Comparison between Electric Kettle and

Stovetop Kettle
Life Cycle Assessment Group LCA 2
Ali Ayoub & Cindy Irusta

Date: 16 December 2014

Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
Goal and Scope .................................................................................................................... 3

Assumptions .................................................................................................................................. 3
Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................. 3

Life cycle inventory ........................................................................................................... 3

Proctor-Silex Electric Kettle .................................................................................................... 4

IKEA Steel Stovetop Kettle ........................................................................................................ 4

Material and Methods ....................................................................................................... 5

Data Sources .................................................................................................................................. 5

Geographical Coverage .............................................................................................................. 5

Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) .......................................................................... 6

Climate Change (GWP100) ....................................................................................................... 6

Freshwater Eutrophication (FEP) .......................................................................................... 6
Particulate Matter Formation (PMFP) ................................................................................. 7

Limitations and Recommendations ............................................................................. 7

References ............................................................................................................................ 8
Annex ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Introduction
As we analyze the time we spend in different activities, we realize that we use several electronic
devices to make our lives easier and more efficient. Kitchen appliances are a clear example of the
addition of electric devices to accomplish this goal. A more specific example is a kettle, which is now
used not only during breakfast but also during different occasions in a day.
Stovetop kettles were the clear option to boil water and prepare that cup of tea; however, nowadays
the stovetop kettle has a clear competitor: the electric kettle. Thus the need of a stovetop was not
necessary anymore and with faster results when boiling water. Additionally, electric-kettles design
presents other features such as an automatic turn-off set and a thermostat that make them a preferred
option among buyers. Moreover, their competitive price makes them affordable and a must in the
kitchen.
For this Life Cycle Assessment we consider both the stovetop kettle and the electric kettle. Both
products are options for the buyer, although electric kettles seem to have a bigger share of the market,
which indicates a progressive switch from the traditional stovetop kettle to the electric one. However,
it is important to consider the resources involved during their life cycle in order to make a wellinformed decision. Moreover, their impact does not solely rely on their production but also on the use
phase, since electric and stovetop kettles have a considerable long life (4 years average). Also, they
are most likely used more than once a day, which will consequently incur in the use of more energy
resources, and the emission of more waste to the environment (Centre for Design at RMIT, 1997;
Telenko & Seepersad, 2010; Telenko, 2008).

Goal and Scope

The goal of this study is to get an overview of the major environmental impacts of the electric kettle
during its life cycle and compare it with that of the stovetop kettle. For this purpose we used the
cradle to grave approach, which involves assembly processes, packaging, use of the product and
incineration as the product disposal.

Assumptions
We acknowledge the importance of including distribution (transportation) in this study; however, lack
of data availability was they main constraint to dismiss this area of the assessment. Moreover, some
small parts are necessary during the assembly process; nevertheless, these are not included as part of
this LCA due to not having enough data about them, but we know that theyre made from the same
material as the main parts, so its assumed that theyre a part of the main parts. Furthermore, it is also
assumed that recycling is not an option for any of the two kettles.

Functional Unit
To boil water is the main function of a kettle, therefore to determine the functional unit for this LCA
we considered the same volume of water to be boiled in either the stovetop kettle and in the electric
kettle. The functional unit has therefore being defined as: Boiling 0.5 liters of water, 3 times a day for
7 days a week.

System boundary
As previously mentioned this LCA focuses on a cradle to grave analysis. Respective diagrams can be
found in the annex section.

Life cycle inventory

As previously mentioned an electric kettle and a stovetop kettle are compared. For this reason a steel
stovetop kettle from IKEA (VATTENTT) and an electric kettle from the brand Proctor-Silex
(K2070YA) were selected. The latter was marked as the cheapest and as the favorite among buyers
according to Amazon statistics.

Proctor-Silex Electric Kettle *

Production of basic
materials

Input of materials

Energy Use

Waste and Emissions

Total weight: 700 g

Materials:

Several components are

transported by ship using
energy in transport

PVC produces
chlorinated waste

Heater Production: 350g

of Aluminum
Housing Production:
250g of Polypropylene

Copper smelting uses

large amounts of energy

Cable Production: 60cm

three-conductor cable

PC and PP wastes are

insignificant
Copper smelting
produces sulphur dioxide

Packaging: 125g of
corrugated board
packaging
Manufacturing

Negligible

0.6L of compressed air

50kJ of electricity for
testing the kettle

Product Use

Water heated in the

kettle over 4 years is
assumed to be 2190
Liters

Kettle is assumed to be
used 3 times/day and 7
days/week at boiling
time of 1 minute

Waste and emissions are

insignificant

Air emissions, solid

waste and waterborne
waste from electricity
production

Over 4 years
consumption: 262.8 MJ
End of product life

Negligible

Transport to incineration
site

Electric kettle is
incinerated

Table 1 Proctor-Silex kettle Life Cycle Inventory

*(Acid et al., 2009; Forum, 2010; Grzesik & Guca, 2011; Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP),
2010)

IKEA Steel Stovetop Kettle*

Production of basic
materials

Input of materials

Energy Use

Waste and Emissions

Total weight: 700 g

Materials:

Several components are

transported by ship using
energy in transport

Carbon dioxide from

stainless-steel production

Main Body: 650g of

Steel
Small Parts (handle and
whistle): 50g of
Melamine
Packaging: 100g of

Melting raw materials

for stainless steel
production and
additional shaping
process take great

corrugated board
packaging

amounts of energy

Manufacturing

Negligible

Assembly: 50 kJ of
electricity

Waste and emissions are

insignificant

Product Use

Water heated in the

kettle over 4 years is
assumed to be 2190
Liters

Natural gas consumption

on stovetop at a boiling
time of 2 minutes

Air emissions

Over 4 years
consumption: 1314000
Btu
End of product life

Negligible

Transport to incineration
site

Stovetop kettle is
incinerated

Table 2 Steel-stovetop-kettle Life Cycle Inventory

*(Acid et al., 2009; Forum, 2010; Grzesik & Guca, 2011; Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP),
2010)

Material and Methods

For this LCA one IKEA stovetop kettle and a Proctor-Silex electric were used to make the respective
comparison and determine the environmental impacts. The selection of these types of kettles was
based on the availability of data and also on the preference of consumers according to the main online
buying websites such as Amazon.
In the case of the electric kettle the following parts were differentiated:

Housing or main body made of polyethylene

Heater made of aluminum
Cable or cord made of cupper and PVC

As for the stovetop kettle the considered parts were:

Main body made of stainless steel

Small parts: Handle and whistle made of melamine

For the modeling, generation of inventories and calculation of environmental impacts the OpenLCA
software was used.

Data Sources
Most of the data used in this study are from ecoinvent. Also the assessment of the environmental
sustainability and the present hotspot analysis was done using the ReCiPe 2008 midpoint (H) method.

Geographical Coverage
The goal of this study is to assess the environmental impact of an electric kettle versus a stovetop
kettle in Belgium. The analyzed products were produced out of the country and assembly was done in
China. Thus the use of electricity and other energy resources were taken from the data set provided
from ecoinvent.

Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

The increasing interest in environmental sustainability of products is prompting governments
and companies to research the impacts each product or service has on the environment. Environment
and human health impacts of a product can be traced back to its origins, from raw material extraction
through all the manufacturing and distribution processes, reaching the use phase and the products end
of life. Depending on these stages, the category and magnitude of the impact can vary among different
types of products, countries, and even different manufacturing techniques. Impact categories
incorporate a large variation of impacts that can be quantified. Environmental impact categories
contain climate change, resource depletion, ecotoxicity, etc., while impact categories related to human
health include human toxicity and are greatly affected by the environmental impacts (Sweatman &
Gertsakisi, 1997).
For the purpose of this study, the LCA of an electric kettle and a stovetop kettle were
performed using the OpenLCA software, and analysed using the ReCiPe Midpoint (H) method. Due
to the properties of kettles, the choice of impact categories was mainly based on the use phase of both
kettles; since their lifetimes are relatively long with cumulative impact through usage, in addition to a
manufacturing process that has a relatively low impact. The impact categories of interest were climate
change (GWP100), freshwater eutrophication (FEP), and particulate matter formation (PMFP). The
processes analyzed include the whole life of both kettles until the end of life phase, results obtained
with regard to the chosen impact categories are mentioned and interpreted in the following section.

Climate Change (GWP100)

One of the most significant impacts of the use phase of both kettles was climate change. The
impact on climate change was greatly dominated by the use phase of both the electric and he stovetop
kettle, with this phase amounting up to 97% of the electric kettles total contribution to climate
change and around 84% of the stovetop kettles contribution. The total contributed amount of
emissions by the electric kettle is 21.74 kg of CO2-Eq, while that of the stovetop kettle 6.67 kg of
CO2-Eq. The significant difference in the contributions can be attributed to the energy source in the
use phase. While the source of energy for the stovetop kettle is low-pressure natural gas, an electricity
mix supplies the electric kettle, the mix in the case of Belgium, is a combination of natural gas and
hard coal. The natural gas and coal are burned in the power plant to produce electricity, a process with
low efficiency of converting fossil fuels into electricity, which is later converted to heat for boiling
water in the electric kettle. Whereas for the stovetop kettle, the efficiency is much higher since its
directly converted to heat. The main gases emitted in the use phase are methane for the stovetop kettle
(natural gas), and CO2 for the electric kettle (coal and gas burning). The effects of high GWP100 on
human health are mainly through malaria, malnutrition, and cardiovascular diseases, the effects on the
environment result in damage for ecosystems and natural disasters caused mainly by high
temperatures and rainfall (VROM, 2013).

