the eight categories of appliances listed in the scope of work section 1.3 throughout Canada. A historic perspective is provided to aid future predictions;

2. Conducting a comprehensive review of the gas-fired technologies and efficiencies for the eight appliance categories. An overview of the electric-fired technologies is also provided together with comparisons with gas-fired equipment; and


3. Integrating the results of the marketing study with the technology review to establish energy consumption of each appliance category and identify potential energy savings.

It should be noted that the present study is superior to earlier studies in both treatment of market and technology data. Earlier studies '4 ' ' used either meal receipts to estimate both the market size and energy consumed by the commercial food service sector or the rating plate to provide additional confirmation on energy consumed.

For the market size, the present study uses actual statistics on number of food service establishments across Canada. Detailed kitchen inventories for different types of food service facility are then assumed to result in number of appliances. On the technical characterisation of the appliance categories, the present study is far more detailed in the technology review and is the first study to distinguish between average energy consumption and rated input, using the extensive experience of the PG&E food service laboratory^61. The technology review part of this study provides detailed description of existing technologies, evaluation of emerging technologies, research activities and detailed technical data for each appliance category, for both gas and electric fired equipment

1.5 FORMAT AND STRUCTURE OF REPORT

This study is presented in two volumes. Volume I reports on the demographic market study and energy conservation potential in Canada, presenting an overview of the commercial food service market in Canada, discussing the market data, presenting an overview of the technology information for the selected appliance categories, discussing the methodology adopted for data analysis, discussing the energy impacts, examining the energy saving potential of cooking appliances in the commercial food service sector together with conclusions and recommendations.

Volume II provides a more in-depth technology review of commercial cooking equipment for each appliance category. It was decided to present the in-depth appliance technology review as a separate volume, since it may prove useful as a stand alone document for training / updating technical utility personnel on the commercial food service sector.

Technolog\ Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume 1, Page 4

2. COMMERCIAL FOOD SERVICE MARKET OVERVIEW

General & Admin 3.1%

Depreciation 3.L

Other Occupancy

Marketing 4.6 %

Royalties 1.4% Rent /Lease

6.6%

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Canada's food service industry is a prominent sector of the national economy. According to the Canadian Restaurant and Food service Association (CRFA), in 1994 the commercial food service sector accounted for 3.7 % of the gross domestic product and employed 667,000 people (5.3% of the total employment)^. The commercial food service sector represents Canada's largest private sector employer. We estimate the commercial food service industry was worth close to $30 billion in 1994 (see section 4.3 for detail). An analysis of CRFA data for the past decade suggests, we can expect an average annual growth of around 4% for this sector.

The commercial food service industry is 90% more labour intensive than the average industry in Canada ^ l Operating expense ratios for food service establishments as estimated by the CRFA are presented in Figure 2.1. It may be seen that the major operating expenses for an average food service establishment are by a large margin food & beverages and payroll. Energy costs fall

vvithin the category of "other operating expenses".

It may be noted that the net profit shown in Figure 2.1 is an average figure including owner operated restaurants with lower (or no) net profits and the chains with profits above or around 20%. Gas industry estimates18' put the total energy share of food service establishments at around 4% of their costs.

Though not significant, it is important to note that the energy costs are directly comparable in magnitude to the profit.

Net Profit Before Tax

0%

Payroll 29.2 %

her Operating Expenses 7.9%

Food & Beverages 34.9%

VT Figure 2.1 - Operating expense ratios for the commercial food service sector.


2.2 MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

The commercial food service market place in Canada has a number of specific characteristics which need to be analyzed and understood in order to get a clear picture of the dynamcs of this market sector, specifically when gauging its responsiveness to energy conservation measures. The more prominent market characteristics of the commercial food service sector in Canada are outlined below.

2.2.1 Dynamic and Volatile The Canadian commercial food service industry is a very dynamic sector of the economy. The number of food service outlets have grown steadily over the past decade with the exception of 1990 and the onset of recession. Examination of CRFA data[7] reveals that in the period 1985-1994 the number of commercial food service outlets have grown steadily by on average 4.7% per year.

Looking at the number of bankruptcies reveals another side of the same industry. In the period 1985-1994 the number of bankruptcies also grew steadily, reaching an all time high of 1700 outlets in 1992 . Therefore, it may be seen that beneath an apparently predictable steadily growing surface lies a very turbulent, fiercely competitive and highly volatile market place.

This is important as one tries to understand this industry.

Independents 71%

Chains 29%

Figure 2.2 - Profile of Canadian food service operators

2.2.2 Dominated by Independents, Driven by Chains In Canada 71% of all food service outlets are independently owned and operated, with the remaining 29% owned and operated by large food service chains [11'12], see Figure 2.2. This is in contrast to the US where the commercial food service market is indisputably dominated by chains. Further classification of the commercial food service sector will be discussed in detail in section 2.5.

The large number of independent players renders distinct characteristics to the Canadian commercial food service market place. The purchasing decisions and the drivers in the decision making process to select cooking equipment are different between chains and independents. A market survey conducted in the mid eighties by Marbek[4]

investigated the cooking equipment purchase decisions made in the commercial food service sector. It showed that purchase decision criteria are very complex and tend to vary largely across the sector.

Technology Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume 1, Page 6

Smaller, independent operations tended to emphasise low initial (or capital) cost above all other factors. Therefore for around three quarters of the food service owners in Canada the selection of cooking equipment is made based on the lowest first cost, irrespective of energy efficiency and operating costs. This mentality can be explained by the volatility of the commercial food service market place. The independents have no guarantee of being in business sufficiently long to worry about lifecycle costs of the equipment.

In contrast, the large chains ranked life cycle cost very high along with productivity, durability and other quality factors. The chains tend to be the drivers of new technology and much more interested, involved and in tune with energy conservation measures. In the past decades chains have led the development of new cooking appliances. Today, there is close co-operation and collaboration between large food service chains, appliance manufacturers and energy conservationists to reduce the energy costs of food service outlets.

2.2.3 Largely Supplied by Single Cooking Equipment Manufacturer

Canada is rather unique in the supply side of commercial cooking equipment. Despite a large number of manufacturers/suppliers some even from overseas, a single Canadian company has close to 70 % of the market share of the commercial cooking equipment[81. The Marbek studyl4) identified Garland as having the largest market share in commercial cooking equipment in 1987, followed by three other large manufacturers : Cleveland Ranges, Hobart, Vulcan Hart and Keating each with a much smaller portion of the market.

2.3 CLASSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL FOOD SERVICE SECTOR

The commercial food service sector in Canada is currently classified and reported on in number of different ways by different organisations. Some breakdown the sector based on Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes used by Statistics Canada. Alternately the sector is differentiated by menu type. Yet others look at chains versus independents. All the above essentially focus on operations whose main line of business is food service sales. A University of Manitoba study[5] showed that all above classifications overlook the sizeable sector of company cafeterias, these being in-house providers of food service to companies whose main line of business is not commercial food service.


33.1% Liquor icensed

Restaurants

20.5% Unlicensed Restaurant!

10.9% Hotel, mote!

9.9% akeout

.2% Institutional

3.5% Leisure

0.9% Other

0.8% Dept. Stores

Figure 2.3 - Distribution of Food service Sales171

The annual Fact File produced by Food service and Hospitality magazine in co-operation with the Canadian Restaurant and Food service Association (CRFA) is one of the more comprehensive and based on published Statistics Canada data and where necessary, includes additional CRFA and F&H data and estimates. Figure 2.3 shows CRFA's ratio of food service sales among eleven diverse sectors. It may be noted that the five commercial food service sectors: liquor licensed restaurants, unlicensed restaurants, take-out and delivery, social and contract caterers and pubs/taverns/lounges whose primary business is food service, represent 75% of total food service sales.

A more detailed breakdown of the five commercial food service sectors in Canada can be obtained by looking at further classification of these based on menu type, see Figure 2.4.

All Other Restaurants

(24 97%)

Cafe (6.45%)

Donut/Muffin (6 57%)

Sandwich (13 54%)

Full Menu (5.76%) Barbecue (0.72%

Onental (9.76%)

Deli/Bagel (2.48%) Chicken (4 00%)

Pizza (12.75%)

Fish/Seafood (3 25%) Steak Menu (1.34%)

Other Ethnic (8 41%)

Figure 2.4 - Distribution of commercial food service outlets by menu type (Sandwich is 50% hamburger and 50% other : roast beef, hot dogs, subs, etc.)

It may be noted that sandwich and pizza type restaurants which are chain dominated, together account for a sizeable portion of restaurants. It is also noteworthy that oriental restaurants account for close to 10% of all Canadian food service outlets. This is of specific interest to the present study as the type of cooking equipment in these tends to be highly specialised and unlike any other food service outlet.

2.3.1 Food Service Classifications Adopted in This Study

Most sources broadly classify food service outlets as commercial and institutional. Closer examination of different data sources reveals that there are minor differences in the types of outlets they include in institutional and commercial. Moreover most do not cover company cafeterias. We therefore want to provide a clear definition of the classification adopted in the present study.


0 In this study the food service sector is broadly divided into two categories: institutional and non-institutional. Further more each of the two categories are broken down into sub-categories as shown below.

Non-institutional Food Service Sector

Restaurants Licensed Restaurants Unlicensed Take-out & Delivery Hotels Department Stores Pubs and Taverns

o

Institutional FbodiServiceSector

Company Cafeterias Contract Catering Accounts Resorts/Camps Major Amusement Facilities Nursing/Rest Homes Hospitals/Rehab. Centres Colleges/Universities High Schools Correction Facilities Department National Defence Other Retail Food service

0

It may noted that "taverns" and "vending" segments have been omitted since they involve little to no commercial cooking.

2.4 COMMERCIAL FOOD SERVICE DATA BREAKDOWN BY PROVINCE

The CRFA[10] and Recount11 M2] provide detailed breakdown of commercial food service outlets (non-institutional) across Canada broken down by province and territory. CRFA classifies the commercial food service sector into five categories : licensed, unlicensed, take-out, caterers and taverns. Recount breaks down the same non-institutional sector by menu type. CGRI examined CRFA[10] statistics for the period 1990 to 1994 and the Recount11 U 2 ] statistics for 1992 and 1994. We found close agreement between the two sources in the total numbers of commercial food service establishments per province and territory.


—Norttrwoit Temtoriat □Yukon aBriUhCoajntta

aSukatdwwan

pj Quebec nNow Brum wick

H RtK« Bteard bland n Newfoundland

Figure 2.5 199094 growth trends in the commercial food service sector in Canada [10]

o

Figure 2.5 shows the number of commercial (noninstitutional) food service outlets per province and territory in Canada for the period 1990 1994. It may be seen that the annual national growth in the commercial food service sector is also recognised in all Canadian provinces and territories. Moreover it may be seen that the ratios between the provinces and territories remains essentially unchanged over this period. Canadian food service establishments are almost evenly divided between Ontario, Quebec and the rest of Canada, see Figure 2.6.

Rest of Canada 37%

Ontario 34%

Figure 2.6 Simplified distribution of commercial food service outlets [101

Among the other provinces, British Columbia takes the biggest portion with 13.2% followed by Alberta with 9%, Saskatchewan & Manitoba each around 3%. There is close agreement between the ratios of food service outlets in each province and territory to the Canadian total as reported by the different data sources examined. All closely follow the population distribution trend within Canada. Table 2.1 compares the ratios for each province and territory based on the two data sources and compares them with the population ratios.

