Running Head: THE LED CHALLENGE 1 The LED Challenge: Menomonie Government Center Mindy Darcy, Michelle Lange, Stephanie Roskam

Running Head: THE LED CHALLENGE 1

The LED Challenge: Menomonie Government Center

Mindy Darcy, Michelle Lange, Stephanie Roskam

Sustainable Design and Development Capstone

University of Wisconsin ‐ Stout


Abstract

The purpose of this report is to assess the current lighting conditions at the Menomonie Government

Center and see if switching out fluorescent lighting for LED lighting is a viable option.

After collecting data on the current conditions, there were several options which could be implemented.

The first is a total replacement of current lighting fixtures to upgrade to new LED technology, the second is switching out the fluorescent bulbs to LED’s while keeping the same fixture, and the third is simply upgrading fluorescents to higher performing ballasts.

LED lighting technology is still very new so there are many factors to consider when looking to upgrade or retrofit.

However, by switching to LED lighting there are also certain rebates and paybacks available.


The LED Challenge: Menomonie Government Center

Project Description

The purpose of this project is to explore LED lighting options for a government setting.

The city of Menomonie has been shuffling departments around buildings for years but coming up in the near future is another big change.

A few departments are looking to move into the old Red Cedar Medical

Center building while others will return to the government center.

In preparation for this move, the government center is looking into updating their lighting as the last update was about 10 years ago.

One of the major changes that has occurred in the past 10 years is the commercialization of LED lighting for interior applications.

The environmental, economic, and social factors in relation to switching to LED lighting will be examined.

Lighting Basics

To understand how the LED can be more efficient and effective, it is important to introduce some basic lighting terms and concepts.

The light level or illuminance level is measured with a specialized light meter which gathers information about the light energy striking a surface which is then outputted into lux or footcandles (fc).

There are recommended illuminance levels to complete certain tasks which are: 30 fc for ambient lighting or 50 fc for task lighting.

However, it is important to note that illuminance levels are not directly related with quality of light, for instance there could be too much glare when over lighting a space.

Ambient or general lighting is described as the overall effect of light whereas task lighting is more specific and therefore more light is needed.

Below is a table that depicts the lighting levels needed for certain tasks based on OSHA standards and what was recorded at the government center.


Government Center Rooms

Window lit hallways (Floors 1 ‐ 3)

1st Floor Bathroom

County office

Stairwell

Basement hallway

Basement bathroom

Exam rooms

Task lighting in Exam rooms

Basement Reception

Office task lighting

Basement Children's room

Auxiliary stairwell

Conference room

Janitor's closet

3rd floor Reception counter

OSHA

Recorded Measurements Standard half lit 24, fully

Figure 1

lit

30

22

33

13

29

6

12

60

31

21

21

7

34

4

20

30 extra

10

5

30

3

30

30 extra

5

10

30

5

5

10

Ideal

20

20 ‐ 50

10

10

20 ‐ 50

5

20

10

20

20 ‐ 50

50 ‐ 100

10

20

20

10

The three main color properties of a light source is its chromaticity, or color temperature (CT) which describes the color appearance of a source.

This color temperature of the source is measure in

Kelvins (K).

Runnin Head: THE LED CHALLEN 5

Figure 2

The color rendering ind or CRI is t effect of l light on the c appeara nce of object The CRI as a value betw 0 and 1 with the value of 100 being a sourc that rende color well.

.

Figure 3

Runnin Head: THE LED CHALLEN 6

Finally, th luminous e of a lig source is defined as th ratio of ligh output (lum to the energy in put (watts), o lumens per watt (lm/w) .

Below are so common efficacy calc for typical lig ht sources.

Figure 4

Other hel pful terms in clude:

Lamp: com calle d the light bu professio nally it is calle a lamp.

Fixture: A piece of light equipme that is fixe in position in a building houses lam ps.

LED: A ligh ‐ emitting d iode, which is a semicond uctor diode t glows wh voltage is applied.

Occupanc Sensor: The sensor is ca pable of iden when a particular s within a building is occupied and adjusts t lighting ac

Daylight S Contr ol that monit the levels of daylight t to switch on/ or dim lig to ch the actua l requiremen t of light nece

Comparis of LED an d Fluorescen Fixtures

LE lighting in the past has mostly been used for outd applicat tions or for m novelty i tems.

Within th e last decade this technol logy has roved expone and is s continuing t o evolve.

ore new build are inco rporating LED es into their in for many reasons .

