Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Outsourced Innovation- Cold Storage Research

877

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
877
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. August 2010 – January 2012Hoosier Energy – Energy-Efficient LED Lighting for High-Bay Cold Storage Warehouse Applications Prepared by Outsourced Innovation, LLC The business information related to the findings in this report is confidential to Hoosier Energy and Interstate Warehousing. Results from this evaluation are specific to this location and application. These results, analyses, tests, or findings of Hoosier Energy or its Member system REMCs will not be used as endorsements of the product or for advertising purposes without the express written permission of Hoosier Energy or the Member system REMC. Any testing or analysis performed by August 2010 – January 2012 Hoosier Energy or its Members system REMCs is done solely for internal purposes.
  • 2. Table of Contents PageIntroduction & Background 3Executive Summary 3Research Implications & Recommendations 4Research Methodology 4Illumination Measurements 6Energy Comparisons & Power Quality 7Energy Savings & Financial Analysis 8Customer & Employee Feedback 10Conclusions 11Appendix A – Digital Lighting Specification Sheet 12Appendix B– Photometric Data Points at 6,000 Hrs. 14 2
  • 3. Introduction & BackgroundHoosier Energy is evaluating an intelligent solid state lighting (SSL) system as an emerging technologysolution to reduce on-peak demand. New SSL systems are designed to deliver significant energy savingsrelative to legacy light sources by leveraging adaptive lighting technologies (dimming and occupancysensing) inherent in light emitting diodes (LEDs).Industrial high-bay SSL lighting systems are in their early market entry with little real-world applicationexperience. Interstate Warehouse opened a new state-of-the-art public freezer/refrigerationwarehouse in Franklin, IN and was identified as an ideal site to conduct an assessment of a SSL systemmanufactured by Digital Lumens™. Digital Lumens engineered an intelligent LED lighting system withthe additional feature of controls to leverage efficiency gains compared to the T5 fluorescent lightingsystem they replaced.A core customer value of LEDs is energy and maintenance savings but it is anticipated that smart sensorsengineered into these LEDs will limit “on time.” This will produce an even greater energy savings asfixtures will be programmed to cycle “off” after 2 minutes of employees leaving the work area comparedto a 15-minute occupancy sensing in fluorescent technology.This evaluation included a direct comparison of LEDs against T5s on light output, energy savings andload reduction. Also, unlike fluorescent lighting, LEDs claim to perform well in cold environments makingthe Interstate facility an ideal site location to evaluate light performance in a freezer environment.The question of reliability will be addresses and whether LED light levels will hold out over time. Lastly,the project will gauge customer feedback and employee acceptance of LEDs to determine if employeesprefer working under LED lighting.Executive SummaryThis lighting project was established to understand the advantages and risks of emerging intelligent SSLlighting technologies.It is projected that the installation of an intelligent lighting system manufactured by Digital Lumensshould result in a 42% reduction in peak demand compared to the T5s lighting system, mostly due toshorter occupancy sensing capabilities from LEDs. LED Input wattage was validated as being 10% higherthan claimed by the Digital Lumens product spec sheet with power factor and total harmonic distortionslightly lower than EnergyStar® rated specifications. Site metering validated the installation of 172 LEDfixtures will create 17.391 total kW.Compared to T5s, having fewer LED fixtures at lower wattages an estimated energy usage reduction of70% is projected. Metering the T5 fixtures will support this forecast. With a projected rated powercapacity reduction and estimated total energy usage reduction, LEDs appear to provide a good solutionto reduce electric load more efficiently than T5 lighting solutions, even at the higher reported wattagesclaimed by the LED manufacturer. 3