Table 2.1 Comparison of food service outlet ratios with population ratios

0

Province

Newfoundland

Prince Edward Island

Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Quebec

Ontario

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia

Yukon

Northwest Territories

Population %

1.71

0.43

3.20

2.51

26.39

36.53

3.93

3.46

9.01

12.56

0.15

0.10

CRFA 94[,0]

%

1.85

0.48

2.69

2.51

28.43

34.11

3.17

3.12

9.09

13.22

0.13

0.13

ReC94[t2]

%

1.35

0.48

2.89

2.06

23.74

39.30

3.49

3.16

9.60

13.71

0.09

0.11


c

SAWTATON(1800%)

REFRIGERATION (6 00%)

UGHTNG(>300%>

FOOD PREP (3500%|

It may be seen that there is close correlation between the population ratios of each province and territory to the national total and the ratios of commercial food service outlets to the national totals. The ReCounr ratios are viewed as the most definitive since they are based on a very detailed breakdown of data on commercial food service outlets per province and territory across Canada. For the purposes of further data analysis in this investigation (chapter 4), ReCoun^I2] ratios have been adopted for both the institutional and non-institutional food service sectors.

2.5 ENERGY DISTRIBUTION IN THE COMMERCIAL FOOD SERVICE SECTOR

The present study focuses on energy consumed by a range of commercial cooking appliances. It is important to be cognisant that food preparation is only one component of the energy consumed in food service outlets, albeit the largest.

The energy consumed for food preparation in typical commercial food service outlets has been estimated[4j to vary from 32% to 47% of the total energy consumption. Obviously, a restaurant's actual energy consumption will be dependent on the fuel used, climate, menu type, customer volume and the way the establishment is operated.

AC (38.00%)

service outlets

According to Consumers Gas1131, food preparation accounts for 40% of the total energy consumed in a typical restaurant, the

Figure 2.7 - Typical energy consumption in food National Restaurant Association (NRA) Energy Guide[t4] for 1986, puts the figure at 34.8%. The Project on Restaurant Energy Performance (PREP)[ documented energy end-use in seven restaurants, finding that food preparation was the largest segment, at 35% of energy end use for a cross section of restaurant types, followed by HVAC and water heating, see Figure 2.7. Further confidence on the figure of 35% was provided by the Building Energy Technology Transfer (BETT)[5] study which also suggested that 35% was an appropriate figure for Canadian restaurants.


3. OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMERCIAL COOKING EQUIPMENT

3.1. INTRODUCTION

Commercial food service establishments use a variety of dedicated cooking appliances. Eight appliance categories were identified as the basic equipment found in all commercial kitchens. These are: fryers, griddles / grills, broilers, ranges, ovens, tilting skillets / braising pans, steam kettles, compartment steamers.

A comprehensive technology review of the above eight appliance categories has been conducted with the emphasis on gas-fired appliances, and an overview of electric technologies. The detailed review of the appliance technologies is presented in Volume II, where a chapter is dedicated to each of the above eight appliance categories including a description and technical information on the following appliance characteristics:

• Cooking process • Appliance types (the energy performance varies

significantly within each appliance sub-category) • Controls (thermostatically controlled or not) • Heating technology (different efficiencies gas/electric, idle

time, etc.) • Gas/Electric breakdown • Advanced gas and electric technologies • Energy conservation strategies (given for some appliances

which idle most of the day) • Appliance performance (efficiencies, average energy

consumption, etc.) • Ventilation requirements (if needed). Ventilation directly

impacts on the energy demand and consumption of food service facilities.

• Research needs/gas industry market focus

The key information and findings of Volume II are summarised in this chapter to provide an overview of the in-depth technology review for each appliance category. The aim of this chapter is not to present detailed information but highlight the key findings from the in-depth cooking appliance technology review pertinent to performance characteristics of commercial cooking appliances. Research and development opportunities


identified in the in-depth technology review in Volume II are discussed in chapter 5, section 5.5.

3.2. STATUS OF PERFORMANCE REGULATION

There are no mandated minimum efficiency standards for the commercial cooking appliances in Canada or the USA. However industry accepted performance methods exist for measuring cooking efficiency of a range of commercial cooking equipment.

In 1987 the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) undertook the development of uniform testing procedures to measure the energy efficiency of gas and electric cooking equipment and evaluate their overall performance. Co-funding was provided by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Gas Research Institute (GRI), and the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

Of the resulting test methods developed by PG&E, seven have been adopted as ASTM standards:

/, ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Steam Cookers, Designation: F1484-93

2. ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Convection Ovens, Designation: F1496-93

3. ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Range Tops, Designation: F1521-94

4. ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Double-Sided Griddles, Designation: F1605-95

5. ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Griddles, Designation: F1275-95

6. ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Open Deep-Fat Fryers, Designation: F1361-95

7. ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Combination Ovens, Designation: F1639-95

Another nine performance test methods are under active development or in the ASTM balloting process. These cover underfired broilers, door-type dishwashers, steam kettles, braising pans, pasta cookers, conveyor ovens, rotisseries, deck ovens, and pressure fryers. On the horizon are test methods for overtired broilers, conveyor dishwashers, flat-bottom fryers, Chinese ranges, roll-in ovens and steam tables.

ASTM standard performance test methods for cooking equipment provides end-users with performance parameters that can be used to compare the energy efficiency, production

Technology Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I. Page 13

capacity, cooking surface/cavity uniformity, etc. of one piece of equipment with another. A unique aspect of the test methods is that the productivity (i.e., production capacity) and energy efficiency are determined from the same test using standardized food product under tightly controlled conditions. Moreover the performance test methods cover both gas-fired and electric equipment. From the perspective of energy efficiency, it is important to compare a gas or electric appliances with other equipment using the same fuel source as well as with a different fuel source. ASTM test methods permit gas-gas and electric-electric-electric as well as gas-electric comparisons.

The specification of the production capacity (i.e., weight of food cooked per hour) are the same for both gas and electric appliances, as the "work" that a cooking appliance is required to do for the end-user is the same. Similarly, performance parameters such as cooking surface/cavity temperature uniformity apply equally to gas and electric appliances. The ASTM standard test methods for cooking appliances provide new tools for food service equipment manufacturers to validate their research and development efforts and for food service equipment purchasers to define minimum performance requirements within their equipment specifications.

3.3. NOTES ON PERFORMANCE DATA USED

The performance data used in the present study is based on the data and expertise accumulated by the Pacific Gas and Electric company (PG&E) over the past decade.

PG&E operates a Food Service Technology Center in Danville, California which is unique in North America. It is well equipped with the state-of-the-art instrumentation, data acquisition and data analysis tools for evaluating both gas and electric commercial cooking equipment. The food service laboratory of PG&E has tested numerous cooking equipment to the adopted and/or proposed ASTM performance test methods as an integral part of developing ASTM performance test methods for cooking appliances. PG&E also operates an end-use monitoring program to evaluate appliance performance while operating in a real kitchen. This is done through installation and monitoring of different appliances in the active kitchen on PG&E premises, which feeds around 500 people a day. The end-use monitoring program is a service PG&E offers to its customers by supplying them with information on in-kitchen usage patterns and consumption figures of different cooking equipment, both gas and electric.


In the present study we have used available PG&E data on performance ratings measures as per the ASTM performance methods and the consumption data from the end-use monitoring program.

3.4. EFFICIENCY OF COMMERCIAL COOKING EQUIPMENT

Ideally efficiency would be described as the efficiency with which consumed energy relates to the amount of product processed. Process industry like the glass industry measures efficiency as the ratio of fuel input to product output. In such a case process efficiency and energy consumption can be viewed as interchangeable descriptors.

In the commercial cooking sector it is not so easy to relate energy consumed to appliance efficiency. The amount of energy consumed by commercial cooking equipment, or in-kitchen utilisation efficiency, is dependant on a set of complex parameters, some technical such as the cooking surface or cavity temperature (based on a selected thermostat set point) and/or heat input setting (e.g. high, medium, low input energy control), others operation dependent such as operating hours (idle time) of an appliance, the quantity and type of food being cooked in an establishment and the mode of operation. The relative dependence of actual appliance energy consumption on each of the technical and operational variables varies by equipment type and design.

The yardstick adopted for comparing one appliance against another is cooking energy efficiency as measured per ASTM performance methods for each appliance category. Cooking energy efficiency is defined as the quantity of energy imparted to the specific food product, expressed as a percentage of energy consumed by the appliance during the cooking event, in other words, the efficiency with which a specific appliance cooks a discreet amount of cooking product. Cooking energy efficiency is therefore sometimes also referred to as discreet load efficiency.

It is important to recognize that cooking appliances are more efficient when they are cooking food at peak capacity (i.e., fully loaded). In the real world, appliances typically are not used to maximum capacity. Thus, part load performance is important and has been incorporated within the ASTM testing procedures. ASTM procedures report for most appliance categories three cooking energy efficiency ratings, relating to full load, medium load and light load operation. The energy efficiency of cooking equipment is reduced under part-load operation, approaching


c

zero during idle periods. The amount of time that an appliance is left idling in a "ready-to-cook" mode contributes to further reduce the in-kitchen or utilization energy efficiency of cooking appliances. Performance standards for residential appliances such as central furnaces or water heaters incorporate the effect of losses during heat-up and cool-down cycles as well as stand-by or off-cycle losses. The ASTM performance methods for cooking appliances do not account for preheat and idle energy consumption in the calculation of cooking energy efficiency, however these parameters are measured and may be used as input to an energy use model to estimate energy consumption and in-kitchen utilization efficiency.

Table 3.1 lists the benchmark cooking- efficiencies compiled within the scope of this study. These cooking efficiencies are based on both measured and estimated performance of a cooking appliance under discrete full-load tests (e.g., oven) or full-load barreling tests (e.g., fryer) as described by the ASTM test methods. The source of these estimates are discussed in each appliance section in Volume II. Neither the part-load performance nor the idle consumption affecting in-kitchen utilization are reflected by the efficiencies in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Benchmark (Full-load) Cooking-Energy Efficiency Summary

Fryers Deep Fat Pressure/Kettle Flat Bottom

Griddles

Broilers

Range tops

Woks

Ovens Std./Conv./Comb. Deck Conveyor Rotisserie

Compartment steamers

Steam kettles

Tilting skillets

standard gas

25-50 25-35 25-35

25-35

15-30

25-30

15-30

30-40 20-30 10-20 20-30

30-40

40-60

30-55

high efficiency

gas

50-60 35-50 35-50

40 -50

4 5 - 6 0

4 0 - 5 0

electric

4

75-85 65-85 65-85

65-75

35-65

65-85

50-70

50-80 40-60 20-40 50-60

60-80

80-95

80-95


Of significance to this study's objective, is the relative low efficiencies (e.g., 10 - 50%) for standard gas appliances under full load conditions. One would conclude that there is significant potential for raising the base efficiency of gas-fired cooking equipment. Part load efficiencies for most appliances can easily be as low as half the full load cooking energy efficiencies. This combined with the relatively high idle periods for most cooking appliances suggests that the real-world energy utilization efficiencies of cooking equipment can be very low (e.g. 5-10% for gas appliances and 20-30% for electric appliances).

3.5. ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF COMMERCIAL COOKING EQUIPMENT

In available literature a number of different descriptors are used interchangeably to define performance characteristics of commercial cooking appliances. The common descriptors typically used interchangeably are rated input, cooking energy efficiency, energy consumption and cost of operation. These are very different descriptors which should not be confused with each other; each defines a distinctly different aspect of operation of a commercial cooking appliance. (See section 3.4 above for description of cooking energy efficiency). The best proxy for in-kitchen utilisation efficiency of a commercial cooking appliance is, therefore, its measured average rate of consumption.

Rated input is not directly proportional to energy consumption or in-kitchen utilization efficiency. Rated input merely states the minimum and maximum energy that a particular appliance can consume . For thermostatically operated appliances, the rated input bears no direct relationship to energy consumption. If a thermostatically controlled oven has a burner with twice the input rating of another, but both are set at the same temperature, the energy consumption rates are likely to be comparable if the cooking efficiencies are. For non-thermostatically controlled appliances, also there is no direct relationship between rated input and consumption. For example a commercial range top cooker with an input of 24,000 Btu/h when compared to a burner with an input of 34,000 Btu/h shows very similar consumption numbers, since the latter completes the cooking operation in a shorter time.

