Energy Efficiency

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 255–269

Cost–benefit analysis of retrofit of high-intensity discharge factory lighting with energy-saving alternatives

Authors

  • Daniel J. Preston
    • Alabama Industrial Assessment CenterThe University of Alabama
    • Alabama Industrial Assessment CenterThe University of Alabama
Original Article

DOI: 10.1007/s12053-012-9179-1

Cite this article as:
Preston, D.J. & Woodbury, K.A. Energy Efficiency (2013) 6: 255. doi:10.1007/s12053-012-9179-1

Abstract

Due to increased concern about overall energy costs and the appearance of efficient and inexpensive lighting system alternatives, factories and plants with high-intensity discharge (HID) lighting are forced to consider retrofit with more modern, energy-efficient lighting. The decision is complicated from an economic perspective, and there is a lack of information readily available on the topic. This study provides an analysis of the replacement by retrofit of common probe-start metal halide and high-pressure sodium industrial lighting systems. Retrofit options considered include the more recent pulse-start metal halide lamps and a range of T5 high output and T8 fluorescent lamp configurations. Recent data on lighting system pricing, labor and energy costs, and time required for tasks are reported. The results generated include savings, payback period, and net present value for many retrofit options, as well as the change in energy consumption, carbon footprint, and lumen output for each retrofit. Effects of varying rate of return and daily duration of operation are considered. Based on change in lumen output, payback period, net present value, and comparison of lighting quality, one or two options are recommended from the overall retrofit options considered. A fluorescent retrofit is recommended for each of the HID initial scenarios considered. The payback period is no more than 3 years in any recommended case. The focus of this study is on the potential energy and cost savings, and some proposed solutions may, or may not, be acceptable due to lack of illuminance uniformity.

Keywords

Industrial lightingLighting retrofitMetal halideIndustrial lighting efficiency

Abbreviations

HID

High-intensity discharge

HPS

High pressure sodium

LCC

Life cycle cost

MH

Metal halide

T5HO

T5 high output

TVM

Time value of money

Nomenclature

A

General annual cost (dollars)

AB,i

Annual cost of an expenditure of the base case (dollars)

AE

Annual electricity expenditure (dollars)

Aeq

Equivalent annual cost of a non-annual expenditure (dollars)

AR,i

Annual cost of an expenditure of the retrofit case (dollars)

BE

Ballast efficiency (unitless)

BF

Ballast factor (unitless)

C

Capital cost of a retrofit (cost of fixture and installation) (dollars)

Cyear

Carbon footprint per year (kilograms of CO2 per year)

E

Price of electricity (dollars per kilowatt hour)

Eyear

Energy usage per year (kilowatt hour per year)

i

Rate of return on investment (unitless)

n

Time period considered (years)

NB/F

Number of bulbs per fixture (unitless)

NF

Number of fixtures (unitless)

SPP

Payback period based on simple, non-TVM analysis (years)

DPP

Payback period based on TVM analysis (years)

P

General one-time cost (dollars)

Pex

Per-occurrence cost of an expenditure (dollars)

SSP

Annual savings based on simple, non-TVM analysis (dollars)

STVM

Annual savings based on TVM analysis (dollars)

Thr/yr

Hours of lamp operation per year (hour per year)

WB

Wattage per bulb (Watts)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012