Kill the Incandescent
12RDSC21
Problem Statement
The project addresses the significant energy consumption attributed to lighting the
college on campus. Specifically, finding new light-bulb technologies that can be implemented in
efficient methods around campus that will have an impact on energy consumption For multiple
reasons including building access, safety and architectural accenting, the majority of campus
lighting has migrated to 24/7 operation.
Increasing the campus demand for electricity has a significant environmental footprint
because lighting accounts for 20% of the campus’ electricity use. With developing technologies,
the campus can incorporate ultra-efficient solid state lighting as a solution to shrink the carbon
footprint left by the school. Specifically, the relatively inefficient incandescent light bulbs used
in our academic halls can be replaced with LED lighting in a campus wide re-lamping effort.
Benefits include;

longer lifetime- Average lifetime is 5-10 years depending on usage

energy efficiency- about 80% energy reduction

lower electric costs- Initial investment is higher, but overall costs are 1/5

lower carbon footprint- Impacted by less energy consumption

less manpower- Replacement of bulbs is minimized due to extended lifetime

less disposal waste- Less replacements necessary over time and less overall bulbs
Overall, the simplicity of this project provides a significant impact on energy
consumption. Most sustainable projects call for a lifestyle change, which can be extremely
difficult to gain support, while this project calls for exchanging bulbs once in about 8 years. This
function couples very well with other sustainable projects due to simplicity and should be
implemented all over the country.
1
12RDSC21
Project Summary/ Background
The proposed project is to replace incandescent and fluorescent bulbs initially within 5
core campus buildings to demonstrate feasibility of the investment and track the resultant energy
savings. This project can be scaled to the rest of campus if significant impact on energy
consumption is evident. On this particular campus, lighting makes up 20.2% of all electricity
used. Within 5 core buildings, field surveys led to discovery of 3 different types of buildings
with different usage scenarios; library, lecture hall, and lab. From these different variations there
were 11 different types of fixtures discovered; 323 total incandescent bulbs, and 1540
Fluorescent T8 fixtures.
The primary focus of the project is the replacement of the incandescent bulbs; where by a
75 w bulb is replaced with a 15 watt LED bulb for 80% energy savings. Secondarily, the
replacement of the fluorescent was analyzed since most buildings include a combination of
incandescent and fluorescent. One T8 fixture is rated at 75 watt; however the LED replacements
are rated at 40 watts. This is only a 42.8% saving compared to 80% of the incandescent
replacements. Regardless, buildings are still evaluated to demonstrate the number of existing
fixtures and the possibility for future implementation. Presently, the focus is to absolutely
eliminate the incandescent.
The more energy saved on campus through electricity the more pollution is prevented.
Most people would not imagine at how much impact these values can have, but as can be seen by
this specific project that is not the case. From 323 incandescent light-bulbs (replaced by LEDs),
there is a total of 80584 lbs. of CO2 per year can be omitted. If one takes into consideration
Fluorescent light bulbs (replaced by LED T8 fixtures), there is about 100000 lbs. of CO2 per
year that can be omitted. These values use the annual NYS average of .669 lbs. of CO2/ KWh.
2
12RDSC21
Though this lighting project aims at continuing the awareness of the “lighting revolution”
there are key issues that need to be acknowledged. If this project was put into full effect and all
light-bulbs were to be replaced, there are well over thousands of bulbs that need to be disposed
of. Sadly, proper disposition of these bulbs is extremely pricy and most companies and
institutions will not properly dispose of the bulbs (Average cost of disposal for incandescent is:
$1.50, Average cost of disposal for fluorescent: $3.50). Instead most companies and institutions
will either throw them away, causing a large increase in waste or keep them in storage to prevent
pollution or extra costs.
Kill the Incandescent” is a project designed to raise awareness. Most data shown is used
to show possibility in an area that most people just look over. The true results come once
awareness is spread and the general public understands how far technology has developed and
how beneficial it can be for the consumer and the environment. There are numerous techniques
for representing this to the public, but the most effective is the process designed in this project;
re-lamping versus redesigning. Such a project is not oriented towards new construction or major
projects, instead it is as simple as exchanging a light-bulb. The end result; significant energysavings, use of existing lighting infrastructure, and incorporation of cool technology.
3
12RDSC21
Relationship to sustainability
A program like ours promotes sustainability in several ways and in that way has an
appeal to a large number of audiences. The first and most immediate impact on sustainability
comes directly from the reduced consumption of electricity by the campus. Reduction of demand
means a reduction of electricity that needs to be produced, and the less that is produced causes