It is important to recognize that commercial cooking appliances, even the most commonly used ones, spend most of their "on" time in stand-by mode rather than cooking mode. Cooking appliances typically may spend from 80 to 90 percent of the time idling and not cooking. The implication of the high idle times on energy consumption of an appliance depends on appliance type.


Table 3.2 - Typical duty cycles for commercial cooking equipment

Appliance

Fryer deep fat pressure/kettle flat bottom

Griddle

Broiler

Range

Oven standard deck conveyor rotisserie

Steamer

Steam Kettle

Tilting Skillet

Duty cycle, %

20 30-33 14-20

25-30

70-80

20-40

25-40 20-30

50 60-65

13-20

40

45-50

Whether an appliance incorporates a thermostat or not can impact significantly on the characteristic energy consumption of that appliance. For example, a gas broiler consumes energy at a rate that is close to its maximum input rate during idle periods as it is not thermostatically controlled. An appliance such as the fryer which is thermostatically controlled behaves very differently. The average rate of energy consumption required to maintain the frying oil at the desired temperature (-350 F) is 15% to 20% of the maximum rated energy input for fryers. Thermostatic control is an important factor, but not the only factor, affecting idle energy consumption rates. Appliance type and design as well as quantity and type of food product typically cooked by an appliance, that is, the mode of operation also impact idle energy consumption rates.

An accepted industry descriptor for the complex relationship between rated input and energy consumption used by the food service sector is appliance duty cycle. Duty cycle is defined as the ratio between actual (measured) average rate of energy consumption of an appliance to its maximum rated input.

duty cycle = average rate of energy consumption (actual, measured)

rated input

Table 3.2 shows typical duty cycle ranges for the eight appliance categories evaluated within the scope of the present study. The duty cycles do not vary much between gas and electric technologies and the numbers shown in table 3.2 apply to both gas and electric technologies. It may be seen that a typical flat bottom fryer consumes 20% of its rated input during a typical day of operation, whereas a broiler energy consumption amounts to 70-80% of its maximum rated input. Idle or stand-by times for both appliances are comparable.

Some of the earlier studies have based consumption estimates on rated input which can lead to predictions with little resemblance to real life in-kitchen utilization efficiencies. Some have even been more general and have used food service sales to estimate energy consumption.

The energy consumption predictions reported in the present study are mainly based on measured PG&E consumption figures . For appliance categories or sub-categories where detailed consumption data has not been available, a two mode energy model considering rated input and duty cycle has been used to estimate average rate of consumption.

Technolog\ Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I, Page 18

Another energy performance parameter often used within the food service sector is the ratio of energy consumption between a gas appliance and its electric counterpart. The ratio of energy consumption between every gas and electric appliance combination in the same category is not a precise number-it can vary depending on the specific model of gas and electric appliance being compared and on the usage of the appliance in the commercial kitchen. It is also a function of the technology incorporated in either the gas or electric unit (e.g., infrared burners). For example, if one compares the least efficient electric griddle with the most efficient gas griddle, the energy consumption ratio will be lower (e.g., ratio = 1.5) than if one compares the most efficient electric griddle with the least efficient gas griddle (e.g., ratio = 2.5). However, the average ratio for all electric griddles compared to all gas griddles under typical real-world conditions may be somewhere in between (e.g., ratio = 2.3). Earlier studies have reported gas/electric energy ratios based on full-load cooking tests applied to one gas and one electric appliance in each equipment category which generated somewhat misleading picture. Real-world energy consumption ratios for gas and electric appliances installed in PG&E's commercial kitchen have been used in the present study.

Average energy consumption rates together with gas/electric energy ratios for the eight appliance categories of interest to the present study are presented in Table 3.3. '

Table 3.3 -Average energy consumption and gas/electric energy ratios for commercial cooking equipment

Appliances monitored in PG&E's production test kitchen [I]

Category / Description

Range: Broiler: Griddle:

Fryer: Oven: Tilting skillet: Steamer: Kettle:

Rated energy input (kBtu/h*)

Gas

155 105

. 60 80-85 34.5; . 62

200 125

Electric

63.8 37.5 42 58 33.8 29.4 92 72

Average rate of energy consumption (kBtu/h*)

Gas

43 84

23. 20 25 40 32 50

Electric

17 27 10 10 17 24 17 27

Gas electric energy ratio

2.8 3.1 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.9

* Conversion factor: IkWh = 3.413kBtu


0

o

It may be noted that the average energy consumption rates are in general lower than the rated input. For broilers and ranges which are not thermostatically controlled the average rate of consumption is closer to the rated input compared to fryers which are thermostatically controlled appliances. Moreover it may be seen that gas/electric energy ratios range from 1.5 to 3.1. That is to say a given gas appliance may use between 1.5 to 3.1 times more energy than its electric counterpart. This should not be linked with operating cost. Due to price differences between gas and electricity, the operating cost of gas appliances will prove to be lower in most instances.


4. ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF THE COMMERCIAL FOOD SERVICE SECTOR

4.1 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

The methodology adopted in the present study for estimating the energy consumption of cooking appliances using the market and energy data is discussed below.

Data is classified into market and energy sector information. Market data includes the number of food service establishments and total population of commercial cooking equipment per appliance type. Energy data is derived from the technology overview, and is then fused with the market data to obtain an estimate for energy consumption by each appliance type in Canada. The major steps in our adopted methodology are outlined below:

1. Determine the population of food service establishments in Canada.

2. Break down the commercial food service outlets according to service type.

3. Apply typical kitchen scenarios for each type of food service establishment.

4. Determine the total population of commercial cooking equipment per appliance category across Canada.

5. Distinguish between electric and gas cooking equipment and establish percentages for each appliance category (average for total Canada).

6. Combine data on performance and consumption for each appliance category by fuel type with inventory.

7. Estimate total energy consumed by cooking appliances in Canada (Compare with alternate rough estimate of energy consumption by cooking equipment as a percentage of total food service costs).

8. Apply appropriate ratios relating each province and territory to Canadian total and estimate energy consumed by cooking appliances per province and territory.

The validity of the estimates obtained using the above methodology will depend on the accuracy of estimation of: • the total population of food service establishments in Canada; • the inventory of commercial cooking appliances in Canada; • the division of market share between natural gas and electric ;


• the energy consumed by each appliance type. The processes for estimating each of the above are discussed in detail below.

4.2 TOTAL POPULATION OF FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS IN CANADA

The commercial food service sector is subdivided into institutional and non-institutional sectors, with the former being a smaller portion of the total both in terms of sales and numbers.

CGRJ reviewed data on the number of all commercial food service establishments for 1994 as reported by ReCount Canada , Canadian Restaurant and Food service Association (CRTA)[7), Bell telephone company listings[16] and the Consumers Gas Marketing Data[ . Data was also obtained on Canadian Military Kitchens l17^.

For the non-institutional sector detailed statistics were available from all sources. The resolution of the data available was very fine although the classifications were somewhat different from one data source to the other. The data from different sources was reviewed, analyzed and compared. There was broad agreement between all data sources E?*8 ' I2I61, The results of the data analysis were then rearranged according to the CGRI classification of the non-institutional food service establishment defined in section 2.3. Table 4.1 summarizes our findings and shows the 1994 population of food service outlets in the non-institutional sector in Canada together with an estimated sales volume. The accuracy of the estimates in table 4.1 is in the range ± 3%.

Table 4.1 Non-Institutional Food Service Sector in Canada - 1994

Type of Facility

Restaurants Licensed

Restaurants Unlicensed

Take-out & Delivery

Hotels

Department Stores

Pubs and Taverns

Vending*

Total Non-Institutional

Number of Facilities

20,499

13,192

11,377

5,103

862

5,133

56,166**

Total Sales (million S)

9,131.9

5,663.1

2,742.0

2,996.0

220.5

1,409.7

334.4

22,497.6

* Do not have commercial cooking capabilities and are not considered in our subsequent analysis of this sector., only shown for information ** Includes 5489 sandwich, deli, ice-cream and yogurt stores with no cooking. the number of establishments with commercial cooking equipment is 50,677

Technolog> Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume 1, Page 22

For the institutional commercial food service sector less detailed statistics were available; the resolution of the data available was not as fine as for the non-institutional sector and the classifications were very different from one data source to the other. Moreover, all the available statistics for 1994 excluded company cafeterias. Company cafeterias are typically omitted from statistics, since they belong to companies whose main line of business is not food service. CGRI used the BETT[5] study findings and with input from food service consultants and came up with an estimate for the number of company cafeterias in Canada. The data from different sources was reviewed, analyzed, compared and augmented with the estimated figure for company cafeterias.

The results of the data analysis were then rearranged according to the CGRI classification of the institutional food service sector defined in section 2.3. Table 4.2 summarizes our findings and shows the 1994 population of food service outlets in the institutional sector in Canada together with an estimated sales volume. The accuracy of the data in table 4.2 is ± 3%.

Table 4.2 Institutional Food Service Sector in Canada - 1994

Type of Facility

Company Cafeterias

Contract Catering Accounts

Resorts/Camps

Major Amusement Facilities

Nursing/Rest Homes

Hospitals/Rehab. Centers

Colleges/Universities

High Schools

Correctional Facilities

Dept. National Defense

Other Retail Food Service

Total Institutional

Number of Facilities

11,362

5,000

4,470

1,082

3,100

1,588

1,114

5,080

196

280

33,272

Total Sales (million $)

2,225.0

1,959.1

967.9

combined

2,257.7

combined

63.0

242.4

7,715

The results for the institutional and non-institutional commercial food service sector are combined for comparison and shown in Table 4.3.


Table 4.3 - Commercial food service sector in Canada -1994

Institutional

Non-institutional

Total

Number

33,272

56,166

89,438

% Total number

37.2

62.8

100.0

Sales B$

7.715

22.498

30.213

% Total sales

25.5

74.5

100.0

It may be seen that the total sales from the food service sector add up to 30.2 billion dollars for 1994, 74.5% of which is generated by the non-institutional sector which numerically account for 62.8% of the commercial food service outlets and only 25.5 % from the institutional sector which numerically accounts for 37.2% of the outlets. The discrepancy between the numerical and sales percentages between the institutional and non-institutional food service establishments is interesting to note. This further highlights the competitive nature of the commercial food service business and the higher profit margin in the non-institutional sector.

A further clarification regarding the values reported in table 4.3 for the institutional sector is necessary. The distribution of food service sales reported by CRFA' ] and shown in figure 2.3, apportions 8.2% of total food service sales to the institutional sector. The apparent inconsistency with the figure of 25.5% reported in table 4.3 is due to the fact that our classifications of the institutional sector differ. The CGRI classification of the institutional sector includes CRFA's "institutional", "caterers", "leisure'" and "other", the combined contribution of which amounts to 18.4% of total food service sales as reported by CRFA. The remaining 7.1% difference is due to CGRI's inclusion of 11,000 company cafeterias in the institutional sector.

4.3 T H E TOTAL POPULATION O F COOKING EQUIPMENT IN CANADA

To estimate the total population of cooking equipment, each of the institutional and non-institutional sectors were subdivided into categories for which specific kitchen scenarios could be assigned. For each kitchen type, we then catalogued a typical equipment inventory. The equipment inventory in different kitchen types were based on input from food service consultants with first hand knowledge of commercial kitchen appliance inventories and a representative from Garland which supplies close to 70% of the commercial food service equipment in Canada.