Below is a able


comparing incandescent, fluorescent, and LED lighting in regards to cost, color rendering, color temperature, lifespan and other categories.

INCANDESCENT

Initial Cost $

FLUORESCENT

$$ moderate

LED

$$$$

Operating Cost

CRI

CCT

Ballast/Transformer

$$$$

95

Warm

No

‐

100

Great!

2700K

$

70 ‐ 90

Warm 3000K

Daylight 8000K

Yes

$

70 ‐ 90

Warm 3000K

Cool 5000K

Yes, trans for low voltage

Dimming

Directionality

Instant On/Off

Efficacy (lumens/watt)

Lamp Life

Cheap

Poor

Yes,

Very

and

ON poor

Easy

10 lm/W

Poor, 1000 hours

Yes…adds

Poor

Yes,

Very

70

‐

cost moderate

Rapid good lm/W

Start

Ballast

8000 ‐ 10000 (CFL)

20,000 (linear)

Yes…$$

Great

Yes,

Very

30 ‐

ON

50

Good

lm/W

Excellent

50,000 ‐

100,000 hrs

Temp.

Req

Heat Generated

Noise Generated

None

Lots!

Some

Prefers warmth

Very little

Some (dimming)

None

Very little

NO

Figure 5


In comparison to fluorescents, LED lamps’ biggest benefit is their improved lifespan.

A typical fluorescent will last for 20,000 hours whereas an LED fixture can last anywhere for up to 100,000 hours depending on the overall quality of the fixture.

Another benefit is the low power consumption and low heat generation.

There is also no infra ‐ red or ultra ‐ violet energy emitted and LED lamps have high color efficiency.

This means that the color of the lighting is more similar to daylight than the warm yellowish light of incandescents or blueish tones of fluorescent lighting.

Overall, the LED technology is an energy saver not only because of the power saved through use, but also the long fixture life.

Not needing to replace lamps so often will save money on labor and in the case of fluorescents; oftentimes one must pay to have the lamps disposed of.

There are many factors to be considered when choosing to retrofit a space with LED lighting, which is the reason for the government center’s proposition.

One of the factors relates to the relatively new technology of the LED.

As mentioned earlier, the LED is still evolving and technology is improving every day.

This means that there could be issues that haven’t been explored yet.

Since the technology is so new, one should also consider the cost of the LED lamps.

The indoor lights are still relatively expensive whereas the outdoor LED’s have been around longer and thus costs have come down.

The initial costs are something to consider when exploring a possible retrofit.

One positive in relation to the cost of LED lighting is the possibility of receiving money back after installing more energy ‐ efficient fixtures.

There is a program called Focus on Energy that gives companies rebates for instituting more sustainable practices, such as LED lighting.

The LED lamps are also 95% recyclable so disposal costs would not be a factor as it is with fluorescents.

Overall, it is important to understand that the introduction of LED lamps could save energy, save on maintenance costs and disposal costs, as well as be less harmful to the environment.

The options then come down to replacing the current lighting, including the fixture itself, retrofitting the old fixtures with just LED lamps, or replacing the current fluorescents with more energy ‐ efficient ballasts.


Current Conditions

We obtained lighting levels from the government center using footcandle meters borrowed from the lighting lab on campus.

We measured the light directly below a fixture from three feet off the floor.

This is how LEDs are measured, so we figured this type of measurement would be best for comparing lighting levels in the future after the retrofit process.

Lighting level expectations are given according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards.

The ideal lighting levels are based upon an article from Guth Lighting for Demanding Environments.

As shown earlier in Figure 1, most of the measurements gathered on site meet or exceed OSHA standards.

The basement bathroom needs more lighting as well as the auxiliary stairwell and the janitor’s closet.

The exam rooms could use more general lighting, although the task lighting in the exam rooms provide a significant amount of additional light when necessary.

Note that all of the rooms that do not meet ideal lighting levels are ones with no natural lighting in the space.

Based on the measurements we gathered, our goal is to find a

solution that provides government center staff and visitors with the same amount of light or more.

After thoroughly examining the lighting in the building, we noticed that natural light was readily available in most areas but was not being utilized fully.

Blinds covered the windows along all of the hallways with a side to the exterior, blocking daylight from entering.

Instead, artificial lighting was used in the hallways.

As shown in Figure 1, the window ‐ lit hallways have even higher lumen levels than the window ‐ less basement hallway, showing that the space has efficient lighting when the blinds are open without the use of artificial lighting.