fewer emissions released into the atmosphere. Fewer emissions from local production would
improve air quality in our area. If energy is not produced locally, it will improve air quality
wherever it originated as well as avoiding the waste associated with the transmission of
electricity.
The second benefit is a result of the first. The reduced electricity consumption of the
campus will save the school money which can be used to fund further projects on campus. In this
way the project can lead to future sustainability programs on campus. The small effort savings
from the program can also be used as a selling point to other groups and businesses to pursue
their own sustainability program.
A third benefit of this project is reduced garbage produced by using the current bulb
technology. The LED technology has a significantly longer bulb life expectancy which means it
will not be replaced as often. The LED’s in some cases can last twenty times as long as the
currently installed fixtures meaning they get replaced once for every twenty changes now. There
are over 300 fixtures being replaced which would save thousands of replacement bulbs and
reduce the amount thrown into local landfills.
4
12RDSC21
Materials and Methods
Milestones:
1) Identify Different Bulbs
The initial challenge is, understanding where the incandescent bulbs are and how many are there.
This milestone is accomplished by surveying each building individually and each floor within.
Key aspect includes taking down notes of specific fixtures in an organized manner. Once this is
done the list is narrowed down to relevant data; incandescent and fluorescent.
2) Research for possible bulb replacements
Numerous bulbs exist on the market with updated technologies. To truly understand, which bulb
fits in what environment key aspects include; wattage, lumens, lifetime, beam angle, cost, and
location. The more variations between bulbs, the better understanding of which fits in each
building and ensures consistent lighting. From a lighting design standpoint each and every detail
counts.
3) LitePro 2.0 Simulation
Next milestone involves demonstrating not only energy savings, but functional advantages of
LEDS. Once floor-plans for designated buildings are acquired (CAD format), LitePro 2.0 is used
to run simulations. This software analyzes and verifies illumination levels in spaces with selected
LED technology. Ceiling, floor, and wall color are taken into consideration for reflectance.
Overall, a virtual grid is created with measurements of foot-candles (lumens/meter2) every 2 feet.
This demonstrates illumination distribution and consistency of light, as show in Figure 1.
5
12RDSC21
Figure 1-LitePro Simulation
4) Bulb Testing
The next step was taking LED bulbs from research into real environments. Specifically, the
Folsom Library and Sage Lecture Hall were chosen to test each bulb. Using a Lux Meter, which
reads the light amplitude in specific locations, it became clear which bulbs would be best in each
environment. Beam angle, Lumens, wattage, are all key factors for analyzing each bulb.
5) Calculations for sustainability and carbon footprint
Finally, after all the engineering aspects have been covered and analyzed the final steps include
demonstrating pollution prevention due to the change in light bulbs. This data can be seen during
the presentation, but overall there is a significant saving due to switching to LED lighting.
Acknowledgements:
The team consists of two members, one of which has been on campus throughout the
whole process. Responsibilities include; most of the hands on testing and organizing of the
project. The other has been remotely contributing from Texas. The member is currently involved
with a Co-op at GE. Responsibilities include research and development, calculations, discussion
and collaboration.
6
12RDSC21
Results, Evaluation and Demonstration
Project data was gathered every step of the way. Specifically, there will be a
demonstration depicting, bulb research and selection (based on features mentioned in
milestones), LitePro simulations, field testing, KWh usage, costs, and finally pollution. Within
this report, LitePro data is kept to a minimum to represent final results and relationship to
sustainability.
Using the IES (illuminating Engineering Society) recommendations, hallways should be
5-30 foot-candles (lumens/meter2), while lecture halls and libraries should be 30-50 foot-candles.
The simulations helped narrow down bulb for testing to the following table.
name
bulb life
watt
GE 60 watt halogen bulb
Philips 75 W Halogen PAR30L Flood 40
LED-PAR30L-50-1WD-IF
LED-PAR30L-75-1WD-IF
LED18PAR30LN/DIM/830/FL40 Sylvania
LED15PAR30LN/DIM/830/FL40 Sylvania
3000
3000
50000
50000
25000
50000
60
75
7.9
14.3
18
15
beam
angle
40
40
35
55
40
40
lumens
800
975
474
740
950
770
Table 1-List of Tested Bulbs
With this set of bulbs testing of each feature can be done to understand how the
illumination distribution is affected. The original halogen bulbs were tested as a baseline
comparison for the LEDs. Through field testing, LED-PAR30L-75-1WD-IF is the best choice in
the library due to the even distribution and large beam angle. For the other specific buildings, the
Sylvania LED15PAR30LN is the best fit due to consistency.
From the original field survey the following data was gathered for the individual bulbs
and fixtures to allow a better understanding of the carbon footprint. Table 2 demonstrates the
original and replacement bulb specifications.
7
12RDSC21
Incandescent
Bulbs
LED
Replacements
Fluorescent
Fixture
LED
Replacement
Number of fixtures in bldgs.
323
323
1540