The number of appliances found in each kitchen type are then multiplied by the number of outlets with the same kitchen scenario to estimate the total population of commercial cooking equipment in Canada. It may be noted that our study focused on the eight appliance categories outlined in section 1.3. Commercial food service outlets have other appliances for holding, warming, etc. which fall outside the mandate of the present study and are not considered.

Table 4.4 shows a breakdown of the non-institutional sector by kitchen type together with equipment inventories for the eight appliance categories considered.

Table 4.4 - Appliance Inventories Assumed For The Non-Institutional Commercial Food Service Sector Type

Burger A Burger B Chicken A Chicken B Fish A

Fish B Hot Dog Pizza A Pizza B Roast Beef Restaurant A Restaurant B Restaurant C

Hotel A

Hotel B Chinese A Chinese B

Pancake Donut Muffin Potato Cookie Cafe Truck Stop Grills Diner Dept. Stores

Pubs& Taverns

Total Canada 1994

# Outlets 1994 1,287 2,089 1,280

911 175

1,395 139

2,995 2.918

115 10,412

265 3,263

3.825

1.275 3,896

632

126 2,567

480 355 112

2,990 257 454 469 862

5,133

50,677

Appliance Inventory

3 deep fat fryers. 1 under fired broiler. 1 griddle 3 deep fat fryers. 3 griddles. 0.2 standard counter top ovens 4 deep fat fryers. 6 pressure kettle fryers, 0.5 griddles. 0.75 standard 1 half size oven, I steam kettle 3.5 deep fat fryers. 1 under-fired broiler, 1 full size oven, 4 rotisserie oven. 1 steam kettle 3 deep fat fryers. 1 flat bottom fish fryer, 1 under-fired broiler, 1 griddle, 1 half size oven, 1 full size oven. 1 range. 2 pressure!ess steamers 2 deep fat fryers. 2 flat bottom fish fryers, 1 griddle 2 deep fat fryers. 0.75 pressure!ess steamers 1 deep fat fryer, 1.5 conveyor oven. 1 pressure less steamer 1 deep fat fryer. 2 deck ovens 2 deep fat fryers. 4 counter top ovens, I full size oven 2 deep fat fryers. 1 under fired broiler, 1 griddle. 1 full size oven, 1 range 2 deep fat fryers. 1 under fired broiler, 1 over fired broiler, 1 griddle, 2 full size ovens, 2 ranges 3 deep fat fryers. 2 under-fired broilers, 2 over-fired broilers, 1 griddle, 1 half size oven, 1 full size oven. 2 ranges. 1 pressurized steamer 3 deep fat fryers. ! under-fired broiler, 2 over fired broilers, 4 full size ovens, 6 ranges, 1 pressurized steamer. 1 tilting skillet 3 steam kettles 2 deep fat fryers. 1 over fired broilers. I griddle, 1 half size ovens, 1 range. 1 pressureless steamer 2 deep fat fryers. 1 rotisserie oven, 1 range. 1 Chinese wok, 1 pressurized steamer 3 deep fat fryers. 1 under fired broiler, 2 rotisserie ovens, 1 range. 3 Chinese woks, 2 pressureless steamers 2 deep fat fryers. 2 griddles 1 flat bottom donut fryer. 1 half size oven, 1 full size oven 3 deck ovens 3 deep fat fryers. I griddle 1 full size oven 1 deep fat fryer. 1 range 1 deep fat fryer. 0.5 griddle, 1 range 1 deep fat fryer. 1 griddle. 1 range 1 deep fat fryer. 1 griddle 2 deep fat fryers. 1 over fired broiler, 1 griddle. 2 deck ovens, 2 ranges, 1 pressureless steamer, 1 tilting skillet, 2 steam kettles 2 deep fat fryers, 1 over fired broiler, 1 griddle. 2 deck ovens, 2 ranges, 1 pressureless steamer, 1 tilting skillet, 2 steam kettles 100,506 deep fat fryers. 7.680 pressure fryers, 2,965 flat bottom fryers, 2567 donut fryers, 24,033 under-fired broilers, 21.711 over fired broilers, 32,633 griddles, 878 counter top ovens, 8,240 half size ovens, 33,385 full size ovens, 19,266 deck ovens, 4,493 conveyor ovens, 8,804 rotisserie ovens, 62,087 ranges, 5.792 Chinese woks, 10,984 pressurized steamers, 11,983 pressureless steamers, 9,820 tilting skillets, 25,656 steam kettles


The non-institutional sector was broken down by menu type, in order to facilitate formulation of kitchen scenarios. Under many major menu types, (e.g. burger, pizza, fish) two alternate kitchen scenarios were adopted to reflect the field differences in the type of cooking appliances typically found in these outlets. For restaurants it was felt that three different kitchen scenarios best reflected the differences which may be seen in the field between the appliances found in large, medium and small sized restaurants. Table 4.5 shows a breakdown of the institutional sector by kitchen type together with equipment inventories for the eight appliance categories considered.

Table 4.5 - Appliance Inventories Assumed For The Institutional Commercial Food Service Sector

Type

Company Cafeterias Lg.

Company Cafeterias Sm. Contract Catering

Resorts / Camps

Amusement Facilities

Nursing / Rest Homes

Hospitals / Rehab. Lg.

Hospitals / Rehab. Sm.

Colleges / Universities

High Schools

Correctional facilities

Dept. National Defence**

Total Canada 1994

U Outlets 1994

5,681

5,68! 5,000

4,470

1,082

3,100

1,191

397

1,114*

5,080

196

280

33,272

Appliance Inventory

2 deep fai fryers, 1 under fired broiler, 1 over fired broiler, 1 griddle, 1 half size oven, 1 full size oven. 1 range, 1 pressureless steamer, 1 tilting skillet, 2 steam kettles I deep fat fryer, 1 under fired broiler, 1 griddle, 1 half size oven 4 deep fat fryers, 1 over fired broiler, 3 griddles, 1 full size oven, 4 deck ovens, 4 ranges, 1 pressurized steamer, 1 pressureless steamer, 1 tilting skillet, 4 steam kettles 2 deep fat fryers, 1 over fire broiler. 1 griddle, 2 deck ovens, 2 ranges, 1 pressureless steamer. 1 tilting skillet, 2 steam kettles 4 deep fat fryers, 1 over fire broiler, 3 griddles, 1 full size oven, 4 deck ovens, 4 ranges, 1 pressurized steamer, 1 pressureless steamer, 1 tilting skillet, 4 steam kettles 2 deep fat fryers, 2 full size ovens. 2 deck ovens, 2 ranges, 2 pressurized steamer, 1 pressureless steamer, 2 tilting skillet, 4 steam kettles 2 deep fat fryers, 1 over fire broiler. 1 griddles, 2 full size ovens, 8 deck ovens, 1 range, 3 pressurized steamers, 1 pressureless steamer, 3 tilting skillet, 6 steam kettles 2 deep fat fryers, 2 full size ovens, 2 deck ovens, 2 ranges, 2 pressurized steamer, I pressureless steamer, 2 tilting skillet. 4 steam kettles 4 deep fat fryers, 1 under fired broiler, 3 griddles, 2 full size ovens, 4 deck ovens, 2 ranges, 1 pressurized steamer, 1 pressureless steamer, 1 tilting skillet, 3 steam kettles 3 deep fat fryers, 1 over fire broiler. 2 griddles, 1 full size oven, 3 deck ovens, 3 ranges, 1 pressureless steamer, 1 tilting skillet, 3 steam kettles 4 deep fat fryers, 1 over fire broiler, 3 griddles, 1 full size oven, 4 deck ovens, 4 ranges, 1 pressurized steamer, 1 pressureless steamer, 1 tilting skillet, 4 steam kettles 430 deep fat fryers, 280 over fire broiler, 282 griddles, 133 half size oven, 150 full size oven, 582 deck ovens, 712 ranges. 140 pressurized steamers, 142 pressureless steamers, 280 tilting skillets, 1122 steam kettles 87,281 deep fat fryers, 14,147 under-fired broilers, 22,980 over fired broilers, 54,654 griddles, 11,495 half size ovens, 32,135 full size ovens, 77,536 deck ovens, 69,440 ranges, 19,770 pressurized steamers, 29,124 pressureless steamers, 35,141 tilting skillets, 91,261 steam kettles

* A factor of 2.5 was applied to this number to reflect the average number of active kitchens per institution ** Based on actual data supplied by DND for total equipment inventory, no typical kitchen scenario assumed


r The appliance inventories for the institutional and non-institutional sectors (presented in tables 4.4 and 4.5) were then combined to give the total population of the eight selected commercial cooking appliance categories found in Canada based on 1994 statistics. Figure 4.1 shows the total population of commercial cooking appliances and the relative share of the institutional and non-institutional sectors.

o

a 01 o> o" o CM

ID a Non-institutional m Institutional

01 en to"

N CO CM r-ea w

' C O

r̂ 00 CM CO

2

00

a E

Figure 4.1 - Total population of commercial cooking appliances, Canada, 1994

It may be seen that in 1994 there were close to 939,000 cooking appliances in Canada. The most commonly used appliance category in the food service sector was the fryer with 21.4% of the numerical share, followed by ovens(20.1%) and ranges(14.6%), steam kettles (12.5%), griddles(9.3%), broilers (8.8%), steamers (7.7%) and finally tilting skillets at 4.8%. It is also interesting to note the difference in the utilization of commercial cooking equipment between the institutional and non-institutional sectors.

It is our understanding that not all of the appliances in commercial kitchens are used. That is, some redundancy is built into the kitchen inventory. Industry experts put the appliance redundancy or appliance non-utilization factor at up to 5-10 % in the non-institutional sector and as high as 20-30% in the institutional sector.

In the present study we have not adopted an appliance non-utilization factor, since there was insufficient scientific data to base a valid factor on. However, we are cognizant of the appliance redundancy built into commercial kitchens, in


particular, the institutional kitchens. Our energy consumption estimates should therefore be regarded as the upper consumption limit for the eight cooking appliance categories considered in the present study.

4.4 ESTIMATE FOR INCIDENCE OF GAS AND ELECTRIC ENERGY SOURCE AMONG COOKING APPLIANCES IN CANADA

Section 4.3 provided estimates for the population of commercial cooking equipment. Chapter 3 provided information on the efficiency and average consumption estimates for the eight appliance categories of cooking equipment considered in the present study for both electric and gas fired technologies. In order to combine the market inventory data with energy consumption estimates, it is therefore required to apportion for each appliance category the share of electric and gas fired equipment.

CGRI identified five sources of information, two Canadian studies from the mid eighties, BETTt5] and Marbek[4] , an early nineties study from the US [ , Canadian Facts *191 and estimates from Garland[I ' for the present study. There are substantial discrepancies between the four data sources for different appliance categories. Table 4.6 summarizes the breakdown by data source.

Table 4.6 - Incidence of gas and electric energy source among current stock of cooking equipment

Fryers -deep fat -pressure -flat bottom Ovens -standard -deck pizza -deck -conveyor -rotisserie Ranges S Kettles Griddles Broilers -under fire -over fire Steamers Skillets

Garland'95 gas- ^ elec % \ %

71 29 75 25

0 100 100 0

57 43 100 0

0 100 100 0 83 17 91 9 70 30 60 40

98 2 85 15 63 37 80 20

Can. Facts'95 gas i elec % 1 %

69 27

40. 58 68 23

73 20 26 72 76 15 77 15

37 52 -

ADL'93 gas. elec % | %

58 42

55 45

■ ■ ■

91 9 -

50 50 91 9

■

33 67 -,

Marbek '87 gas elec. % 1 %

52 48

71 33

81 16 47 53 69 31 80 20

43 57 69 26

: BOT;83r,v;; gas • i; elec ' % | %

50 50

. ■ ■

7-0:. 30 . ■

80 20 -

-

80 20

-

J.

