Energy Efficient Lighting
For Schools
The Green Challenge
•
•
•
•
Energy Efficiency and Green movement are top of mind, front and center
R d i C
Reducing
Carbon
b F
Footprint
t i t iis a hi
high
h priority
i it ffor schools,
h l utilities,
tiliti
municipalities,
i i liti
and
d
industries
There is a tremendous push towards energy efficiency and eco-friendly alternatives
and practices.
M
Many
eco-friendly
f i dl alternatives
lt
ti
are costly
tl and
d economically
i ll prohibitive
hibiti
The Economic Challenge
•
•
•
•
•
•
School District budgets are getting tighter
Operational costs are skyrocketing
Power companies are raising electricity rates
Lighting represents more than 30% of a school’s electricity usage
Lighting efficiency was not a major priority when most schools were designed
Most schools use inefficient lighting technologies
The Educational Challenge
•
Traditional lighting has a detrimental effect on learning
–
–
–
–
–
Fluorescent lights “flicker” operating at 60hz causing fatigue
Incandescent lights and standard fluorescents reduce learning*
Proper lighting can have a dramatic affect on learning and overall well-being
• Visual problems reduced by 65%**
• Fatigue reduced by 55%**
• Infections decreased 43%**
Fluorescent lights have been shown to increase fidgeting and restlessness**
Light
g is a major
j contributor to student health and learning**
g
* Wayne London (1988)
** D.B. Harmon, Ph.D (1991) Study of 160,000 school age children
The Safety Challenge
•
Parking lot lighting, Perimeter lighting and Walkway lighting all contribute to student
and
d public
bli safety
f t
–
–
Lower Crime/ Liability
Higher Visibility/Accident prevention
The Social Challenge
•
•
•
Nighttime sports and activities contribute to school spirit
School activities contribute to sense of community
School activities develop social skills in students
American Green Lights
Our Mission
Increase awareness of
energy efficient lighting alternatives
and assist in the planning and implementation of a strategy
to reduce costs and greenhouse gases
and to mitigate global warming
American Green Lights
Partners with world-class
state-of-the-art manufacturers
to provide the best energy efficient lighting products and technologies
for schools, industry, municipalities, public utilities, airports
and other large scale users of electricity.
Traditional Lighting Technologies
•
Incandescent—
–
•
Fluorescent
Fluorescent.
–
•
Began usage in 1950s. More efficient than incandescent. Short lived as more efficient technologies
developed.
Low Pressure Sodium.
–
•
First used lights. Popular until the 1950s. Least efficient lights.
Energy efficient
efficient. Poor color rendering
rendering. Orange-yellow light is easy to filter out for stargazing.
stargazing Wattage
increases over age but light output relatively consistent.
High Intensity Discharge (HID)
–
Mercury Vapor (MV)
•
–
Metal Halide (MH)
•
–
Blue-green
Blue
green light. Can be color corrected for white glow. As efficient at Fluorescent but smaller fixtures.
Longer life than fluorescents. Extensive lumen depreciation. Ballasts outlawed by the Energy Act of
2005 after January 1, 2008 and eliminated by 2011.
Similar to Mercury Vapor but with additional metals added to create white light. Used more in parking
lots than street lights
lights. More efficient than MV
MV, but shorter life
life. Lumen depreciation
depreciation, though not as
severe as MV. Problem with “Color Shift” causing color inconsistencies between lights, creating
cluttered effect.
High Pressure Sodium
•
Developed early 1970s. More efficient than MV or MH. Amber color, with minimal color shift. Lumen
d
depreciation
i ti iis significant.
i ifi
t A
Aging
i llamps ““cycle”
l ”b
butt newer photocontrol
h t
t l ttechnologies
h l i minimize
i i i thi
this.
New Energy Efficient Lighting
T h l i
Technologies
•
Induction
–
–
–
–
•
LED
–
–
•
Conceptualized in 1890 by Tesla. Modern patents since 1967 and commercially available since 1990.
Similar to Fluorescent, but without electrodes. Popular in Europe and Asia. Slowly emerging in USA.
Advances in electronic controllers improves reliability and life
White Light, Excellent Color Rendering
Least lumen depreciation, maintaining 70% of lumen output after 100,000 hours
Longest life of all alternatives. Payback realized after 20% of expected life.
Developed in the 1960s with limited applications. High output LEDs developed in 1980s. Fast development
cycles. Currently high cost compared to other technologies.
“S
“Sexy”
” alternative
lt
ti b
butt expected
t d lif
life and
d payback
b k period
i d nearly
l id
identical.
ti l
Light of the Future
–
Plasma. Christmas tree light-sized light can produce as much light output as traditional street light. Not yet
commercially viable.
