T8 -vs- LED
Why LED Isn’t Always the Only Option in Modern Lighting Efficiency Projects
Presented by The Retrofit Companies
// Wendy Fry and Chris Wendling

• 2 Facilities, Alliant customers, rebate eligible.
• Both presented with T8 & LED options.
• Each chose a different energy-efficient solution.
o Quaker Oats Railway Load Out Area
• Phase 2 of project started in 2010 o Oelwein Public Library
• Retrofitting from existing T5 system

T8 -vs- LED

• 2010: TRC completed T8 fluorescent lighting project in a majority of plant production areas.
• Fixtures installed were wash down vapor tight fixtures.
+ Vapor Tight construction keeps dust out of fixtures.
+ Food production facilities require shatter-shield lamps in all areas.
• Load out areas were not upgraded during 2010 project.
• Existing lighting: metal halide, high pressure sodium, T12.
• The light levels & quality were relatively poor in comparison to other areas of the plant.

• The proposed fixture options were available in either T8 or LED.
• The savings of the LED over T8 was approximately 30% more.
• Rated life of LED is approximately 30% longer than T8.
• Quaker was ready to try LED for the 2014 project.

• Existing Lighting Costs: $5,475
• T8 Annual Savings: $2,517.10
• LED Annual Savings: $3,740.96
• Rated life for T8: 36,000 hours / Delivered lumens per watt 66 o 12 hour start, Philips instant start ballasts, 32w high lumen lamps. F32T8/TL850 ALSO Plus/TG
• Rated life for LED: 51,000+ hours / Delivered lumens per watt 101 o L70. 90,000 hours via TM-21

Here’s why:
• 69% savings over the existing HID & T12 system.
• Cost for the LED option -vs- T8 was only 23% more.
• Long-term maintenance savings with LED .
• In House Case Study for future use of LED fixtures or retrofit kits in existing fixtures throughout the plant.

Shatter-shield lamps have 3 drawbacks
1. Cost. Coating on the lamp makes them 2-3x more expensive than traditional linear fluorescent lamps.
2. Rated Life. Coating traps heat generated by the lamp and decreases the rated life compared with non-coated lamps.
The result is increased cost of maintenance.
3. Recycling. Coated lamps are 6x more expensive to recycle.
Because of Quaker’s high burn hours the new lighting solution needed to alleviate ongoing maintenance. LED proves to be a front runner!

From our perspective the LED option made the most sense for them because of the additional energy savings and the fact that they gain long term maintenance savings by not using shatter-shield T8 lamps.
While TRC didn’t handle the rebate process for them, Quaker used
Alliant’s custom rebate program to receive the rebate based on savings, not just the prescriptive rebate. On average this rebate would be 1.5 times the annual savings of the project.
By doing this project Quaker got savings from the new fixtures and improved the quality of light in this area making it safer and more user friendly for their employees.

Current Annual lighting cost
Current KW
Current KWH
Proposed Annual lighting cost
Proposed KW
Proposed KWH
KW saved
KWH saved
Annual Energy Cost Savings
• MONTHLY
• DAILY
(cost per business day of not doing retrofit)
$5,476.75
12.018
91,279
$1,735.79
3.736
28,930
8.282
62,349
$3,740.96
$311.75
$15.59

T8 -vs- LED

• The library was built in 2005 with cutting-edge lighting technology, architectural, hanging T5 fluorescent fixtures.
• Since opening they have had several maintenance issues.
• These issues supplied motivation for replacing those fixtures, even if they were still relatively energy-efficient.

• NEW OPTIONS: T8 indirect fixture and a similar LED wrap.
• T8 Advantage: 28% more efficient than current T5.
• T8 system lamp and ballast cost is approximately half of T5.
• The LED option was 66% more efficient.
• T8 Option (left) most affordable fixtures, good energy savings
• LED Option (right) greatest amount of energy savings and very low maintenance

Here’s why:
• T8 Simple Payback = 8.9 years , 13.6 years on the LED option.
• 10 year cost of ownership
• T8 project showed savings
• LED option costs $12,000 more, factoring in cost of installation
• Rated life difference between T8 & LED was minimal
• T8 option (45,000 hours) / GE high lumen lamp F32T8OLSPX41HLEC
• LED option (50,000 hours L80) / Lithonia STLED fixture
• The T8 option was 30% of the cost of the LED
• The T8 was the most cost effective option

Existing T5 System had one major drawback
1. Cost.
• T5 ballasts and lamps are 40-50% higher than T8.
The client was a little gun shy about LED after being told that T5 fixtures (cutting edge technology at the time) were the best solution when the library was built. T8 proves to be a front runner!

They chose the T8 option. It made the most sense for them because it was 1/3 of the cost of the LED project. For the two types of fixtures specified in this application the difference in rated life was only
5,000 hours. While the rated life is calculated differently from the library’s perspective they were willing to take lower cost over lower maintenance over a 10 year period.
The library took advantage of the Alliant Small Business Rebate program. 18% of the project cost was paid to the contractor, so the library did not have to pay all funds up front.
This project gives the library the energy savings and maintenance savings they required for this project. They are still hoping someday to convert everything over to LED when pricing has decreased.

Current Annual lighting cost
Current KW
Current KWH
Proposed Annual lighting cost
Proposed KW
Proposed KWH
KW saved
KWH saved
Annual Energy Cost Savings
• MONTHLY
• DAILY
(cost per business day of not doing retrofit)
$6,384.90
20.705
60,235
$4,417.17
14.489
41,671
6.216
18,564
$1,967.74
$163.98
$8.20