): GGRl c95 gas elec.

"%x % 72 28 75 25 10 90 79 21 34 66

.57 43 *'-'' 90 10

10 90 90 10 83 17 91 9 50 50 60 40 91 9 98 2 85 15 50 50 80 20

Data Sources: Garland1'81, Canadian Facts '95 l 'SJ , ADL l 'J, Marbek141, BETT1


It may be seen that there is broad discrepancy between the different data sources, more so between the earlier (mid eighty) studies and the more recent ones. The breakdowns chosen for the present study, were based mainly on the two more recent studies; and where these were contradictory, a 50/50 ratio between gas and electric was assumed. The assumed ratios reflect the best compromise based on rough and inconclusive data, but are nevertheless rough estimates and should be viewed as such. A finer breakdown was not possible. Moreover we are cognizant that there are cooking appliances fueled by other energy sources, such as propane, charcoal and wood. The percentages of these other fuels seem to be insignificantly small compared to natural gas and electricity and have been ignored in the present study. For each appliance category, the total population of appliances was next subdivided to gas and electric technology. For fryers, ovens and griddles, the gas electric differentiation was made at the sub-category level as shown in table 4.6. This was done to accommodate the substantially different ratios between appliance sub categories. The results were then aggregated to come up with an average gas/electric breakdown for the each appliance category. The aggregate gas/electric ratios were then applied to the total appliance inventory for Canada. Figure 4.2 shows the resulting electric gas breakdown for the eight appliance categories considered.

□ gas □ electric

L -

Fryers Ovens Ranges Steam Griddles Broilers Steamers Skillets 200,999 196,231 137.319 Kettles 87,287 82,871 71,861 44,961

116,921

Figure 4.2 - Incidence of gas and electric energy source among current stock of cooking equipment


4.5 BASELINE ENERGY CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES FOR THE COMMERCIAL FOOD SECTOR IN CANADA

In order to estimate the energy consumption for the appliance inventory outlined above, it is required to have an average annual energy consumption figure for each appliance. It is difficult to estimate the energy consumption for specific cooking appliances based on rated appliance input and efficiency. The amount of energy consumed by commercial cooking equipment is dependent on the operating time of the appliance, the cooking surface, heat input settings, the quantity of food processed and the mode of operation. The relative dependence of appliance energy consumption on each of these variables is a function of equipment type and design as well as on the usage of an appliance within a specific food service operation and varies substantially for different appliance categories.

Commercial cooking appliances have in general very large idle ratios. That is they spend well over half of their operating time idling and not cooking. Energy lost during idle periods is a sizable contributor to energy consumption of cooking appliances as well as the appliance cooking efficiency. The annual energy consumption estimates adopted in the present study for each appliance category (gas and electric) utilize the average consumption rates measured by the PG&E end-use monitoring project1 * in a commercial kitchen where available (ovens, fryers, ranges, skillets)and other industry estimates for energy consumption. This is a significant improvement on earlier studies which used rated input to estimate energy consumption. The average energy consumption rates were multiplied by typical operating hours per day, for a 6 day week and 52 week year to yield annual energy consumption estimates for each appliance category. The annual energy consumption rates were then merged with the commercial cooking appliance inventory (1994) to estimate total energy consumption by commercial cooking equipment in Canada. The results of the baseline energy consumption estimate for cooking appliances in Canada based on 1994 appliance inventory figures are presented in Tables 4.7 - 4.9 Appliance cooking efficiencies are also shown.

For fryers and ovens which are the most populous appliances a breakdown is provided by sub-category,


Table 4.7 shows 1994 estimates for fryer energy consumption in Canada. Figure 4.3 shows total energy consumption for different fryer types, differentiating between gas and electric.

Table 4.7 - Fryer Energy Consumption in Canada Fryer type

Deep fat gas Deep fat elec.

'. Pressure gas Pressure elec.

Flat bottormgas

Flat bottom elec.

Total

Total Canada

j 140V840

46,947

768 6,912

3,093

2,439

200*999

Efficiency %

25*60 75-85

25-50 ■

65-85

25-50

65-85

Annual consumption per appliance

kBtu* 74,880 38,335

.56̂ 560: :

21,297

168,480 ■ , - ■ '

17,038

Total energy consumption

GBtu*

10,546.12 1,799.70

43.3S 147.20

521.11

41.55

energy consumed = 13,099106

Conversion factor used !Btu=2.93071xlO-4 kWh

o

I Gas r j Electric

1.90 016 0.55

0.05 0 0 4

Deep fat Pressure Fryers

Rat bottom

o

A few points of interest may be noted: • Deep fat fryers are the largest fryer sub-category, accounting

for around 94 % of fryer population and total fryer energy consumption.

• The efficiency of gas fired fryers is between 25% for standard efficiency fryers and 60% for high efficiency gas fryers.

• The efficiency of electric fryers is between 65 % and 85%. • The population ratio between gas and electric fryers is around

3:1 whereas the consumption ratio is around 10:1, highlighting the prevalence of lower efficiency fryers in the market place.

• The market preference for gas fired fryer technology combined with the efficiency disadvantage of the gas fryers highlights development opportunities for higher efficiency gas fryer technology.

Figure 4.3 - Fryer consumption, Canada, 1994 Total fryer consumption = 13.82 PJ (IBtu=l.05506xlC?J),


* " )

Ovens

u pigure 4.4 - Oven consumption, Canada, 1994 otal oven consumption = 8.61 PJ

(iBtu=i.055Ofixi(rr).

Table 4.8 shows 1994 estimates for oven energy consumption in Canada. Figure 4,4 illustrates total energy consumption for different oven types, differentiating between gas and electric.

Table 4.8 - Oven Energy Consumption in Canada

Ovenlype

Standard gas -aalfsize -full size -counter top

Standard elec. - half size -full size - counter top

Seek gas

Deck elec.

Deck Pizza gas

Deck Pizza elec.

Conveyorgas Conveyor elec.

Rotisserie; gas Rotisserie elec.

T6V&

Total Canada

11,249 : 37,346 ,

500

8,486 28,174

378

9,097

81,869

5,252

584

4,044

449

7,307 1,497

196,231

Efficiency %

30-50

50-80

20-30

40-60

25-30

40-50

10*20 20-40

20-30 50-60


kBtu*

22464 62,400 8,736

12,778 42,594 4,259

65,520

21297

65^20 21,297

212,160 212,971

74*880

42,594


GBtu*

252.70 2,330,42

4,37

108.43 1,200.03

1.61

596.04

1,743.56

344.11

12.44

ZSTM 95.62

547,17 63.75

energy consumed = 8,158.23

* Conversion factor used lBtu=2,93071x]0-4 kWh

Several interesting points may be noted: * Standard ovens are the largest oven sub-category at 34% of

the appliance population and 48% of the energy consumption, followed by deck oven at 46% of the population and 29% of total consumption.

* There is a wide variation of efficiency ranges between different oven sub categories for both electric and gas ovens. The standard ovens being the most efficient sub category and conveyor ovens being the least efficient

* As in the case of fryers the electric equipment have higher efficiency ranges in comparison to the gas fired equipment.

* The efficiency of gas ovens is between 10 % and 5 0%.

* The efficiency of electric ovens is between 20 % and 80%.

* Deck ovens are the only electrically dominated sub-category.


0 Table 4,9 and Figure 4.5 show 1994 energy consumption estimates for the other six commercial cooking appliance categories in Canada.

Table 4.9 - Other Appliance Energy Consumption in Canada Appliance

. Bangs Standard gas Standard elec. Wok. gas Wok elec.

Range Total Steam Kettle gas Steam Kettle elec. KettieToteS Griddle gas Griddle elec. Griddle Total Broiler

Under fire gas Under fire elec. Over fire gas Over fine clcc.

Broiler Total Steamer gas Steamer elec. Steamer Total

.Skillet gas Skillet elec Skillet Total

Total Canada.

\ t49tf90 11,837 $.792

137,319 58,461 58,461

116,921 52,372 34,915 87287

mis 764

37,9S7 6,7U4

82,871 35,931 35,931 71,861 35,%9

8,992 44,361

Efficiency %

2£6ft 65-85 15-30 50-70

energy 40-60 80-95

energy 25-50 65-75

energy

i$4Q

35-65 15-30 35-65

energy

6040 euergy

30^55 80-95

energy


kBtu*

55,373 187200

crmsumed = 62,400-

34,076 consumed =

a6TH2 33,335

consumed = ■

: 209^66* 85J8B

114,816 74,540

consumed -

139.776 74,540

consumed = 49,920 29,816

consumed =


GBur*

655.47 1,084,26

20,859.42 3,64794 1,99207 5,640.01 4,3U9-.*5 1,338.45 5,848.30

7,844187 65.05

4,361.56 499.(59

12,771.17 5,02234 2,67827 7,700.51 1,795.56

268.11 2,063.67

* Conversion factor used lRtu=I.930TtxlO-4 fcWta

Range

□ Gas Q Electric

12-77

476 5.30

Kettle Griddle Brniler Steamer SUtot

Figure 4.5 -Other appliance consumption, Canada, 1994, Toial other consumption ■=■ 57,89 ?X\ Blu= 1,05506* H)1 J).

Technology Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment VoJume J, Page 33

Energy and efficiency data for appliance categories presented in Table 4.9 and Figure 4.5 revealed that: • Ranges had the highest energy consumption of all cooking

appliances in 1994 totaling 20,859.42 GBtu, followed by broilers at 12,771.17 GBtu. This is primarily the reflection of the fact that both these appliances idle at full input rate.

• For all appliance categories the electric equipment have higher efficiency ranges in comparison to the gas fired equipment.

• For most appliance categories there is a definite market preference for gas fired appliances.

The energy consumption figures from tables 4.7 to 4.9 were combined to provide a total cooking energy consumption estimate for Canada in 1994. The total annual energy consumed by commercial cooking appliances amounted to 76,140.37 GBtu, or 80,332.70 TJ in 1994 (conversion factor used 1 Btu=l .05506xl03 J).

The conventional industry perception is that the energy cost for commercial food service operations is roughly 4% of their total sales. This is based predominantly on figures reported by large commercial food service chains. In 1994 the total Canadian food service sales amounted to $30.2 billion. Four percent of the total sales amounts to around 1.2 billion of energy cost. Food preparation accounts for 35-40% of the total energy consumption of food service operations, see section 2.4, indicating a $480 million expenditure on energy costs for cooking equipment which is 1.6% of total sales.

In order to compare the consumption estimates of the current study with the numerical sales from industry, it was necessary to convert our energy consumption estimates to energy cost for both gas and electric appliances. For electricity an average price of 8 0 per kWh was assumed. For natural gas an average price of 22.86 0 per m3 was assumed. Note that fuel prices are heavily biased to Ontario and Quebec prices to reflect their large populations of food service outlets accounting jointly for 2/3 of all food service establishments in Canada.

The resulting energy cost for cooking appliances from our baseline consumption figures amounted to $704.6 million for Canada in 1994. Our estimate indicates that cooking energy costs amount to 2.3% of total food service sales in value.

The present estimate for the energy cost of cooking appliances is higher than industry convention by 0.7 percentage points. This difference is significant in dollar figures ($224.6 million) and gas volume (982.5 million m ). The main reason for the discrepancy


between the two estimates lies in the different characteristics of the institutional and non-institutional food service sectors, see section 4.2, table 4.3. It is generally understood that the non-institutional sector is far more competitive than the institutional sector. Over the past decade large commercial food service chains have worked towards reducing costs and improving competitiveness, and have succeeded to reduce energy costs to around 4% of total sales. This has been primarily driven by the fierce market competition and the desire to maximize profits on the part of the large food service chains. The institutional sector although quite sizable, has been essentially not subject to the same competitive forces. It is quite feasible that the energy costs for the institutional sector may be as high as 10 to 15% of their total sales. Our estimates can be totally reconciled with the sales estimates if we assume that for the non-institutional sector energy costs remain around 4% of total sales but for the institutional sector assume a higher figure of around 11%. The institutional sector is currently undergoing major change which may affect their energy consumption patterns. The evolution of the institutional food service sector will be discussed in more detail in section 4.7.