  • 4. Long-term fixture reliability is unclear and an important caveat with SSL systems. The measured 2footcandle drop in average illumination after 6,000 hours raises questions about Digital Lumensmeeting performance claims of a 50,000 hour service life, especially when measured LED light levels arealready below the 15 foot threshold expected at the start of the project.An investment in an intelligent lighting system is more costly upfront. This project includes a longerpayback (3.5 years) compared to T5s but a 35% Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and 20-year net presentvalue cost positive result suggests that LEDs could be a good long-term capital investment as long asproduct reliability is assured.Research Implications and RecommendationsThese results show the progress in SSL systems for commercial high-bay applications, both in terms ofimproved light levels and energy savings. Although more costly upfront compared to other efficientlighting systems, LEDs can provide a solution to reduce peak demand for Hoosier Energy and thecustomers they serve, especially in the near future as costs appear to be dropping about 10-20%annually. The challenge today is that LED fixtures installed today are quickly outdated with new versionshaving higher light output and new capabilities.The following recommendations are provided for consideration. 1. Install a Dent meter on a sample of T5s fixtures so more exact energy performance comparisons can be made at Interstate. Without measurements from the T5s, we are missing a critical piece of input data to isolate early shut-off savings compared to LED. 2. The relatively large percentage drop in measured light output after 6,000 hours from the Digital Lumens product should be addressed in discussions with the company. SSL is still immature and evolving technology with long-term performance claims today that are extrapolations rather than more understood and assured with fluorescent alternatives. 3. Continue to provide good legal verbiage in product warranties. This should include protection on the product, driver, color shift and droop. Five-year full product and driver warranties are more common and we are beginning to see 7-year warranties on other high-bay products. 4. Ask LED vendors to provide TM-21 data that extrapolates long-service life for LED fixtures tested using LM-80 test protocol. This new standard provides additional assurance of long service life. 5. Consider comparing the performance of more than one solid state lighting system in future product demonstrations. There appears to be more industrial high-bay products market ready for evaluation, especially as pertains to wireless controls and integration with a facility’s energy management system.Research MethodologyThe primary research hypothesis was to demonstrate that matched or better illumination can beachieved from LEDs with a goal of achieving at least 15-20 horizontal foot candles at floor level. 4
  • 5. Mounting height was 42 feet with 25 foot spacing between fixtures at both the LED and the T5 facilities.Lighting was established on a 3-phase circuit panel at 277 volts with 33 fixtures on each breaker.The cold-storage warehouse occupies 120,000 square feet of space with each warehouse havingbetween 172-186 light fixtures and occupancy sensing set at between 40-45%. The fluorescent lightingwas set at 40% occupancy with a 15-minute time delay, whereas the LED at 45% occupancy with a 2-minute time delay. The schematic below in Figure 1 shows the configuration of LEDs with areashighlighted in green as fixtures programmed as always “on” and at 25% dimming so the facility is nevercompletely dark. Figure 1 – Schematic of Installed Digital Lumens FixtureThe lighting specifications indicated on the third-party laboratory test reports (LM-79) provided by themanufacturer indicated the LED lighting system should deliver a 43% energy savings drawing 166 wattscompared to a 5-lamp T-5 fluorescent lighting system with an estimated power draw of ~230 watts. Thepower quality features of this lighting will be validated using Dent Elite Pro power meters and will 5