Technology
gy Comparisons
p
Lights required to equal one 180 Watt Induction Light
10 Year Cost Comparison equivalent to one 180W Induction Light
Producing Equivalent visible illumination levels of 25,000 pupil lumens (PL)
Lights Wattage Required
Fixture Wattage
g Required
q
Annual KWH Used (10 hrs/day)
Annual Cost of Electricity
Life (hours)
Units Required
Replacements within 10 years
Replacement materials per unit
Ballast replacement cost
Cost of Replacement
p
Labor pper 25K PL Unit replacement
p
Total Cost per replacement (mat'l and labor)
Total Maintenance Cost 10 years
Total Electricity Cost 10 years
Total Cost including Electricity per 25K PL Unit (10 years)
Total Cost per 10,000 25K PL Units over 10 years
Savings over 10 years by using Induction
Incandescent
Fluorescent
100W
Units 40W
1,600
600
1,600
,
650
5,840
2,373
467.20
189.80
750
20,000
16
7
48.7
1.8
$
8.00 $
5.00 $
$
320 $
328.00
15,962.67
4,672.00
20,634.67
140 $
145.00
264.63
1,898.00
2,162.63
$
$
206,346,667 $
200,944,667 $
21,626,250 $
16,224,250 $
Halogen
Mercury Vapor
Metal Halide
Low Pressure
100W
350W
300W
Sodium
1,300
700
300
450
1,300
,
800
350
550
4,745
2,920
1,278
2,008
379.60
233.60
102.20
160.60
2,500
24,000
11,000
18,000
12
2
1
1
14.6
1.5
3.3
2.0
36.00 $
15.00 $
25.00 $
39.00
$50-150
$50-150
$200-250
240 $
40 $
100 $
100
276.00
55.00
125.00
139.00
4,029.60
83.65
414.77
281.86
3,796.00
2,336.00
1,022.00
1,606.00
7,825.60
2,419.65
1,436.77
1,887.86
78,256,000 $
72,854,000 $
24,196,458 $
18,794,458 $
Based on 10 hrs/day operation
Cost of Electricity = $.08 per KWH
Equivalent units needed to produce the same amount of light at one 180W Induction light
This is operational and maintenance cost comparison, assuming light is installed and operational
Source: Dept of Energy usage statistics
14,367,727 $
8,965,727 $
High Pressure
Sodium
400
450
1,643
$
131.40
20,000
1
1.8
$
20.00
$100-$150
$
100
$
120.00
$
219.00
$
1,314.00
$
1,533.00
18,878,611 $
13,476,611 $
Induction
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
15,330,000 $
9,928,000 $
LED
180
185
675
54.02 $
100,000
1
450.00 $
100
550.00
540.20
540.20
200
208
759
60.74
50,000
1
800.00
$
$
$
$
$
100
900.00
607.36
607.36
5,402,000 $
$
6,073,600
671,600
What is an Induction Light
•
Similar to Fluorescent light
–
–
–
•
Inert Gases in a glass tube
Electricity excites electrons to create UV
Phosophor coating converts UV to visible light
Different from Fluorescent light
–
–
–
–
–
Electrodeless. No light quality decay; nothing to burn out. Longer life. 100,000 hrs vs 5,000 hrs
Hi h Frequency.
High
F
Steady,
St d flickerless
fli k l
light
li ht source.
Electronic Ballasts control light output. High reliability. Instant on-instant restrike.
High Output-85 to 95 lumens/watt vs 40-60 lumens/watt
White light vs greenish light
Induction Lights Features
•
Electricity Savings: 35 – 90%
•
Life Expectancy: 100,000 hrs (20 – 25 years per bulb)
•
Excellent Color and Illumination (CRI 85-95)
•
Lumens per Watt- 80 – 95
•
Instant Start / Instant Re-Strike
•
Optional Intelligent Dimmer
•
Correlated Color Temperature (CCT)- 2700K-6500K
•
Lumen Degradation-Excellent: maintains 70% after 60,000 hours
•
Examples- Phoenix, Seattle, Los Angeles, Long Island, Tempe, Anaheim, Mexico
City Monterrey
City,
Monterrey, Sri Lanka
Lanka, Edmonton
Edmonton, Beijing
LED Lights Features
•
Electricity Savings: 35 – 60%
•
Life Cycle: 30
30,000
000 to 50
50,000
000 hrs (10 – 12 years per bulb)
•
Excellent Color / Light is Very Directional
•
Instant Start / Instant Re-strike
•
Optional Intelligent Dimmer
•
Lumens (40-50 lumens/watt)
–
New High-output LEDs produce as much as 90 lumens/watt
•
Correlated Color Temperature (CCT)- 4,500K
•
Lumen Degradation-Good: Maintains 70% after 30,000 hours
•
Examples- Ann Arbor
Examples
Arbor, Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Toronto
Toronto, Anchorage
Induction vs LED Lights
LED (Light Emitting Diode) Lights
• Energy Savings 40-60%
• Highly Directional Light
• 30,000 to 50,000 Hour (6.5-11 years) Life
• CRI 80-90
• Instant Start and Re-strike
• Payback 8-10 years
Electrodeless Induction Lights
• Energy Savings 40-60%
• Disbursed Light
• 100,000+ Hour (22.5 years) Life
• CRI 80-95
• Instant Start and Re-strike
• Payback 2-4 years
Findings of Seattle
Li h i Design
Lighting
D i Lab
L b
•
LDL is the leading authority in
indoor and outdoor lighting in
the US.
•
They primarily recommend
INDUCTION lighting as the
#1 outdoor lighting source for
cities.
Findings of SoSo-Cal Edison on
I d i Lights
Induction
Li h
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ultra long life (100
Ultra-long
(100,000
000 hours plus)
Low Cost of Ownership
(Reduced Maintenance and Electricity)
Crisp White Light (Choice of Color Temps)
High 80-plus Color Rendering Index
High Reliability
Instant Hot and Cold Start-Up and Re-Start
Stable Light Output
High Efficacy (Up to 94 Lumens per Watt)
Savings &
Environmental Impact for Phoenix
–
Total Net Savings over 20 years: $150 million
–
Projected Payback (in years): 3.9 yrs
–
Carbon Reduction from Earth’s Atmosphere: Footprint:
–
Air Pollution Impact- Equivalent Automobile reduction:
743 Million Pounds of Carbon
644,000 cars
18
Comparison of Light Quality
High Pressure Sodium vs Induction in Parking Structure
175W High Pressure Sodium Light
Replaced with an 85W Induction Light
The Energy Savings Was Over 50%
175 Watt High Pressure Sodium
85W Induction Light
Comparison of Light Quality
HPS vs.
vs Induction in Parking Structure
High Pressure Sodium
Induction Light
CRI=22
CRI=95
Comparison of Light Quality
HPS vs. Induction in Parking Structure
Recent Garage Project - Santa Monica, CA
Before- 175W HPS
After- 80W Induction
Energy Savings over 50%
100K Hours Fixture Life
Light Quality Improved
Maintenance Cost Reduced by 85%
Comparison
p
of Light
g Quality
y
Side by Side Comparison on Street…..HPS vs. Induction
•
Side-by-Side comparison
of Induction Light on one
side of the street and
High Pressure Sodium
on the other.
Comparison of Light Quality
Anaheim, CA
CA—
—Before and After
200W HPS
Saving $86 per year per fixture for
electricity alone
120W Induction
Comparison
p
of Light
g Quality
y
Town of Islip NY—
NY—Before and After
Before: 70W HPS
After: 40W Induction
Town of Islip energy savings = 56%
What are Pupil Lumens
The Magic of S/P ratio (Scotopic and Photopic Lumens)
•
Raw lumens or foot-candles measured by a machine captures raw light output without regard to the ability of the
eye to sense the light. The color of the light determines what the eye can see when that light is reflected off of
objects
j
•
HPS lights and LPS lights with low color rendering will generate high raw lumen output, but much of the light will
not be visible to the human eye.
•
“Pupil lumens” factor in the photopic (bright light) and scotopic (low light) capability of the human eye to see
objects in light
HPS
Visibility is much better under Induction light
Induction
Parking Lot & Overhang Luminaires
Indoor Luminaires
Other Induction Light Types
Other Induction Light Types
Architectural Luminaires
Recommended Next Steps
•
Pilot Progam
–
–
•
Phased roll-out
–
–
–
•
Site Analysis
• Evaluation of current lighting situation
– Inventory of light types and determine which lights offer greatest payback
– Cost and payback analysis for school district.
Pilot test
• Replace lights in one school.
– Parking lot and walkway lights
– Wall washers and outdoor overhang lights
– Gymnasium and Cafeteria
• Obtain feedback from constituents
– Install test lights in key locations to field-verify light quality and illumination
characteristics.
• Verify and document savings to calculate return on investment to justify expenditures.
Design roll-out
roll o t strateg
strategy and sched
schedule.
le
Timeline based on budget and manpower.
Assist with evaluating financing options and securing appropriate financing. Lease, purchase,
lease to own, bond?
Assist with creating public awareness campaign and facilitate budgeting process.