4.6 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND POPULATION OF NATURAL GAS FIRED COMMERCIAL COOKING EQUIPMENT

The energy consumption ratios of different commercial cooking appliance categories are shown in figure 4.6 for both electric and gas fired appliances. Population ratios of the same are shown in Figure 4.7.

S. Kettles (2-62%) Skillets (0.35%)

Steamers (3.52%) -| Ranges (0.86%) Oven (4.24%)

Griddle (1.76%) Broilers (0 74%) Fryers (2.61%)

S.Keaies(4 79%) Skillets (2.36%)—j

Steamers ($.60%)

Ranges (26 54%)

H I Oas

r

Fryers (14.59%)

Broilers (16.03%)

Gnddle (5.92%)

Oven (6.48%)

Electric

S. Kettles (6.17%) Skillets (0.95%V

Steamers (3.79%) Ranges (1.25%)'

Oven (13.67%)

Griddle (4 61%)-Brorlers(0 79%)

Fryers (6.02%)

S. Kettles (6.17%) Skillets (3,80%)

Steamers (3.79%)

Fryers (15.20%)

Broilers (7.96%)

Griddle (5.53%)

Oven (7 05%)

Ranges (13.25%)

Gas Electnc

Figure 4.6 - Energy consumption of commercial cooking appliances in Canada. Total estimated to be 76,140.37GBtu (80,332.70 TJ) in 1994.

Figure 4.7 - Population of commercial cooking appliances in Canada. Total estimated to be 939,000 in 1994.


A market preference for gas fired cooking appliances is evident from figure 4.7. Gas appliances account for 63% of the total commercial cooking appliance inventory This may be attributed to the desirable operating characteristics of gas appliances, like quick response and short heat up times. It interesting however to note that the population and energy consumption ratios between gas and electric appliances differ. Gas appliances consume 83% of the total cooking energy while accounting for 63% of the population. It is the opposite for electric appliances which account for 37% of the population and consume 17% of the total energy. This is primarily, although not entirely, a result of the lower efficiencies of gas fired appliances and the consequent higher consumption figures. It is important to note that the energy consumption ratios do not translate to operating costs for the commercial food service operators. In most of Canada with access to natural gas, fuel costs for natural gas are cheaper than electricity, the price advantage over electricity increasing from east to west. Therefore gas fired appliances in general prove more economical to operate, despite their lower efficiencies. This coupled with the desirable operating characteristics of natural gas provides for the observed market penetrations. The difference between the relative appliance population and relative energy consumption varies between gas appliance subcategories . Fryers and ovens are the most populous gas appliances but not the prime energy consumers. For fryers and ovens, both thermostatically controlled appliances, the consumption and population ratios are essentially the same. The primary consumer of energy among natural gas fired appliances is the commercial range which accounts for 13% of total appliances but consumes 27% of total energy consumed by cooking appliances. Broilers are the second largest users of energy among gas-fired appliances with only 8% of the population and 16% of the total energy consumption. It is interesting to note that both ranges and broilers are non-thermostatically operated appliances that idle at full input for long periods. In addition the range category also includes 'wok ranges' which have substantially higher input burners (100,000 to 250,000 Btu/h per burner) compared to (20,000 to 30,000 Btu/h per burner input) of a conventional commercial range top and have relatively low cooking efficiencies in the range 15-30%,


Institutional Non-institutional

Figure 4.8 - Energy consumption by the institutional and non-institutional food service sector in Canada, 1994. Total estimated to be 76,140.37GBtu (80,332.70 TJ) in 1994.

4.7 ENERGY CONSUMPTION WITHIN THE INSTITUTIONAL AND NON-INSTITUTIONAL FOOD SERVICE SECTORS

Apportioning the total cooking energy consumption between the institutional and non-institutional sectors provides further insight into energy consumption patterns in the commercial food service sector in Canada.

As shown on figure 4.8, the institutional sector accounted for 55% of the energy consumed for commercial cooking in Canada in 1994 and the non-institutional sector accounted for 45%. This snapshot of energy consumption ratio between the institutional and non-institutional sector may radically change in the not too distant future as a result of the very major changes occurring in the institutional food service sector.

The changes in the institutional sector are aimed at improving competitiveness of this sector. As discussed earlier (see section 2.1- figure 2.1) in the commercial food service sector the major cost items are payroll and food and beverage, each accounting for close to 1/3 of total costs. In a bid to save on operating costs, the institutional food service market place is being radically transformed.

Typical mid sized institutional kitchens scattered among different institutions each cooking food for a large number of people are giving way to a fewer number of very large very well equipped commissary kitchens (several times larger than conventional institutional kitchens) which provide cooking services for a multiplicity of institutional kitchens. The cooking operation is being centralized in the commissary kitchens which will have cooking equipment and chefs as well as cook-chill and cooked food storage capabilities. The satellite kitchens served by the commissary kitchen will no longer cook on their premises (no chef, no food preparation staff) and merely warm (rethermalize) and serve the food supplied by the commissary kitchen. This is a major transformation of the institutional food service market.

The non-institutional sector is also undergoing transformation, however at a lesser pace. The main changes are confined to the fast food chains on the one hand and large restaurant chains on the other. The independent commercial food service operations, which form 71% of the total outlets in Canada, remain relatively unaffected. Some of the chain restaurant operations have adopted the concept of a single commissary kitchen supplying a larger number of satellite kitchens. For example one chain in Toronto with sixteen restaurant locations, only cooks in one and merely warms and serves in the others. This trend may be adopted by other chain restaurants, if their menu selection permits.


Some commercial operations that have already moved from cooking on their premises are kiosk operators, food courts and stand alone chain stores. There has been substantial movement in the fast food chain operations in 1995 which is not reflected in the 1994 data. Almost all the large fast food chains have opened kiosk-sized outlets within non-food service retail and service establishments, such as hardware stores, gas stations and even convenience stores. Therefore most fast food chains operate three different sized operations: the regular stand-alone chain store, the smaller food-court sized outlet and the even smaller kiosk-sized operation. The equipment requirements of these vary significantly. It is important for the gas industry, in particular, to note that all the new kiosk operations are entirely electric fired.

All of the above changes in the institutional and non-institutional sector will affect energy consumption trends both within and outside the food service sector. With the commissary/satellite operations, efficiency of institutional kitchens will improve and most likely lead to a reduction in cooking energy consumption of the institutional sector. However the same changes result in a shift of energy load to the transportation sector. In addition, mushrooming of kiosk-sized fast food outlets will also result in new transportation load. It is unclear what the net effect on total national energy consumption will be.

4.8. COOKING ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY ACROSS CANADA

The 1994 baseline energy consumption by the commercial food service sector in Canada was established in section 4.5 to be 76,140.37 GBtu (80,332.70 TJ).

The cooking energy consumption estimates for each province and territory are calculated by multiplying the national consumption figure by an appropriate factor relating the population of food service outlets in the province or territory to the Canadian total. Section 2.4 reviewed data sources available providing the number of commercial food service outlets in provinces and territories across Canada and resolved to use the ratios provided by ReCount1121 , see table 2.1.

The relatively coarse nature of the adopted approach is deemed justified for obtaining an overview of the variations in energy consumption across Canada. Detailed per province information is available and may be applied to individual provinces or territories if a finer resolution is required.


0 The commercial cooking appliance population and estimated energy consumption for each province and territory in Canada are presented in table 4.10.

Table 4.10 - Estimated Annual Food Service Energy Consumption per Province and Territory in Canada, 1994.

Province/ Territory

Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Yukon Northwest Territories

CANADA

ReC941'21

% 1.35 0.48 2.89 2.06 23.74 39.30 3.49 3.16 9.60 13.71 0.09 0.11

100.00

Energy GBtu

1,027.89 365.47

2,200.46 1,568.49

18,075.72 29,923.17

2,657.30 2,406.04 7,309.48

10,438.84 68.53 83.75

76,140.37

Consumption. TJ 1,084.49

385.60 2,321.62 1,654.85

19,070.98 31,570.75 2,803.61 2,538.51 7,711.94

11,013.61 72.30 88.37

80,332.70

Estimated food service energy consumption and percentage of total energy consumption per province and territory across Canada in 1994 is illustrated on figure 4.9.

NWT88TJ,0.1% Yukon 72 TJ, 0.1%

British Columbia 11,013 TJ /Alberta 13.7% 7,712 TJ

9.6% Sask. 2,539 TJ 3.2% 1

Manitoba \ 2,804 TJ 3.5%

/ Ontario 31,570 TJ 39.3%

V it a]

Quebec 19,070 TJ 23.7%

ves lb

Newfoundland 1,085 TJ, 1.35% PEI386TJ,0.5% Nova Scotia 2,322 TJ, 2.9% New Brunswick 1,655 TJ, 2.1%

Figure 4.9 Estimated Food Service Energy Consumption and Percentage of Total Consumption per Province and Territory across Canada, 1994.


c

D

It may be noted that the energy consumption estimates provided in figure 4.9 and table 4.10 have not considered appliance breakdowns by fuel type in each province or territory, but were based on aggregate consumption figures assuming the gas/electric appliance ratios shown in table 4.6. This will have minimal impact on consumption estimates for Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, with the highest population of food service outlets in Canada, but may somewhat over estimate consumption in the Atlantic provinces with no access to natural gas. The impact of this on the overall energy consumption picture is expected to be minimal as the population of food service outlets in the Atlantic provinces is less than 7% of the national total.

The overall energy consumption picture presented in figure 4.9 and table 4.10 remains valid and reflects the relative cooking energy consumption of Canadian provinces and territories in relation to each other.


5. ENERGY CONSERVATION POTENTIAL AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 5.1 INTRODUCTION

Environmental concerns are the prime driver for the energy conservation movement in the nineties. Canada is committed to reduce its C02 emissions by the year 2000 to the 1990 levels. Energy efficiency is a good proxy for C02 emissions. Any incremental increase in efficiency translates to a corresponding decrease in C02 emissions. However there is no correlation between equipment energy efficiency and emissions of either carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) or oxides of sulphur (SOx). Energy efficiency cannot be used as a proxy for NOx, SOx or CO emissions.

The commercial food service sector in Canada is a sizable user of energy, for food preparation as well as HVAC and water heating. In the past decade, major efforts have gone into improving the energy efficiency of HVAC systems in commercial food service outlets. The focus of the present study is to examine the energy conservation potential of commercial cooking appliances, especially gas-fired appliances.

In this chapter the 1994 baseline estimates are combined with past market growth data to estimate future energy consumption trends.

Energy conservation potential for gas fired commercial cooking appliances is discussed in relation to the market characteristics of the commercial food service sector. Finally research and development opportunities for gas-fired commercial cooking appliances are identified.

5.2 FUTURE CONSUMPTION PREDICTIONS

The baseline energy consumption estimate for all commercial cooking appliances in Canada in 1994 was 76,140.37 GBtu or 80,332.4 TJ. Past CRFAm statistics for the period 1985-1994 show an average annual growth of 4.7% in the commercial food service sector in Canada. It is therefore deemed justified to assume an annual growth figure of 4.7% to predict energy consumption trends over the next 10 years.

Energy consumption of the commercial cooking equipment was estimated for the 1994 breakdown of food service outlets. In order to estimate future consumption, it is assumed that there is a one-to-one correlation between the growth in number of food service outlets and the growth in energy consumption and that the appliance stock efficiency and consumption figures remain the

Technology Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I, Page 4!