Freshwater Eutrophication (FEP)

The second impact category is also highly connected to the use phase of both kettles.
Freshwater eutrophication is a particular concern in Europe, since its more common water pollution
problem than the discharge of pollutants into freshwater bodies. It can be noticed that we observe the
same pattern as climate change regarding the magnitude of this impact between the two kettle types.
As previously mentioned, both kettles show a relatively high impact resulting from the use phase,
with similar percentages to climate change impacts in terms of contributions. The electric kettle has a
higher freshwater eutrophication impact (21.77 kg P-Eq) than the stovetop kettle (16.63 kg P-Eq),
which can also be attributed to the burning of more than one type of fuel for the production of
electricity (natural gas 41.76%, coal 34.26%), in addition to the higher amounts of fuel needed,
while the stove top kettles only source of energy (natural gas) has an 80.43% contribution to this
impact category. However, we can observe that the difference between the impacts of the two kettles
is reduced in this case, which after checking the flow contributions, can be only be explained by
methane having a higher freshwater eutrophication potential in the ReCiPe method than CO2,
resulting in a higher contribution to the total impact. The marine eutrophication impact category
shows the same sources and magnitudes in both kettles, since both types of eutrophication are closely
related. The effect of freshwater eutrophication is mainly the ecosystem damage caused by the rising

levels of Phosphorous and Nitrogen in the water, with the declining levels of oxygen needed by most
freshwater species (VROM, 2013).

Particulate Matter Formation (PMFP)

The ReCiPe report links this impact category to damage on human health, mostly because
PM10 formed in the air from major pollutant emissions can cause serious health problems that are
primarily associated with the respiratory system (VROM, 2013). Particulate Matter Formation follows
the same pattern as the previous categories, with the use phase being the main contribution to the
impacts. The same pattern is also visible when considering the magnitude of the impacts between the
two kettles, where the use of hard coal and heavy fuel oil for electricity production appears to be the
main differentiator. Particulate matter formation from the electric kettle produced 0.01580 kg PM10Eq, while the stovetop kettle produced only one-tenth of this amount (0.00156 kg PM10-Eq). The
main reason behind this disparity is again the amount and type of fuel used. Although coal and heavy
fuel emit a significant amount of Sulfur Dioxide, which has a lower particulate matter formation
potential than Nitrogen Oxides, the amount fossil fuels needed in the production of electricity is much
higher than the amount of natural gas needed to heat the stovetop kettle.

Limitations and Recommendations

As with most life cycle impact assessment studies, this study was faced with several
limitations that had an effect on the accuracy and real world applicability of the results. One of the
major limitations was the low availability of data about both kettles, with no available technical
datasheets about the kettle manufacturing processes; the main source of data was scientific papers
about Eco redesign and the manufacturers product description. Another limitation was the complexity
of the distribution process for the two kettles since theyre both manufactured in China and stored in
different countries before distribution. For limitations related to the ecoinvent database, the natural
gas flow for Belgium was not available, so the flow used was from Switzerland. The last limitation is
lack of knowledge about the recycling and reuse methods in ecoinvent, thus it was assumed that
recycling is not an option.
Based on the processes and results obtained after the comparison after the cradle to grave
LCIA comparison of the Proctor Silex Electric kettle and the IKEA stovetop kettle, and analyzed
using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) method with three impact categories considered. It was concluded that
the main impacts of both kettles were dominated by the use phase and that the electric kettle has a
higher impact in all categories, which can be attributed to the amount and type of fuel needed to
produce electricity in Belgium, characterized by the low fairly low efficiency of conversion. Natural
gas burned at home and converted to produce heat has higher conversion efficiency, resulting in lower
amounts needed. The main recommendation would be the use of the stovetop kettle for boiling water
on a daily basis, thus reducing the total environmental health damage. Further recommendations for
the improvement of the production and use phases of these products include the usage of renewable
energy sources for electricity production and additional research into increasing the efficiency of
electricity production processes. Moreover, additional enhancements to the materials and design of
the kettles can result in substantial savings in terms of heating efficiency, heat retaining and power
consumption.

References
Acid, C., Canada, H., Tolleson, W. H., Diachenko, G. W., Folmer, D., Doell, D., Food, U. S.
(2009). Background Paper on the Chemistry of Melamine Alone and in Combination with
Related Compounds *.
Centre for Design at RMIT, E. R. and D. C. (1997). Introduction to EcoReDesign.
Dutch Ministry of Environment (VROM). (2013). ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment
method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint
level.
Forum, I. S. S. (2010). Stainless steel and CO 2: Stainless steel and CO 2: Facts and scientific
observations.
Grzesik, K., & Guca, K. (2011). Screening Study of Life Cycle Assessment ( LCA ) of the Electric
Kettle with SimaPro Software ***, 5(3), 5768.
Sweatman, A., & Gertsakisi, J. (1997). Mainstream appliance meets eco-design environmental, (July),
3137.
Telenko, C. (2008). Design for Environment Guidelines for Future Product, 4348.
Telenko, C., & Seepersad, C. C. (2010). A Methodology for Identifying Environmentally Conscious
Guidelines for Product Design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 132(9), 091009.
doi:10.1115/1.4002145
Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2010). Environmental assessment of consumer
electronic products A review of high volume consumer electrical products through (Vol. c).

Annex

Figure 1: Comparison between the magnitudes of impacts between the two kettles

Figure 2 System boundary for the electric kettle

Figure 3 System boundary for the stovetop kettle

10