We were informed that the blinds provided insulation necessary in

the winter to keep the cold out and in the summer to keep the heat out.

The stairwells facing the exterior also have floor to ceiling windows, yet artificial lighting is used in the stairwell throughout the day.

Below is an example of the typical floor plan (in this case, specifically the 3 rd

floor) highlighting where the natural lighting is being underutilized.


Figure 6





Triple Bottom Line Analysis

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC

BEFORE When you are working Lots of natural lighting that After receiving the energy bill, we in the facility T8 is being underutilized as fluorescents can have well as having to heat the know to calculate a certain amount of the bill that would be due to the a buzzing.

This factor building more to make up lighting of the facility.

This bill is

can and

they

affect

are buzzing

there flickering.

how in.

is

sound

no

people work in the space that equal lighting quality within the facility.

LEDs do not have a at all

for to

the they

poor providing

building constantly insulation the hallway windows.

shade

will so

have

not the

that in

AFTER Replacing the current The window film factor lamps with LED will give a better more helps with windows

as insulation

well as

of

have

pretty high considering how much natural daylight they have and that the building is only open during daylight hours.

After changing the fixtures and lamps to LED there significant

is going savings

to be factor.

a

The bulbs also will not burn out as fast as T8

Fluorescents.

Facility will also receive focus on Energy savings dollars back blinds shut.

They would be after the retrofit of lighting is able to have the hallway lights off and utilize the natural daylight.

complete as sustainable

a reward lighting.

for practicing


Case Studies

LED Lighting Randstad Offices

Randstad, a business in Cramlington, Northumberland, UK, leads the way with 100% Philips LED lamps for its new offices.

The Randstad office suffered a fire in 2008 and was truly devastated to lose their entire facility.

Even though they suffered a loss, they took that opportunity to start fresh with a blank canvas for the design of the new office.

It made sense to invest in LEDs so that they would contribute their part on reducing CO2 emissions.

They realized that dramatic improvements have been made to LED systems so they have comparable lumen output to other lighting systems.

Specifically at

Randstad, they used Philips Lux space and Essential LED luminaires in the general office, corridors, and bathrooms.

Randstad has reported improvements in performance coming from their old office into the new and improved LED only office.

Randstad ended up being very pleased with their decision to convert to an entire LED solution within their facility.

‘For us, it made sense to invest in LEDs for a number of reasons not least of which is that LEDs are a clear way of contributing to reducing CO2 emissions.

This, therefore, complements our personal and corporate commitment to the environment.’ Martin Dowd, managing director, Randstad.

LED lighting retrofit case study

A New York Health Care Facility was searching for a change in their lighting looking to not only reduce costs but also improve light quality.

This led to a thorough investigation of the facility’s lighting and later to a recommendation to switch to LED lighting.

This choice was made for several reasons.

LED lighting use less energy, 80% of energy is converted to light, they have an operational life of 50,000 hours (vs 5000 for incandescent), they do not contain lead, mercury, argon, or krypton gases nor do they emit radiation.

They are virtually unbreakable in normal conditions and make for easy disposal.

Finally, the color rendering of LED lighting matches that of daylighting and they are flicker free which reduces


eyestrain.

The project was able to easily retrofit existing fixtures for T8 tubes and switching to LEDs also qualified for a Federal Energy Tax Reduction which saved money as well as the overall return on investment.

Proposals

Option One

Option One is to completely replace the existing fixtures with updated ones to house new LED lighting.

Below are the numbers used to calculate the cost and the annual savings.

These are a rough estimate and are subject to change based on options chosen and possible Focus on Energy rewards.

Initial Cost (based on electrician’s numbers) * .87

(assessing only 87% of lighting)

$138,000 investment

Based on a 50% savings on energy, and using current energy pricing,

$1680 * .50

= $840 for lighting each month

Energy savings of $10,080 annually

Option Two

Option two is to retrofit the current fixtures with LED replacement bulbs.

Below are the assumptions used to formulate the calculations as well as the estimated investment and savings.