  • 6. include a measurement and validation of input wattage, power factor and harmonic distortion for asample of 61 LED fixtures.LED fixtures were installed the week of August 16, 2010 and left on 24/7 for 3 weeks to season LEDfixtures prior to taking illumination measurements. An identical 4’ by 3’ light grid was established in a12”2’ aisle within the warehouse, with 66 light measurement points take under a sample of 5 fixtureswithin both the T5 and LED facilities.Illumination MeasurementsIllumination measurements according to Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)research protocol were taken at the T5 and LED facilities by a LEED certified engineer on December 6,2010. Temperature and humidity was measured at 13 degrees and 31% humidity in the T5 facility and22 degrees and 39% humidity in the LED facility.Average Illumination measurements taken 3 months after the lights were installed and shown in Table 1below validates that LED light output surpassed T5 light output by 45% or as much as 5 footcandlesphotopically, and 13 footcandles scotopically. The facility has achieved a higher maximum illuminationwith LEDs with almost equal light uniformity which means the light is disbursed equally throughout thewarehouse and without hot spots or unnecessary glare.Table 1: 1,000 Hour and 6,000 Illumination Measurement ComparisonsThese initial results demonstrate the potential for the Digital Lumens product to deliver enhancedillumination using fewer fixtures more efficiently. The data suggests better quality illumination usingabout 80% fewer lumens compared to T5’s in the adjacent warehouse, and shows the directionalcharacteristics inherent in LED technology. 6
  • 7. Because LED drivers are the weakest link in SSL technology, key to reliability and long service life ismonitoring an LED lighting system over time. LED Light levels are expected will hold stable through50,000 hours of use and through daily cycling on/off.A surprising finding showed a 2 – 4 foot candle decrease in light levels in 1 year (noted above in red).This falls below the 15-20 footcandle threshold that was established for LEDs at the beginning of theproject. At a drive current of 900 mA, these reported LED light levels are still higher than new T5s butraises questions about long-term lumen maintenance claims of 70% light output after 50,000 hourswhich is an important guiding standard with this technology.Energy Consumption and Power Quality MeasurementsThe demonstration included metering 35% of the total LED fixture installed to build a load profile fromthe intelligent lighting system. A Dent Elite Pro utility-grade power meter was installed by site personnelat Interstate on January, 2011 to monitor and report input wattage, power factor, total harmonicdistortion and energy consumption from the conversion to an intelligent LED lighting system.Power quality measurements were taken from a sample of 61 LED lamps installed within 6 rows,monitored on a 3-phase circuit having 3 channels (1 channel per phase), with initial measurementstaken in 15-minute time intervals for 10 days to determine consumption (k/Wh) and changed to 15-second intervals for estimate demand (kW) and/or address coincidence peak. Table 2 shows thevalidated input wattage and power quality characteristics of the Digital Lumens product.Table 2 – Validation of Input Wattage and Power Quality from Digital Lumens Product # of Input Wattage per Power ITHD (manual reading w/# of LEDs fixture Factor fixtures “on”)Channel 1 20 180.00 .873919 28.0 (13 fixtures)Channel 2 21 182.857 .87393 27.9 (14 fixtures)Channel 3 20 180.00 .886309 27.7 (11 fixtures)Digital LumensAverage 61 180.983 .877985 27.867The Dent meter validated important characteristics that are not yet understood with LED lighting(wattage change from cold temperature, voltage swings, harmonics, scalable deployment of electroniclighting, etc.). This data suggests that the Digital Lumen fixture has an input wattage of 181 watts ratherthan 166 watts made on product specification sheet. This is not unlike other field studies that suggesthigher LED wattages in colder temperatures.1 This implies a 21% energy savings compared to the energysavings from T5s.1 Field trials collect performance data for LED outdoor area lighting; LED Magazine, March 2011 7
  • 8. Over two-thousand data files were obtained to create a typical load profile reflecting the use of LEDsand advanced lighting controls during normal weekday business hours. This data was extrapolated tomake energy forecasts for the entire section of the warehouse installed with LEDs as shown in Table 3.Results from 61 metered LED fixtures in this demonstration, with 20% (13 fixtures) programmed as “on”created a reasonably accurate forecast of the Annual Energy Use and Peak Demand for the 172 DigitalLumens fixtures installed at the demonstration site.Table 3 – Forecast Annual Energy Use and Peak Demand for Digital Lumens Product# of Digital Peak k/W per Ave