1540
# of hours ”on” per day
19.46
19.46
18
18
Individual bulb rating (W)
Total rating of bulbs (W)
Energy cons. per day (KWh)
Energy Cons. per year (KWh)
67.5
21802.5
424.27
154858.55
15
4845
94.2837
34413.5505
70
107800
1940.4
708246
40
61600
1108.8
404712
Table 2- Original and Replacement Bulb Specifications
Analyzing the above data, there is a factor of 4.49 when comparing KWh of the
incandescent bulbs versus the equivalent LED replacements. This is a significant decrease in
consumption and is almost consistent with advertised values of 5. This is a 10% error.
Compiling the above data allows insight into the differences between the original bulbs
and the replacement bulbs; Table 3 demonstrates this compiled data.
Incandescent
Replaced
329.956
120455
80584.395
5756.75
8.394
Energy Savings per day (KWh)
Energy savings per Year (KWh)
Total CO2 Saved per year (lbs.)
# of Cars taken off road (day)
# of Cars taken off road (year)
Fluorescent
Replaced
831.6
303534
203064.246
14504.589
21.15
Table 3-Compiled Data
The above data demonstrates compiled energy savings and comparisons to everyday life.
For a day 5,756 cars would be taken off the road with the CO2 savings in a year using the
Incandescent replacements. Fluorescent replacements on the other hand demonstrate 14,504 cars
taken off the road for a day. Comparing the number of cars per year; there would be about 8 cars
taken off for a whole year. This is a significant improvement in CO2 emissions by just replacing
bulbs to LEDs. There is so much potential here for improvement in pollution prevention and
reliable technology exists to make the jump.
8
12RDSC21
The final relevant data is costs and payback period.
Average Cost per bulb
Total cost for bulbs
Incandescent
5.34
1724.82
LED Replacement
40
12920
cost to run bulb per year
cost to run total bulb per year
38.35
12,389.48
8.52
2753.08
Extra cost
Total cost for first year
10 year period cost
1724.82
15839.12
158391.2
none
15673.08
40450.8
Table 4-Cost Data
The extra cost represents extra bulbs that need to be bought per year. Since the
incandescent lifetime is only 3000 hours, replacements have to occur 2 times a year; hence the
extra cost. For LEDs the initial cost is high, but each year after the investment, only energy costs
play a role. Therefore, a 10 year comparison demonstrates the true cost savings; $117,940 saved
by investing in LED technology. The calculated payback period from initial investment is: 15.04
months.
The demonstration will entail of numerous consumer products to attract attention. The
pollution prevention does not end on the campus. A slideshow will be prepared in PowerPoint to
demonstrate more figures relevant to the above data. This slideshow will have key pictures from
field surveys and demonstrations of simulations using LED replacements. These simulations
were done in LitePro 2.0 to demonstrate the advantages in functionality. Finally, LED
technology will be on exhibition for the public to analyze.
9
12RDSC21
Conclusions
Kill the incandescent is a project that can be incorporated in almost every environment
for little effort. It is as simple as choosing a bulb and replacing current high energy bulbs with
new LED technology. The primary obstacle is the initial investment to fund the replacement bulb
purchase. Regardless, with campus wide incorporation students will become aware of the overall
benefits and hopefully incorporate once they themselves are homeowners.
In the particular case of evaluating 5 core campus buildings re-lamping allows for
savings of 80584 lbs. of CO2 per year. This is a significant value for 5 high traffic buildings on
campus. With a payback period of about 15 months, the school does have the ability to make the
investment in LED technology. Hopefully, one day incandescent will not be the only bulbs to be
fixed, but at the current state these bulbs being replaced gives the most significant pollution
prevention impact per bulb.
Expanding these results to the whole campus gives insight into a large scale project over
about 80 buildings. Therefore, using the results from the 5 core-campus buildings, an expected
$188,704 per year in savings; $1,887,040 for a ten year period. By simply re-lamping the
campus, the school can save significant amount of money while reducing carbon footprint. This
would allow this money to be invested in other sustainable products, giving the campus a jump
start on funds.
10
12RDSC21
References
Environmental Health and Safety Online. EHSO's Fluorescent Lights and Lighting Disposal and
Recylcing Page. 5 April 2013. April 2013.< http://www.ehso.com/fluoresc.php>
EPA. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. 3 March 2013. 29 March 2013.
< http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results>
IES Lighting Handbook. "IES Footcandle Recommendations." n.d. IESNA. April 2013.
< http://www.ncat.org/energy/images/IES%20footcandles.pdf>
Illuminating Engineering Society of America. Lighting Handbook. New York : Publications
Department IESNA, 1993.
SmartLightingERC. Light Fixtures Research. April 2013. Wiki. April 2013.<
https://slerc.ecse.rpi.edu/display/SPS/Light+Fixtures+Research>
U.S. Department of Energy . New York Electricity Profile. 30 January 2012. March 2013.
< http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/NewYork/>
US Department of Energy. Commercial Sector Energy Consumption. March 2012. 3 April 2013.
< http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results>
Wright, Maury. "Varying Approaches to LED Retrofit Lamps Show no Limit.” LEDs Magazine,
58. Feb 2013. Pages 33-38.
11