32 watt T8 Fluorescents, 48”

Bulb Quantity: 1197

Assuming that:

Cost per typical fluorescent bulb: $2.50

Cost per typical LED replacement: $50.00

Energy rate per kw/h: $0.06

Labor cost to replace bulb: $7.00

Hours of use: 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year


Then:

Cost of investment would equal: bulb cost ($50.00) + labor cost per bulb ($7.00) * quantity of bulbs=

Initial Cost: $68,229

Energy rate:

Current energy cost per year @ $0.06: $6.45

Proposed energy cost per year @ $0.06: $2.42

$4.03

savings per year per bulb so,

$4.03

* 1197 =

Energy Savings: $4,283 annually

31 watt T8 Fluorescent, U ‐ Shaped, 24”

Bulb Quantity: 720

Assuming that:

Cost per typical fluorescent bulb: $9.60

Cost per typical LED replacement: $50.00

Energy rate per kw/h: $0.06

Labor cost to replace bulb: $7.00

Hours of use: 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year

Then:

Cost of investment would equal: bulb cost ($50.00) + labor cost per bulb ($7.00) * quantity of bulbs=

Initial Cost: $41,040

Energy rate:

Current energy cost per year @ $0.06: $6.29

Proposed energy cost per year @ $0.06: $2.42


$3.87

savings per year per bulb so,

$3.87

* 720 =

Energy Savings: $2,786 annually

Add the two Fluorescent bulb count together (accounts for 87 percent of all lighting)

Initial Cost: $68,229 + $41,040 =

$109,269 investment

Energy Savings: $4,823 + $2,786 =

$7,609 savings on energy annually

The LED lighting lasts about 4 times longer 20,000 hours to 80,000 hours, meaning in good conditions, the bulbs can last about 27 years!

The benefit for this lighting option is the current fixtures will not be discarded, producing less waste.

The time it would take to replace the bulbs would be less, in comparison to utilizing the current fixtures.

Additional costs could include daylighting sensors and

window film but these could lead to energy savings in the future.

Option Three

Option three is to keep the current fixtures but simply update the fluorescent lighting to higher efficiency ballasts and bulbs.

This would cost the least amount of money, but it would also save the least amount in the long run.

It is also not eligible for as much Focus on Energy dollars as the first two options would.

Below are the investment and savings calculations.

Initial Cost (based on electrician’s numbers) * .87

(assessing only 87% of lighting)

$26,000 investment

Based on a 15% savings on energy, and using current energy pricing,

$1680 * .15

= $840 for lighting each month

Energy savings of $2,964 annually


Window Film

After looking into different options, our solution to this problem is low ‐ emissivity, or low ‐ e, window film.

Window glass can be coated with a laminate polyester film in which one or more layers has been metalized through a process called sputtering.

Sputtering occurs when aluminum or other metal is vaporized and the polyester film is run through it.

The amount of metal that ends up coating the film can be adjusted by altering the process slightly.

By applying these metal coated films to the surface of the glass, they are able to resist radiant heat transfer, yet the films are thin enough to let visible light to pass through.

Manufacturers recommend low ‐ e window film for multiple pane windows because the thin coatings are fragile and can be damaged when exposed to moisture and air.

There are several variations of low ‐ e film that can reap benefits by reducing heat loss by forty percent.

Flipped one way, the film keeps solar radiation from entering in the summer months.

When flipped the other way, it reflects heat back inside during the cold months.

Window film can be installed independently or professionally.

Do ‐ it ‐ yourself applied window films usually last ten to fifteen years.

We gathered pricing information from two potential companies.

3M has a cooling savings calculator that uses the number of floors, building square footage, percent of the building covered in windows and a few other variables.

The government center’s heat reduction through windows would be a 70.

The approximate payback period would be 1.87

years.

There would be a five percent annual savings of total utilities and 20,489 annual carbon dioxide emissions.

SolarGard is another popular summer/winter low ‐ e film manufacturer.

Their product qualifies for EnergyStar, giving an additional ten percent off in Federal Tax Credits specifically for the material cost of the product.

Their product comes in fifty percent or 25 percent light pass ‐ through.

Below is a chart to analyze what differentiates the two types.


Figure 7

According to SolarGard, window film helps save money on utility bills by lowering heating and cooling costs, lowers energy consumption, provides solar heat and glare protection for improved comfort and protects people and property from damaging ultraviolet rays.

With 2,866 square feet of windows (strictly highlighted, unutilized areas from above) in the government center and SolarGard window film costing $3.15/square foot, the cost would total around $9,028.

Window film is a relatively low ‐ cost, high ‐ return technology that favorably compares to other common energy ‐ saving methods in terms of both energy efficiency and cost savings.