0 same. The ratio between gas and electric appliance consumption is also retained at 1994 levels.

Figure 5.1 shows the results of the extrapolation of energy consumption to the year 2005.

O

140000

120000

100000

30000

E 60000

40000

20000

Figure 5.1 - Prediction of commercial food service energy consumption trends.

It may be seen that commercial cooking appliance energy consumption can rise by 66% over the current levels in the next ten years (32% by the year 2000), if no energy conservation measure is taken.

5.3 ENERGY CONSERVATION POTENTIAL

The baseline energy consumption estimate for all commercial cooking appliances in Canada in 1994 was 76,140.37 GBtu or 80,332.4 TJ. Gas fired commercial cooking appliances which accounted for 83% of the total energy consumed have efficiencies typically in the range 10% to 40% for standard efficiency equipment and 35% to 60% for high efficiency appliances. These efficiency levels are very low in comparison with minimum efficiency levels imposed on residential gas appliances used for space and water heating.

Two separate factors need to be addressed while assessing the energy conservation potential of commercial cooking appliances:

• Technical potential and/or barriers for improving appliance cooking energy efficiency; and

• Non-technical drivers, incentives and barriers such as competitive market forces, regulation and training.

There are no fundamental technical barriers to the development of high (over 80%) efficiency commercial cooking equipment which could result in substantial energy savings. Gas fired residential


heating and water heating products with utilization efficiencies in excess of 90% are commonly available in the market. Applying the technologies used in those appliances to commercial cooking equipment should without much problem result in a major increase in cooking efficiency, without requiring great technical innovation. However, it may be noted that even currently available high efficiency (~ 60%) gas appliances have limited market penetration. The market is not prepared to pay a premium for energy efficiency. The food service cooking equipment market is still dominated by least first cost appliances, which in general are also low efficiency. Availability of low cost medium to high efficiency equipment which combines energy efficiency with productivity enhancement to give a short pay back period is a prerequisite for market penetration of high efficiency appliances. Specific R&D opportunities to improve both performance and efficiency of commercial cooking appliances are discussed in detail in section 5.5. If no action is taken, energy consumption of commercial cooking appliances can increase by 66% over the next ten years to over 120,000 TJ. It is however feasible to adopt a series of measures aimed at increasing the market penetration of higher efficiency products. A 10% annual growth in market penetration of higher efficiency equipment can slow down or stabilize the energy consumption of cooking appliances over the next decade.

In the non-institutional sector working with the large food service chains is the easiest and quickest way to ensure market introduction of higher efficiency technology, There is an immense opportunity to impact the introduction of higher efficiency commercial cooking appliances into the institutional sector. The institutional food service sector is responsible for 55% of the total cooking energy consumption in Canada. As discussed in chapter 4, the institutional food service sector is in the process of major transformation. The key players in the large institutional kitchen restructuring need to be identified and supported in their choice of cooking equipment. This is likely to have the largest short term impact on reducing the energy consumption of the food service sector in Canada.

Given that a single manufacturer of commercial food service equipment, Garland, dominates the Canadian market place, it can play an important role in the development and introduction of


new improved higher efficiency commercial cooking appliances in Canada. It is important to draw attention to the largely ignored oriental restaurant sector. Chinese restaurants were identified as the largest ethnic restaurant sector in Canada, and one which is likely to grow in the near future. The primary commercial cooking appliances used in these restaurants are the Oriental 'wok' ranges which are among the least efficient cooking appliances available with a very high energy consumption. This sector is likely to most benefit from the development of higher efficiency appliances.

5.4 DRIVERS FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION

Non-technical factors such as the regulatory environment and industry and public awareness will have a major impact on the future efficiency of the installed base of cooking equipment and resulting energy savings. The term "regulatory environment" is used loosely and intended to include a range of measures from voluntary industry operated schemes to mandated minimum efficiency regulation and all measures in between. An example of a voluntary industry program might be a directory listing efficiency ratings measured per ASTM test methods. Such a voluntary directory is likely to provide an incentive for manufacturers to introduce higher efficiency product yet permit them to retain control of the process and timing of introduction of the higher efficiency product. It will also provide manufacturers with maximum flexibility to come up with commercially viable products which combine energy efficiency features with productivity improvements to suit the market. A directory will also provide important information to food service operators and commercial kitchen designers, leading to an increased awareness of life-cycle appliance cost versus first cost.

Alternate measures which require some government intervention but fall well short of mandated minimum efficiency regulation may provide the driving force toward higher efficiency equipment. Examples are selective rebate programs for higher efficiency cooking appliances and/or labeling requirements. Finally, mandated minimum energy efficiency legislation can also provide the driving force for market penetration of energy efficient commercial cooking appliances. Minimum efficiency regulation will only impact new installations and will leave current operations intact in the short term.

Technolog) Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I, Page 44

The role of education and training as major drivers towards higher efficiency appliances should not be ignored either. Even though the energy cost of commercial food service outlets forms a relatively small percentage of their overall costs, any savings in this area direct adds to the profit margin of an establishment. Awareness of this fact coupled with readily available information on energy efficiency performance of different appliances equips the food service operator and the kitchen designer with the information required to make an informed choice when selecting commercial cooking equipment.

A few possible drivers were mentioned above by way of examples and not intended to be an exhaustive list.

A suitable combination of the available energy conservation promoting measures should be adopted to meet short and long term goals. The short term energy conservation measures in the commercial food service sector should focus on eliminating the lowest efficiency appliances from the market place. The longer term measures should ensure development and widespread adoption of new higher efficiency technologies which push the efficiency envelope higher than the current levels.

5.5 GAS APPLIANCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Gas fired appliances currently enjoy a larger share of the commercial cooking appliance market than electric appliances. The is due to the desirable operating characteristics of gas fired cooking appliances, namely quick response and short heat up times as well as their lower operating costs. Electric utilities however have pursued and continue to aggressively pursue a larger share of the commercial cooking energy load. As a result of immense focused R&D activity in the past decades completely new electric product lines have appeared: microwave, induction and flashbake, taking advantage of giant leaps and advances in controls and electronics. Gas appliances in comparison have remained relatively unchanged. It is important that the gas industry not remain complacent and too confident about enjoying their current market share of the commercial cooking appliances into the future.

Research and development opportunities should address both improvements to existing appliances and development of entirely new appliances in response to the rapidly changing commercial food service market.

Techno log\ Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume 1, Page 45

5.5.1 R&D OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING EXISTING APPLIANCES

When considering research and development opportunities to improve existing gas fired commercial cooking appliances, it is important to realize that improvement is not limited to higher efficiency. Any efficiency improvement in commercial cooking appliances must be coupled with improvement to the cooking process and/or cooked product, increasing the productivity or quality of the cooking operation.

Moreover it must be acknowledged that first cost is and will continue to remain an important deciding factor in the selection of commercial cooking appliances. Therefore in general, a low cost mid-efficient piece of equipment is likely to achieve a higher market penetration in comparison to the highest attainable efficiency appliance with a substantial cost premium over the benchmark appliance.

In this section the focus is on identifying opportunities to improve appliance cooking energy efficiency and reduce the energy consumption of gas fired appliances. Energy consumption of cooking appliances can be reduced by 1) increasing appliance cooking energy efficiency and/or 2) minimizing idle energy consumption of the appliance. The relative impact of each depends on appliance type and the duty cycle.

Population and consumption may be regarded as important criteria for prioritizing research and development activities among commercial cooking equipment to have the most impact on energy conservation. Gas fired fryers, ranges and broilers are among the top three appliance categories in both population and energy consumption among the appliance categories considered in the present study. Together they account for almost 60% of total commercial cooking energy consumption (both gas and electric) and over 80% of energy consumption of gas appliances. Even minor efficiency improvements to these appliances will have a major impact on energy consumption.

The detailed review of the technology in Volume II identified a number of general areas for research and development which will impact all appliance categories. The areas identified for further development to improve efficiency performance of all gas fired commercial cooking appliances are:

■ Controls. In the controls area, there is a need for smart controls which can detect and respond to utilization patterns, enhanced temperature sensors, modulation capability.


• Burners. In the burner area there is a general demand for improved burner systems : advanced atmospheric burners, turn

down and modulation capability, sealed combustion, high efficiency infrared and pulse combustion burners. .->*■

V Venting. Implications and potential benefits of sealed combustion appliances which decouple combustion effluent venting from the general cooking effluent ventilation warrant closer examination, as does the development of integrated appliance/vent hood systems. (These are appliance specific venting issues separate from, albeit related to, the general cooking effluent ventilation topic which is not the subject of the present study.) >'r *■

"V Insulation. The need for improved insulation materials was also identified as a general requirement for better performance and cutting down heat loss from the appliance to the ambient.

• Materials. Advanced low cost materials capable of withstanding the harsh operating requirements of commercial cooking appliances should be investigated for improving the heat transfer performance and productivity of cooking appliances.

In addition to the above, specific development opportunities to reduce energy consumption of gas fired ranges, broilers and fryers which are the major consumers of energy among commercial cooking appliances are presented below.

FRYERS Gasfired fryers are the most populous commercial cooking appliance in Canada. Gains can be made to fryer performance by: • improving the partload efficiency; • reducing the stand by losses; • enhancing temperature control; • adding frypot insulation; • improving burner performance (dvanced atmospheric

burners, pulse combustors, radiant burners, modulation and turndown):

• improving burner controls (modulation and turndown capability )Recirculation tubes

• improving heat transfer properties

• R&D Initiative. Developing a low first cost midefficient fryer is likely to have the most market appeal. This product should incorporate some of the above features such as improved burner and controls with turndown capability, and frypot insulation.


RANGES Gas ranges were the highest energy consumer among the appliance categories considered in the present study. Low efficiency burners and high idle energy consumption are the main contributors to the high energy consumption of gas ranges. Gains can be made to range performance by: • improving burner performance (high efficiecy burner,

radiant burners): • reducing idle consumption (cooking vessel sensor to turn

burner down or off while idle); • improved controls.

V R&D Initiative. Development of an improved commercial range with higher efficiency burners and improved controls to turn down when no cooking load is on the range is likely to have the most significant impact on energy conservation. It is also timely since there may be an imminent threat to the unquestioned dominance of gas ranges from the electric induction range. Wok ranges Wok ranges are increasing in popularity, yet are very different from conventional commercial ranges. They have very high input burners (100-250,000 Btu) and are not well understood in terms of efficiency and performance. An end-use monitoring program followed by development of a performance test method is highly recommended to characterize the energy balance of the wok cooking process.

BROILERS Broilers are the next largest energy consumer among gas appliances. Gains can be made to broiler performance by: • control strategies that modulate energy consumption in

response to food loading need; • improving burner performance (radiant burners, modulation

and turndown); • evaluation of the energy saving devices such as the Broil-

master to reduce idle energy consumption.

■" R&D Initiative. Development of an improved gas fired broiler incorporating advanced controls to turn the broiler down during idle periods using high efficiency infra red burners provides an energy saving opportunity.

5.5.2 NEW APPLIANCE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Gas industry should be more receptive to the changes in this market place to identify new opportunities. For example the following new opportunities warrant some examination:


0 • The restructuring of the institutional food service sector has paved the way for new cook chill technology and potentially other new appliance technology.

• The growing trend for reduced menu fast food chain outlet in gas stations and retail stores poses major obstacles for conventional gas appliances. All such food service outlets are currently exclusively electric fueled. Closer attention to this growing sector is warranted.

• In the non-institutional food service sector, food service chains offering fried foods (fried chicken, burgers, etc.) are searching for ways to make their products mobile and deliverable to the consumer's home similar to the pizza. An NGV delivery fleet equipped with a small gas fired appliance which provides fried food with shelf life may well be the most economical way for burger and chicken food chains to make their products mobile. This may sound like a far fetched idea, but in comparison to the use of microwave, electromagnetic energy (induction) or light (flashbake oven) for cooking, is by no means revolutionary.