kWh/fixture Total kW Annual kWhLumens Fixtures fixture 172 0.101110656 7.73192623 17.39103 69,154.3482There is no measured peak demand or energy consumption data files for the T5s. Without metereddata files it is difficult to make apples-to-apples comparisons to LED. However, there is enough generalunderstanding of light on/off activity on the LEDs that somewhat reasonable projections can beconcluded for the T5s at Interstate.A measured peak at 56% of maximum power capacity for LEDs is baseline and allows for componentbreakdown. The equivalent for the T5s is assumed to be 100% and is no doubt high, but withoutmeasurements we are missing the critical piece of input data to isolate early shut off savings so theseefficiency comparisons are conservative and will more likely be even more favorable to T5s if we hadthat data to confirm as well.Energy Savings and Financial Analysis – Lifecycle CostsInstallation, energy and maintenance assumptions were made to support the financial and lifecycle costanalysis as shown in Tables 4 and 5.1. Installation Cost LED T5Full Labor Rate ($/hr) $50 $50Installation Time (hrs) $1 $1Additional Material Cost $25 $25Fixture Cost $700 $465Total Installed Cost $750 $5152. Energy Cost LED T5 2A. Energy ConsumptionTotal Number of Fixtures 172 186Number of Fixtures (Minimum Op) 42 42Wattage (Watts) 180 290 Capacity Reduction 42.6%Maximum Capacity (kW) 31.0 53.9Peak Demand (kW) 17.4 30.3Hours of Operation (Full) 7,488 7,488Hours of Operation (Minimum Op) 1272 1272Dimming Ratio (Minimum Op) 25% 25%Electricity Usage (Meas) (kWhr) 69154Electricity Usage (Calc) (kWhr) 132620 230742 Total Energy Usage Reduction 70.0%Equivalent Load Factor 52.1% 8
  • 9. 2B. Energy Rate LED T5Electricity Cost (cts/kWhr) Summer 0.0471 0.0471 Winter 0.0471 0.0471Demand Charge ($/kW) 10.56 10.56KVA Charge ($/kVa) 12.56 12.56Energy Cost $3,257.17 $8,619.42Demand Cost $183.64 $253.75Total Energy Cost $5,460.83 $11,664.403. Maintenance Cost LED T5 3A. Product LifetimeRated Life (Hrs) 50,000 25,000Years to Replacement 7 3Warranty (Yrs) 3B. Lighting MaintenanceFull Labor Rate ($/hr) $50 $50Maintenance Time (hrs) 0.50 0.50Maintenance Material Cost $188 $50Cost to Replace-Eqpt $213 $129 3C. Driver/Ballast MaintenanceDriver Replace Cost $200 $100Driver Replace Frequency (yrs) 5 5Maintenance Time (hrs) 0.25 0.25Total Cost to Replace Drivers $213 $113Table 4 – Assumptions for Lifecycle AnalysisThe financial assumptions shown in Table 5 were used to project the investment return in a solid statelighting system. 4. Financial Parameters Time Frame (yrs) 20 Inflation Rate 3% Electricity Escalation (%/yr) 3% Discount Rate (%) 5% Real Discount Rate (%) 2% Cost of Capital N/A Hurdle Rate 10% Table 5 – Financial AssumptionsThe investment was calculated using the time value of money and over a 20-year life as shown in Table 6and takes into consideration the time value of money. 9
  • 10. LED T5 Year Labor & Material Energy Nominal value Present value Labor & Material Energy Nominal value Present value 2011 $129,000 $5,461 $134,461 $134,461 $95,790 $14,707 $110,497 $110,497 $23,964 $23,964 $23,964 2012 $0 $5,625 $5,625 $5,357 $0 $15,149 $15,149 $14,427 -$9,524 -$9,070 $14,440 2013 $0 $5,793 $5,793 $5,255 $0 $15,603 $15,603 $14,152 -$9,810 -$8,898 $4,630 2014 $0 $5,967 $5,967 $5,155 $141 $16,071 $16,212 $14,004 -$10,245 -$8,850 -$5,614 2015 $0 $6,146 $6,146 $5,057 $0 $16,553 $16,553 $13,618 -$10,407 -$8,562 -$16,021 2016 $246 $6,331 $6,577 $5,153 $130 $17,050 $17,180 $13,461 -$10,603 -$8,308 -$26,625 2017 $261 $6,521 $6,782 $5,061 $154 $17,561 $17,715 $13,219 -$10,933 -$8,158 2018 $0 $6,716 $6,716 $4,773 $0 $18,088 $18,088 $12,855 -$11,372 -$8,082 2019 $0 $6,918 $6,918 $4,682 $0 $18,631 $18,631 $12,610 -$11,713 -$7,928 2020 $0 $7,125 $7,125 $4,593 $168 $19,190 $19,358 $12,478 -$12,233 -$7,885 2021 $286 $7,339 $7,624 $4,681 $151 $19,765 $19,917 $12,227 -$12,292 -$7,546 2022 $0 $7,559 $7,559 $4,420 $0 $20,358 $20,358 $11,903 -$12,799 -$7,483 2023 $312 $7,786 $8,098 $4,509 $184 $20,969 $21,153 $11,779 -$13,055 -$7,269 2024 $0 $8,019 $8,019 $4,253 $0 $21,598 $21,598 $11,454 -$13,579 -$7,201 2025 $0 $8,260 $8,260 $4,172 $0 $22,246 $22,246 $11,236 -$13,986 -$7,064 2026 $331 $8,508 $8,839 $4,252 $376 $22,913 $23,289 $11,203 -$14,450 -$6,951 2027 $0 $8,763 $8,763 $4,014 $0 $23,601 $23,601 $10,812 -$14,838 -$6,797 2028 $0 $9,026 $9,026 $3,938 $0 $24,309 $24,309 $10,606 -$15,283 -$6,668 2029 $373 $9,297 $9,669 $4,018 $219 $25,038 $25,257 $10,495 -$15,588 -$6,477 2030 $0 $9,576 $9,576 $3,789 $0 $25,789 $25,789 $10,206 -$16,214 -$6,416 $130,809 $146,735 $277,544 $221,591 $97,313 $395,190 $492,503 $343,242 36% Present Value PayBack IRR DL $221,591.24 3.49 36% T5 $343,242.26Table 6– SSL Lighting System Investment Over 20 YearsThis analysis illustrates a 3.5 year payback calculation from the SSL intelligent lighting system today withan internal rate of return (IRR) of 36% and a twenty-year Net Present Value cost positive resultcompared to the T5 lighting system. Depending on the hurdle rate for technology investments, a 36%internal rate of return suggests that even at a higher upfront cost, a solid state lighting system could bea good capital investment as long as reliability is in place.Facility Manager and Employee FeedbackThe initial installation of LED showed a few fixtures had malfunctioned dimming, but was rectified byDigital Lumens and new fixtures replaced within a week.Grant Chapman, the project lead and facility engineer at Interstate Warehouse was asked if the LEDsystem was a good example of an interior high-bay lighting system. He indicated a positive responseand satisfied with products that appeared to perform as promised by Digital Lumens.When asked to rate the LED fixtures on a scale of 1 to 5 in terms of meeting expectation (where1=Extremely Satisfied and 5=Extremely Dissatisfied) the Digital Lumens products were rated as 1 forbrightness, 2 for Glare and 3 for color, with “the cooler light that required some getting used to.”There were some initial issues with the lack of sensitivity of fixture occupancy sensors. The LEDs wouldnot detect the presence of employees and fork trucks immediately. That issue seemed to be resolved byDigital Lumens within a few weeks.Negative comments centered on glare. Employees reported LEDs as “too bright and employees neededsome time to get used to the warehouse, especially going from dark to light.” Also, glare was cited as anuisance for some employees when identifying written descriptions on boxes in the warehouse. 10
  • 11. ConclusionsThis project has successfully demonstrated the efficiency gains that could be realized from an intelligentsolid-state lighting system. Continued measurement and validation, especially on long-term lightmaintenance will assure that solid-state lighting systems will add more value compared to conventionalfluorescent lighting.With the expectation of further efficiency advancements expected over the coming 2-3 years, it isanticipated that LEDs will outperform conventional fluorescent lighting technologies, especially fromleveraging energy-saving control strategies for commercial lighting applications. The promise of morerobust performance of solid state lighting systems are based on extrapolations rather than fieldexperience and continues to warrant the understanding of risks associated with immature technology. 11
  • 12. Appendix A – Digital Lumens Product Specifications 12
  • 13. 13
  • 14. Appendix B – Photometric Data Points @ 6,000 Hours 31 16.1 31.2 fc 32 16.0 30.5 fc 33 15.5 29.7 fc 34 14.7 28.2 fc 35 14.0 27.0 fc 36 14.4 27.5 fc 37 15.3 29.3 fc 38 16.1 30.6 fc 39 16.9 32.2 fc 40 16.2 30.9 fc 41 15.2 29.2 fc 42 14.3 27.6 fc 43 15.0 28.8 fc 44 15.3 29.2 fc 45 15.3 29.2 fc 46 14.6 28.2 fc 47 14.3 27.6 fc 48 15.2 29.2 fc 49 16.3 31.3 fc 50 17.3 33.0 fcPHOTOMETRIC DATA 51 16.3 31.1 fc POINTS PHOTOPIC SCOTOPIC 52 15.7 30.0 fc 1 14.4 27.4 fc 53 15.2 29.1 fc 54 14.8 28.3 fc 2 13.7 26.0 fc 55 15.1 29.0 fc 3 13.9 26.3 fc 56 15.8 30.3 fc 4 14.5 27.2 fc 57 16.3 31.2 fc 5 15.3 28.8 fc 58 15.8 30.3 fc 6 15.7 29.6 fc 59 14.8 28.5 fc 60 14.1 27.1 fc 7 16.1 30.3 fc 61 15.1 29.2 fc 8 14.4 27.1 fc 62 15.9 30.7 fc 9 13.4 25.4 fc 63 15.9 30.4 fc 10 13.1 24.7 fc 64 15.2 29.0 fc 11 13.7 26.0 fc 65 13.9 26.7 fc 66 13.2 25.3 fc 12 14.4 27.2 fc 67 12.4 24.0 fc 13 14.5 27.5 fc 68 13.5 25.8 fc 14 14.7 27.7 fc 69 14.4 27.8 fc 15 14.2 26.9 fc 70 14.7 28.4 fc 16 14.0 26.6 fc 71 14.5 27.8 fc 72 14.1 27.2 fc 17 14.3 27.2 fc 73 13.6 25.8 fc 18 15.1 28.6 fc 74 13.6 26.2 fc 19 15.6 29.4 fc 75 14.2 27.5 fc 20 14.4 27.1 fc 76 15.2 29.4 fc 21 12.9 24.4 fc 77 15.2 29.3 fc 78 14.2 27.3 fc 22 12.2 23.3 fc 79 13.7 26.3 fc 23 13.2 25.0 fc 80 14.3 27.6 fc 24 13.7 26.1 fc 81 14.9 28.7 fc 25 15.1 28.7 fc 82 15.1 29.0 fc 26 15.9 30.2 fc 83 16.3 31.2 fc 27 15.8 30.1 fc 84 15.1 29.1 fc 85 14.0 26.9 fc 28 15.4 29.5 fc 86 13.2 25.3 fc 29 14.2 27.3 fc 87 13.2 25.4 fc 30 14.7 28.1 fc 88 14.3 27.1 fc 14

×