Daylight Sensors

Daylight sensors provide convenient light control and are engineered for optimum energy savings.

These save energy by directing compatible lighting controls to reduce lighting levels based on available daylight.

A typical sensor is easy to install and is usually wireless.

The main entrances of the government facility have large windows that let in ample amounts of daylight.

The sensors would be recommended to be installed in this area as well as the hallways of all 3 above ground levels.

One specific Daylight sensor that we looked into was the Lutron Daylight Motion Sensor.

The cost is typically

$72.00

dollars and we estimated that there would be a possibility for 9 total sensors throughout the building to utilize the daylight for optimal energy savings.


Focus on Energy

Focus on Energy is Wisconsin utilities’ statewide energy efficiency and renewable resource program.

The program has worked with eligible Wisconsin businesses and residents to implement cost ‐ effective energy efficiency and renewable energy projects since 2001.

The resources, information and financial incentives they provide help to install energy saving projects.

These energy projects help Wisconsin businesses and residents manage rising energy costs, encourage in ‐ state economic development, help our environment, and keep Wisconsin’s increasing demand for natural gas and electricity under control.

In order to get incentives for lighting equipment, one must determine if the project requires pre ‐ approval.

Projects with incentives over $25,000 require approval before project initiation or the purchasing of equipment.

Then, review the incentive eligibility requirements and refer to the prequalified equipment list, if necessary, before purchasing and installing new equipment.

Next, submit a complete incentive application and itemize invoice within sixty days of installing the equipment.

Finally, your incentive check will come in the mail and you can enjoy the end result.

Smart lighting incentives require pre ‐ approval from Focus on Energy prior to project initiation including ordering equipment or signing contracts.

Smart lighting projects require two incentive agreements; one for the standard custom incentive and one for the Smart lighting enhance incentive.

Based on project type, incentives will not be provided when the payback comes in under 1.5

years and may be limited to a ten year payback.

When replacing entire interior light fixtures, the financial incentives are between fifteen and thirty dollars per unit as long as the products are on one of the qualified product lists.


When replacing lamps along with integral ballasts, financial incentives range anywhere two dollars to fifteen dollars per lamp.

Again, each project is case specific and may be eligible for custom incentive.

Summary and Recommendations

In the end, we recommend option two as the most viable and practical in investment and savings.

While the cost is substantially higher than simply replacing the ballasts and updating the fluorescent lighting, the savings and possible rebates from Focus on Energy would be reason enough.

The current fixtures could be retrofitted, leading to less waste in replacing fixtures.

The energy saved would increase if the lighting was upgraded to throughout; we only looked at 87% of the lighting being updated.

Also, option two could be paired with cost ‐ effective window film which would save even more money by allowing lights to be turned off when not needed and utilizing natural daylight in hallways.

This technology could easily be expanded to the stairwells and exterior offices as well.

To accompany this window film addition, we suggest the purchase of daylight sensors.

This would allow for natural daylight to be assessed electronically and adjusted according to light levels.

While these would be extra costs, it would also save more on energy and could contribute to rebates.


References

Lighting Reference Guide.

Ontario.

http://www.snaptint.com/product.php?productid=16199 http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Window_Film/Solutions/Markets ‐

Products/Government/Sun_Control_Window_Films/

http://www.thedailygreen.com/going ‐ green/tips/low ‐ e ‐ window ‐ film#ixzz2M1TG5Uug http://www.enerlogicfilm.com/en/EnergySavings.aspx


Timeline

Feb 5: Accepted proposal from Bob Colson from the government center

Feb 8: Met with Dr.

Julie Peterson about questions

Feb 19: Met with Bob Dodge, Facilities Manager, Contacted Michael Munholand at DS Electric

March 13: Meeting with Michael Munholand in Eau Claire

March 14: Meeting with Martha Daines and Bob Dodge for project update

Apr 5: Received electronic plans from Dave Wulle

Apr 16: Meeting with Michael Munholand in Eau Claire – CANCELLED

Apr 17: Meeting with Michael Munholand to receive calculations in Menomonie

Apr 18: Progress Report Draft and presentation due.

Running Head: THE LED CHALLENGE 1 The LED Challenge: Menomonie Government Center Mindy Darcy, Michelle Lange, Stephanie Roskam

Related documents

Products

Support

Running Head: THE LED CHALLENGE 1 The LED Challenge: Menomonie Government Center Mindy Darcy, Michelle Lange, Stephanie Roskam

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib