If LED lighting continues to develop as fast as it has over the last five years, within ten years it may well be the main form of lighting in use across the world. And lighting in new buildings may look radically different to what it does now.

The major advantage of LEDs is that they are a directional light source. Most other artificial light sources on the market radiate light in all directions. Incandescent light bulbs, compact fluorescent lamps, fluorescent lamps and high intensity discharge lamps such as metal halide all radiate light in all directions.

For example in most fluorescent office light fittings typically only 60% of the light produced by the fluorescent tube is emitted as useful light. A great deal of the light is lost because it goes  upwards or sideways rather than down. Using a reflector may increase the amount of useful light provided up to 80%. But even the most efficient fluorescent light fittings on the market rarely have a light output ratio of above 80%.

LED lights on the other hand produce all their light in a single direction. Light fitting designers can take advantage of this to efficiently direct light exactly where its needed, with very little lost or wasted light.

Go into a progressive hardware or electrical store and you can already see a variety of LED lights being sold.

Fluorescent lamps are the most commonly used lamp in the world. LEDs however are not yet competitive with fluorescents for three main reasons:

1. Energy efficiency is similar but not yet better. A high performance fluorescent tube will produce 100 lumens per watt. Put it in an energy efficient fitting, with a light output ratio of 80%, and the overall lighting efficiency is 80 useful lumens per watt of electricity. The best white LEDs on the market (that we are aware of) produce 75 to 80 lumens per watt. This is good, but not yet better than, fluorescent.
2. Reliability. Unlike fluorescent tubes, which are generally reliable no matter who makes them, LEDs are often unrealiable. We have purchased LEDs from many different manufacturers, and over half have failed within the first year of use.
3. Price. LEDs are still expensive.

This, however, is changing. Energy efficiency is improving, the major lighting manufacturers are increasing their focus on LEDs, and prices are dropping.

Energy efficiency of LEDs has increased markedly in recent years, in 2006 the best LEDs were approaching 60 lumens per watt, by the end of 2008 they were up to 77 lumens per watt. 

Reliability. The three main global light manufacturers – Osram, Philips and Sylvania – are all now selling LED lights. As major global brands they are unlikely to risk the cost and reputational damage of supplying unreliable products. As LED products become more main stream we can expect reliability to improve.

Costs are now starting to decrease as well. Whilst it is difficult to purchase a LED fluorescent substitute light for less than $80, only two years ago the price was $100.

When LED lights are achieving energy efficiencies in excess of 120 lumens per watt, lamp costs of less than $2 a watt, and low failure rates (less than say 1%) lighting as we now know it will be superseded. It will be possible to retrofit LEDs and cut lighting energy use by 50% or more in almost any building. New buildings, with lighting designs built around LEDs, may well be providing office – standard illumination for 2 watts of electricity use per square meter or less (current best practice is around 5 watts per square meter).

These new lights may look very different. Light fittings may become panels with hundreds of LEDs on them. Or ceilings may end up with stripes of LEDs across the ceiling. Or ceilings will end up with sockets into which panels of LEDs can be plugged in, so that its easy to move LEDs around in response to the lighting needs of a room (more above a desk, less in the corridors).

If control and sensing technologies can become sufficiently low cost buildings may well be set up to provide lighting whose intensity varies with occupancy and usage.

The rapid development of LEDs is exciting. It gives me hope that, when it comes to lighting, humanity will be able to greatly reduce its carbon footprint in the not too distant future.

Earlier today I interviewed Cameron Schuster, Sustainability Manager of Wesfarmers Limited. Wesfarmers owns Coles, Bunnings, Kmart, Officeworks, Target and a large number of other businesses.

Cameron’s says the following three things are critical to any organisation wishing to cut their carbon emissions.

1. Measure. Wesfarmers is putting in an internet based measurement and reporting system in place. This will provide store managers and others easy access to information about how they are performing.
2. Win senior management commitment
3. Entrust and empower people throughout the organisation to initiate activities to reduce their carbon emissions. Lots of small initiatives can add up to large carbon savings.

As with my interview with Toyota the theme of continuous improvement comes through in this interview. Wesfarmer’s carbon reduction strategy also has a strong emphasis on energy efficiency.

Click here to go to the interview with Cameron, or here to view Wesfarmer’s most recent sustainability report.

A recent study by IBM published in Forbes magazine says that whilst many companies want to reduce their carbon footprint, many do not have the measurement systems in place.

The study says that “Companies aren’t collecting and analyzing the information they really need or aggregating it often enough. Because of that, they can’t implement real changes to fundamentally increase efficiency, lower costs, reduce environmental impact and improve their reputations with key stakeholders.”

“In our survey, only 19% of respondents said they are collecting data on carbon dioxide emissions weekly or more often. Most are collecting it only quarterly. That may be enough to meet government or stakeholder demands for information, but it’s not nearly enough to produce systemic change that can reduce environmental impact.”

The old adage “you can’t manage what you don’t measure” is no less true when it comes to cutting your carbon emissions.

