Life cycle cost analysis of three renewed street lighting installations in Finland

  • Leena Tähkämö
  • Anne Ylinen
  • Marjukka Puolakka
  • Liisa Halonen
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Abstract

Purpose

Outdoor lighting is facing major changes due to the EU legislation on ecodesign of energy-related products, such as the ban of high-pressure mercury (HPM) lamps widely used in outdoor lighting. This article presents life cycle costs (LCC) of three examples of replacing HPM lamps in street lighting in Finland. The purpose of the article is to assess how the development of light-emitting diode (LED) technology affects LCCs and how the division of LCCs differentiates in the cases.

Methods

Two of the cases change from HPM lamps to high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps. In the third one, HPM lamps are replaced by LED luminaires. LED technology predictions of price and luminous efficacy are included in different scenarios. The calculations consider investment and operating costs and residual value.

Results and discussion

Each replacement reduces the energy costs approximately by half compared to the original HPM lamp luminaires. Energy costs dominate the LCCs of the HPS lamp installations while investment cost is the dominating one in LED luminaire case. The changes from HPM to HPS technology have payback times lower than 9 years, while changing to LED luminaires is not economic. However, the electricity price is low in this case. The payback times of LED installations can be as low as 6 years if the luminaires are installed in 2015 and an average electricity price is used.

Conclusions

The LCCs of real-life case studies cannot be directly compared, since their luminous properties vary. There is a need for a method for including luminous properties in LCC calculations.

Keywords

LED Life cycle costs Light-emitting diode Payback time Road lighting Street lighting 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work is part of an EkoValo research project carried out by Lighting Unit of Aalto University. The EkoValo project is funded by several Finnish companies and municipalities. The project is part of the Sustainable Community Programme (2007–2012) of Tekes—the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation.

References

  1. Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities (2010) Kuntien ominen rakennusten lämmön, sähkön ja veden kulutus v. 2009 (only in Finnish). http://www.kuntaportaali.org/binary.asp?path=1;29;356;165748;38145;38171;167158&field=FileAttachment&version=1. Accessed 23 Feb 2011
  2. Bhandari SB (2009) Discounted payback period—some extensions. J Bus Behav Sci 21:28–37Google Scholar
  3. Dale A, Bilec M, Marriott J, Hartley D, Jurgens C, Zatcoff E (2011) Preliminary comparative life cycle impacts of streetlight technology. J Infrastruct Syst. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000064
  4. European Committee for Standardization (2003) EN 13201:2–4Google Scholar
  5. European Committee for Standardization (2004) CEN/TR 13201:1Google Scholar
  6. Eurostat (2010) Electricity prices for first semester 2010, Data in Focus, 46/2010. European Commission. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-10-046/EN/KS-QA-10-046-EN.PDF. Accessed 23 Feb 2011
  7. Finnish Road Administration (2006) Tievalaistuksen suunnittelu—Suunnitteluvaiheen ohjaus (only in Finnish). Edita Prima Oy, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  8. Fuller SK, Petersen SR (1996) Life-cycle costing manual for the federal energy management program, NIST Handbook 135. U.S Department of CommerceGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartley D, Jurgens C, Zatcoff E (2009) Life cycle assessment of streetlight technologies. University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  10. Jørgensen A, Hermann IT, Mortensen JB (2010) Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:531–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kitsinelis S (2011) Light sources, technologies and applications. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  12. Klöpffer W, Ciroth A (2011) Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:99–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Norris GA (2001) Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:118–120Google Scholar
  14. Sippola V (2010) Replacement of lamps in outdoor lighting due to the implementing measures of the ecodesign -directive. Master’s Thesis, Aalto UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. Strategies Unlimited (2009) LED Lighting fixtures, market analysis and forecast, Report OM-45Google Scholar
  16. Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W et al (2011) Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. SETAC, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  17. US DOE (2010a) Multi-year program plan, March 2010. Solid-state lighting research and development. U.S. Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  18. US DOE (2010b) Manufacturing roadmap, July 2010. Solid-state lighting research and development. U.S. Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  19. Van Tichelen P, Geerken T, Jansen B, Vanden Bosch M, Van Hoof V, Vanhooydonck L, Vercalsteren A (2007) Final report, Lot 9: public street lighting. VITOGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leena Tähkämö
    • 1
  • Anne Ylinen
    • 1
  • Marjukka Puolakka
    • 1
  • Liisa Halonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Lighting Unit, School of Electrical EngineeringAalto UniversityAaltoFinland

Personalised recommendations