How much money can new lighting save your business?

By Elisa Wood
August 24, 2011

Am I average?

That’s the question that often hits me when someone quotes an ‘average’ statistic. The ‘average’ business or household seems almost mythological. Few of us fall right on that point on the line.

The same is true when it comes to often quoted energy efficiency savings statistics. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency says that replacing one old-fashion incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light will save on average $69 over the product’s lifetime.

Will your business save that much by installing new light bulbs?

Several factors come into play, some that you can control, the most obvious being how much you turn on the light.

Another important dynamic, not often discussed, is your electric rate. Rates vary dramatically through the United States. In coming up with the $69 savings figure, the EPA assumed an electric rate of 11.3 cents/kWh. If you operate a business in North Dakota, you’re paying a lot less than that for electricity, about 6.8 cents/kWh, so your savings from a CFL will be lower. If you’re in Hawaii, you are paying a lot more, about 28 cents/kWh, so your savings will be greater.

Take a look at this frequently updated chart of electricity rates in the 50 states. Is your business in one of the pricier states? If so, an investment in new lighting may quickly pay back. After you’ve found your electricity rate, you can go to this calculator and gauge what you’ll save if you switch from old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs to CFLs. This will give you a closer idea of your savings, although even with this calculation we still are dealing to some degree with averages. The electricity rate in the chart is the average for utilities in your state. Your utility can provide your specific rate.

Businesses are increasingly contemplating saving energy – and costs – by installing efficient lighting, not only CFLS, but LEDs and lighting controls. This is partly because lighting accounts for somewhere between 20 percent and 50 percent of the electricity commercial enterprises use, so the savings can be substantial. On a larger societal level, efficient lighting for businesses is important because US commercial buildings represent 47 percent of the total growth in energy expected in the US between 2010 and 2020.

Elisa Wood is a co-author of “Energy-Efficient Lighting Explained: A guide for business people who aren’t lighting techies,” published by RealEnergyWriters.com and The Daily Energy Report.

Goodbye to Light Bulb Jokes?

By Elisa Wood
April 6, 2011

Once upon a time, joking about ‘how many it takes to screw in a light bulb’ was a great way to poke fun at people’s intelligence. After all, what could be easier than screwing in a light bulb? Any idiot could do it.

Not so any more. Lighting has exploded into a sophisticated business. And for those who manage commercial buildings it can be downright intimidating.

Figuring out the difference between LEDs and CFLs is just the start. Then there are a whole range of dimmers, sensors, data loggers and controllers, both wired and wireless, and computer software to bring it all together. There are considerations to be made about light harvesting, interior space planning, and human behavior. And while learning all of this, the building manager is constantly wondering, ‘Will I really save energy? Will my utility bills drop enough to justify the investment?”

Clanton & Associates, a Silicon Valley lighting company, is trying to help answer the big cost questions in a newly released, six-month study of life cycle costs for lighting control systems and technologies. Researchers looked at buildings in Boston and Los Angeles that had installed efficient lighting systems.

Dane Sanders, professional engineer at Clanton & Associates, says his company was trying to address the “fear factor” that exists for building owners when it comes to lighting projects. “The growth of these types of systems is happening so fast that keeping up with the technology is difficult,” he said. “This helps people understand the real benefits of advanced lighting control, and gives some basis for people to make decisions about what lighting control systems best suit their ends.”

The study offers some interesting findings for those making their way through the maze of options. Wireless controls, for example, deliver up to 25% lower lifetime costs than comparable wired systems, according to the paper.

Wireless systems with full dimming capability – a Cadillac system — seem to offer the best bang for the buck. “It pays back relatively soon; that is a very interesting conclusion. Just doing the minimum isn’t necessarily the best. A bit more investment upfront can pay back very quickly,” he said.

Dimmers also get points for being less jarring on the eyes than a sudden on/off of lights. “With dimming it happens slowly and smoothly and is imperceptible,” Sanders said.

In addition, it does make a difference who sits where in a building. The study finds the ‘inverted space plan’ works best, even though it runs counter to traditional office planning. In the inverted plan open offices are located on the perimeter, where the maximum number of people can take advantage of natural lighting. Private offices are pushed to the interior

Underwritten by Daintree Networks, the study can be downloaded free of charge here.

This blog is open source & copyright free with attribution to www.realenergywriters.com.

Breaking light bulb myths

By Elisa Wood
March 16, 2011

I have to agree with the Tea Party; the US government should not choose the light bulbs I use in my home. And fortunately, it does not.

Yet that’s the spin being pushed by those who want to roll back federal lighting performance standards. An odd mythology is developing around the standards.

Opponents claim that the standards amount to government picking and choosing winners and forcing them upon us. More specifically, they say that the feds have banned the incandescent light bulb, which has been around since Thomas Edison’s time.

This is not true; the incandescent light bulb is not being banned; the standards are agnostic about technology type as long as they perform as required. The 2007 law is meant to act as a market mechanism that encourages innovation. With a benchmark to work towards, scientists, engineers and product designers are working to displace older, inefficient devices. Already several different kind of light bulbs have made their way into the marketplace, including a new and better incandescent.

We have efficiency standards not only for light bulbs, but also for refrigerators, water heaters, air conditioners, microwaves and other appliances. They are nothing new. Those who see them as government intrusion may be surprised to find that the first US appliance standards were set under Ronald Reagan.

Still one might ask, do we really need appliance standards? Are they worth the bother? That’s a $300 billion question – the amount the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates the US will save on electricity costs by 2030 through existing appliance and lighting standards.

Here are other important points about appliance standards made by Steven Nadel, ACEEE’s executive director, in a testimony on March 10 before the US Senate’s Energy and Natural Resource Committee. Nadel urged that Congress reject S. 395, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (BULB), which would repeal lighting standards set in 2007 under the Bush administration.

• Appliance standards generated 340,000 net jobs in the U.S. in 2010.
• The majority of the standards are based on consensus agreements between manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates.
• Four types of bulbs already meet the standards, although the standards do not take effect until 2012. Two are incandescent bulbs.
• The 2007 lighting standards, alone, are expected to reduce annual electricity use by 72 billion kWh by 2020, enough to serve the annual electricity needs of 6.6 million average households and avoid construction of about 30 power plants.
• ACEEE forecasts that the lighting standards will reduce consumer energy bills by more than $7 billion by 2020, or about $50 per American household annually.
• A recent USA Today survey of 1,016 adults found that despite misinformation circulated about a light bulb ban, 61% of Americans favor the 2007 lighting standards, while 31% say they are bad.

This blog is open source & copyright free with attribution to www.realenergywriters.com

Light-bulb Liars II: Mercury and CFLs

By Elisa Wood

July 16, 2009

The Washington Times ran a commentary July 11 that took a swipe at compact fluorescent lights. Titled “Light-bulb liars,” the article warns that broken CFLs are an “environment disaster in your family room” that “could poison the dog, the kid and the wall-to-wall rug.”

To underscore the gravity of CFL dangers, the article then takes us through the Environmental Protection Agency’s step-by-step mercury clean-up advice. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/11/light-bulb-liars/?feat=article_top10_read&page=2

Here are a few things the article fails to say about CFLs, that enerystar.gov points out.

*True, they contain mercury, but a very small amount. They average 4 milligrams, compared with 500 milligrams in the old mercury-based thermometers, an amount equal to 125 CFLs.

*Advancements in CFL technology are reducing their mercury content. Some have mercury content as low as 1.4 to 2.5 milligrams.

*Coal-fired electric plants create a heck of a lot more mercury. CFLs are more efficient than conventional light-bulbs. So when we use CFLs we use less electricity, meaning grid operators and utilities can fire up coal-fired generators less frequently. If all of the CFLS sold in 2007 ended up in a landfill, they would deposit 0.16 metric tons of mercury. In contrast, coal plants emit 104 metric tons of mercury annually.

The article also points out that CFLs are more expensive than conventional incandescent lights, but fails to say that they continue to operate far longer.

After I finished reading the Washington Times commentary, my eyes went back up to the title: “Light-bulb Liars.” Now the Times wasn’t referring to itself, was it? Okay, to say the paper lied might be a little harsh, but the article certainly engaged in hyperbole and sins of omission.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.