Measuring and tracking your emissions on an ongoing basis:

• Helps you know where to focus your efforts. Its been our experience that the 80/20 rule certainly applies to greenhouse gas emissions. 20% of an organisation’s sites will be responsible for 80% of its emissions. We have worked with many local governments and the 80/20 rule always stands up. Organisations which don’t know where their emissions are coming can easily fall into the trap of not focussing their effort where it will have the greatest impact. On the other hand by applying the 80/20 rule its easy to get some quick wins that build credibility and win valuable support for ongoing carbon reduction. An example of this comes from Darebin City Council in Melbourne. We started off with an 80/20 analysis, then undertook energy audits of their top 13 sites. We were then contracted to project manage energy efficiency works. We did some data logging and identified that the heating was starting up at 1am. So the first thing we did was to get a programmer in for an hour or so to change settings in the Building Management System controlling the heating. By reading the gas meter regularly, and tracking the gas bills, an immediate saving was identified, equating to roughly $10,000 a year and 100 tonnes of greenhouse gas. This quick win, and a dedicated energy efficiency officer (Stuart Nesbitt) employed by the council at the time we started project managing, provided a “kick start” to a program that two years later is still going strong, with net savings to date across the top buildings of 22%. And measurement was a key part of this – the 80/20 analysis followed by targetted data logging to measure in detail major items of plant.
• Alerts you to problems. For example water consumption jumps 100% – usually when this happens there is a leak, often underground where it can’t be seen. If you aren’t measuring and monitoring, or you don’t have a system that raises an alert, you may end up wasting water for many months. Users of our CarbonmetriX system often find problems they would have otherwised missed because of the automatic alerts it raises.
• Engages with stakeholders. When you know where and how your energy is being used, and the trends, its much easier to engage with facility managers and other stakeholders when developing a plan to reduce your emissions.
• Enables comparison. You can pick out those facilities with the highest and lowest carbon emissions per square meter, per widget, or per staff member. Then see what the best facilities are doing and transfer that to your worst facilities.
• Assist you present genuine green credentials, and not just greenwash, when you go to the marketplace and can demonstrate what you have measurably saved.

The Forbes article finishes with the following comment: “The bright spot in these findings comes from companies that outperform their competitors in bottom-line results. Outperformers rank consistently higher in collecting every type of CSR information frequently or in real-time across all major green and sustainability categories, from carbon dioxide emissions and water conservation to ethical labor standards and sustainable procurement. They also rank higher in information collection from suppliers.”

Click here to see the IBM study presented in Forbes.

Free cooling takes advantage of cold outside air to cool a warm building. Strictly speaking “free cooling” isn’t free as energy is used by fans to move air from inside to outside. Free cooling is beneficial for any building where there are significant heat loads inside.

Server rooms and data centres can benefit enormously from free cooling, and in fact is the main reason why Google’s major server rooms are located in cold climates. It’s also beneficial for large office buildings where internal heat loads from people, lighting and office equipment mean that the core of the building is warm, even though it may cold outside. Buildings with glazing facing the sun can often benefit due to the heat load from solar heat gain. Its been our experience that in temperate climate’s such as Melbourne even small buildings can benefit from free cooling.

To cool for “free” your building’s air handing system needs to have an “economy cycle” installed. An economy cycle has a large fresh air intake, and also a large spill or relief air outlet. Rather than recirculating most of the air in the building as is normally done, with an economy cycle the air is not recirculated, it simply comes in, provides cooling, then is vented out again.

If an economy cycle is not operating, not only is fan energy used to recirculate the air, but energy is used to provide cold refrigerant or chilled water to coils that cool the air that is being recirculated.

Your building’s air handling system may already have an economy cycle fitted. Its worth while finding out if it does, and if so, if its operating properly. Common problems that limit the effective use of an economy cycle are:

• Very tight temperature settings with a narrow deadband (see an early blog post on what is a comfortable office tempature for more on dead-bands)
• Faulty actuators. These may not be fully opening or closing the supply air, return air and spill air dampers.
• Faulty dampers. Dampers may be broken, rusted in position or seized.
• Controls that can’t enable an economy cycle, even though all the hardware is in place.
• Out of calibration sensors, that don’t call for an economy cycle when needed.
• The supply air vent is located in a warm plant room, so that an economy cycle won’t work even though its cold outside.

On the other hand your system may not be set up for an economy cycle. This is the case with many packaged air conditioners. In this case to get free cooling an economy cycle may have to be retrofitted. This involves increasing the sizes of the supply and spill (relief) air dampers and ducts as needed, the fitting of motorised dampers, and upgrading of the controls.

Small server rooms cooled by split system air conditioners can often be easily set up for free cooling by setting up the necessary duct work. The more equipment in the server room the bigger the savings.

In cold and temperate climates free cooling should always be considered as an energy saving measure.

During our energy audits re will often undertake a detailed system inspection and data logging to verify the correct operation of existing economy cycles, or undertake a cost-benefit analysis of installing an economy cycle if not yet installed.

We have recently been working on a site with a centralised steam system. It has two natural gas fired boilers supplying steam to a number of plant rooms, with the steam used to generate domestic hot water and heating hot water amongst other things. So how efficient is this system? And are there alternatives to steam that use less energy?

The short answer is that the steam system is very inefficient. It could be replaced with a decentralised system using a combination of hot water boilers and, where process steam is needed, small steam boilers. This would halve energy use.

Centralised steam systems have losses designed into them that cannot be avoided. Firstly the boiler blow down results in energy wastage. Then, because of the high pipe temperatures, any heat losses from uninsulated pipe is higher than it would be if the temperature was lower. Failed steam traps waste energy by not using the steam before it turns to condensate. And leaks and steam vents waste valuable condensate. Finally because still steam will eventually condense and needs to be taken away by a steam trap then reheated the standby losses are high. All these losses add up to large inefficiencies.

Steam is a old technology, and its use should be limited to only where absolutely necessary. Using steam to generate hot water is very inefficient. Much more efficient would be to use a high efficiency condensing flue hot water boiler, a direct exchange boiler, which will use half the energy to generate the same benefit. Heat pumps could also be considered if a water temperature of no more than 60 degrees Celcius was required.