The above are only examples to demonstrate that there are many development opportunities for completely new gas fired appliances and serve as a reminder that is area of development opportunity needs to be examined.

xJ

Technolog\ Review of Commercial Food Service Equipment Volume I, Page 49

6. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The present study focuses on eight commercial cooking appliance categories: fryers, ovens, ranges, broilers, griddles, steamers, kettles, skillets.

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

• In 1994 the commercial food service industry in Canada was worth $30 billion, with 74.5% generated by the non-institutional sector and 25.5% generated by the institutional sector.

• An average annual growth of 4.7% was realized in the commercial food service sector in the period 1985-1994.

• The total energy consumption of the eight commercial cooking appliance categories considered was estimated at 76,140.37 GBtu or 80,332.7 TJ in Canada in 1994.

• Gas appliances accounted for 63% of the total commercial cooking appliance inventory and consumed 83% of the total commercial energy utilized by cooking appliances. Gas fired ranges, broilers and fryers respectively accounted for 27%, 16%, and 15% of the total energy consumed by commercial cooking appliances.

• Efficiencies for cooking appliances are measured by ASTM performance test methods. Seven ASTM performance test methods have been published, another nine are in the process of adoption and a further six are under development.

• Cooking energy efficiencies measured by the ASTM procedures are comparable to steady state efficiency measurements for other appliances, no provision exists for estimating the equivalent of annual fuel utilization efficiency.

• Cooking energy efficiencies for the gas fired commercial cooking equipment ranged from 10% to 60%.

• Electric fired appliances had cooking energy efficiencies ranging from 35% for standard efficiency appliance to 95% for high efficiency appliances.

• Real in-kitchen utilization efficiencies are likely to be much lower than cooking energy efficiencies. The main reasons are the very high idle times (typically 80%) for cooking appliances and their poor performance under light load cooking conditions.


0

o

•

In-kitchen utilization efficiencies for commercial cooking equipment can be as low as 5-10% for gas fired appliances and 20-30% for electric appliances. Estimated food service energy consumption by province and territory follows the population ratio with major consumers Ontario (39.3%) and Quebec (23.7%), followed by British Columbia (13.7%) and the rest of Canada (23.3%).

• Commercial cooking appliance energy consumption can rise by 66% over the current levels in the next ten years, if no energy conservation measure is adopted.

• There are no fundamental technical barriers to the development of high efficiency commercial cooking equipment.

• Non-technical factors such as the regulatory environment and industry / public awareness will have a major impact on energy conservation potential within the commercial cooking sector.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

• Establish a commercial cooking appliance testing program that can be used to further benchmark energy performance of commercial cooking equipment. This can generate sufficient data in due course for a directory listing efficiency performance ratings for commercial cooking equipment.

• Develop an industry strategy (using benchmark performance data as justification) that will influence the purchase-decision criteria so that customers will specify more energy efficient equipment.

• Develop and sponsor training courses and workshops for the Canadian food service and utility industries as well as culinary schools based on the present study. Appliance market and technology information can also be made available through the Internet.

• Initiate research and development projects that will deliver the greatest return for R&D dollars invested (i.e., that achieve the largest efficiency gain for the largest percentage of equipment installed in Canadian food service facilities). The R&D focus needs to be on improving part-load performance of gas cooking equipment and reducing the cost premium associated with producing more efficient equipment.


REFERENCES 1. Arthur D Little, Characterization of Commercial Building

Appliances, Final Report, prepared for Building Equipment Division Office of Building Technologies US Department of Energy, June 1993.

2. Efficiency and Alternative Energy Branch, Natural Resources Canada, Commercial Sector Study: CRJQ File 630-PEO8736, Technical Report RDQ-94-650, Ottawa, August 1994.

3. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Food Service Industry Presentation Package, Publication No. 6148, December 1988.

4. Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd., Strategic Market Assessment of the Commercial Cooking Sector, Final Report, January 1987.

5. Building Energy Technology Transfer Program (Bert), An Inventory of Canadian Cafeterias and the Energy Usage in this Food Service Sector, A Research Report, sponsored by EMRC, May 1983.

6. Don Fisher, personal conversation

7. Canadian Restaurant and Food Service Association, Market Review and Forecast, Food Service Facts 1995, April 1995.

8. Don Copithorn, personal conversation

9. Food Service and Hospitality Magazine, Top 100, July 1995

10. Canadian Restaurant and Food Service Association, Food Service Statistical Data, personal correspondence, 1995.

11. Restaurant Consulting Group, ReCount Canada, Province and Total Summaries for 1992, 1992.

12. Restaurant Consulting Group, ReCount Canada, Province and Total Summaries for 1994, 1994.

13. Consumers Gas, The Restaurant Energy Pie, 1995.

14. National Restaurant Association (NRA), Energy Guide for 1986,1986.

15. Claar, C.N., Mazzucchi, R.P., Heidell, J.A., The Project on Restaurant Energy Performance (PREP) - End-Use Monitoring and Analysis, Prepared for the Office of Building Energy Research and Development, DOE, May 1985.

Technology Review of Commercial Food service Equipment Volume I, Page 52

16. Consumers Gas, Analysis of Bell Telephone Listing of Food Service Outlets, personal correspondence.

17. Major Linda Knox, Commercial Cooking Equipment in Canadian Military Kitchens, personal correspondence, 1995.

18. Allen Keogh, personal conversations

19. Canadian Restaurant and Food Service Association, Statistics on Gas/Electric Ratios for Commercial Cooking Equipment, 1995.

20. PG&E Food Service Technology Center, personal correspondence

21. PG&E Monitoring Project


BIBLIOGRAPHY

• American Gas Association, Comparative Gas/Electric Food Service Equipment Energy Consumption Ratio Study, March 1983.

• American Gas Association, Commercial Kitchens, Seventh Edition.

• Architectural Energy Corporation, Development of Computer Models of the Performance of Fast Food Restaurants, Final Report prepared for Energy, Mines and Resources (CANMET), 31 March 1994.

• Arthur D Little, Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances, Final Report, prepared for Building Equipment Division Office of Building Technologies U.S. Department of Energy, June 1993.

• Arthur D Little, Food Management Equipment and Supplies Census Institutional, Section 3, Cooking and Reconstituting Equipment, January 1987.

• Building Energy Technology Transfer Program (Bett), An Inventory of Canadian Cafeterias and the Energy Usage in this Foodservice Sector, A Research Report, sponsored by EMRC, May 1983.

• Canadian Restaurant and Foodservice Association, Market Review and Forecast, Foodservice Facts 1995, April 1995.

• Canadian Electrical Association, Commercial Building End-Use Consumption Coefficients in Canada, 721 U 648, May 1990.

• Canadian Facts, An Assessment of the Potential for Natural Gas in the Restaurant and Quick Service Food Sector Volume I - Report Only, June/ July, 1992.

• Canadian Restaurant and Foodservice Association, InfoStats, A Quarterly Report on the Foodservice Industry, December 1990-1994.

• Canadian Commercial Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre, McMaster Institute for Energy Studies, Commercial Sector Energy End-Use Data in Canada: Recommendations for a National Data Collection Strategy, Draft Report, March 31,1995.

• Canadian Facts, Quick Service Food and Restaurant Sector Survey, July 1992.

Technology Review of Commercial Food service Equipment Volume 1, Page 54

• Center for Energy and the Urban Environment, Commercial Gas Cooking Equipment: Opportunities to Increase Energy Efficiency, CEUE/TR91-1-CM, December 1991.

• Claar, C.N., Mazzucchi, R.P., Heidell, J.A., The Project on Restaurant Energy Performance (PREP) - End-Use Monitoring and Analysis, Prepared for the Office of Building Energy Research and Development, DOE, May 1985.

• Consumers Gas, Foodservice Equipment.

• Consumers Gas, Directory of Foodservice Equipment.

• D.L. Galloway, Current State of Canadian Commercial Energy End-Use Data, prepared for the Canadian Commercial Energy End-Use Database and Analysis Centre, McMaster Institute of Energy Studies, April 1995.

• Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Manitoba, The Better Restaurant Kitchen, September 1984.

• Efficiency and Alternative Energy Branch, Natural Resources Canada, A Ranking of Commercial and Industrial Energy-Using Equipment, Commercial Sector Study: CRIQ File 630-PEO8736, Technical Report RDQ-94-650, Ottawa, August 1994.

• Efficiency and Alternative Energy Branch, Natural Resources Canada, A Ranking of Commercial and Industrial Energy-Using Equipment, Sensitivity Analysis: CRIQ File 630-PE14563, Technical Report RDQ-95-611, Ottawa, July 1995.

• Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Foodservice Industry Presentation Package, Publication No. 6148, December 1988.

• Gas Research Institute (GW),Commercial Appliance Energy Use Update-1989,Fina\ Report PB92-227875, February 1992.

• Gas Research Institute (GKL),Energy Requirements for Office Buildings, Volume I, Existing Buildings,Topical Report GRI-90/0236.1, February 1992.

• Gas Research Institute (GRI ),Energy Requirements for Office Buildings, Volume 2, Recent and Future Buildings,Topical Report GRI-90/0236.2, March 1992.

• Gas Research Institute (GRI), Space Conditioning and Appliances Group, Code Requirements for Installing Gas-

Technolog> Review of Commercial Food service Equipment Volume I, Page 55

Fired Commercial Counter Appliances, Topical Report GRI-93/0321, May 1993.

• Gas Research Institute (GKT),UnitedStates Commercial Building Population and Energy Consumption: An Overview,Topical Report PB86-189925, April 1986.

• Gas Research Institute (GRI), Overview of the United States Commercial Building Population,Top\ca\ Report PB85-190536, October 1984.

• Kostuch Information Services, Hotel, Restaurant, Institution (HRI) Product Directory & Catalog File.

• Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd., Strategic Market Assessment of the Commercial Cooking Sector, Final Report, January 1987.

• Natural Resources Canada, Report to Prliament on the Administration and Enforcement of the Energy Efficiency Act 1993-94, 1995.

• Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battele, The Project on Restaurant Energy Performance- End-Use Monitoring and Analysis, May 1985.

• Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Keating Model 36x 30 IBID MIRACLEAN Gas Griddle: Appliance Performance in Production, Report 5011.93.5, prepared by Food Service Technology Center, September 1993.

• Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Research and Development, Development and Application of a Uniform Testing Procedure for Open, Deep-fat Fryers, Report 008.1-90.22, November 1991.

• Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Research and Development, Cooking Appliance Performance Report, Report 008.1-90.8, August 1990.

• Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Keating MIRACLEAN Model 36 x 30 IBID Gas Griddle: Application of ASTM Standard Test Method F1275-90, Report 5017.93.3, prepared by Food Service Technology Center, September 1993.

• Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E),Dalton 72-Pie Revolving Oven, Model 126020: Appliance Performance Field Test, Report 5011.93.6, prepared by Food Service Technology Center. September 1993.


S. Krsikapa, A.L.P Joseph, F. D Williamson, Technology Review ofResidental Gas-Fired Appliances in Canada, CGRI Report 94C068, June 1994. The US Department of Energy, National Energy Information Center, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1992, March 1995.

ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Steam Cookers, Designation: F 1484-93

ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Convection Ovens, Designation: F 1496-93

ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Range Tops, Designation: F 1521-94

ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Double-Sided Griddles, Designation: F 1605-95

ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Griddles, Designation: F 1275-95

ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Open Deep-Fat Fryers, Designation: F 1361-95

ASTM Standard Test Method for the Performance of Combination Ovens, Designation: F 1639-95


technology review of commercial food service …

Documents