University Buildings Energy Efficiency Lighting Retrofit

Transcription

1 University Buildings Energy Efficiency Lighting Retrofit COREY DICKENS Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Morgan State University Baltimore, MD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Abstract An energy efficiency lighting retrofit was implemented on two buildings on a university campus. The upgrades associated with the retrofit were captured in relation to the annual energy reduction, annual cost savings, and annual CO 2 reductions. The projected metrics from the retrofit are an annual energy reduction of 80,856KWH, an annual cost savings of $8,086, and an annual CO 2 reduction of metric tons. Key-Words efficiency, retrofit, energy, florescent, LED, and incandescent 1. Introduction In the US, buildings consume approximately 40% of the total energy consumption. [1] Therefore, performing energy efficiency retrofitting on large buildings have been identified as a more effective means of helping cites reduce energy usage and meet energy related goals. [2] Universities are ideal for large scale energy retrofits. Many campuses are considering energy efficiency and renewable energy projects to reduce building operation and maintenance cost. [3] Although many universities are interested, some are struggling to embrace energy retrofits due to a lack of understanding of energy efficiency in upper management, lack of confidence in projected returns on investment, lack of mechanisms to return cost savings to the university, little accountability from those using the energy, and the lack of flexible investment strategies towards efficiency.[4] In order to address barriers to energy efficiency for university campuses, demonstration case studies must be shared and distributed to show best case practices highlighting the potential for cost savings and energy reduction. [5] 2. Building Description The Lewis K Downing Hall and Chemical Engineering Building are part of Howard University s Renewal Facilities Plan which reflects smart urban design using highly efficient technology. Downing Hall is composed of 1,200,000 ft 3 and the Chemistry Engineering Building is composed of 180,000 ft 3. Together these buildings cover 1,380,000 ft 3 of space that needs to be cooled in the summer, heated in the winter, and lighted year round. The schools where constructed in the early 1950s with minor upgrades over the years. 3. Energy Efficiency Retrofit Scope The scope of work for energy efficiency upgrades as integrated into the general scope ISBN:

2 of work for renovation. These renovations included modifications to the Downing lobby, hallways, several faculty offices, restrooms, and laboratories. The energy efficiency retrofit predominately encompassed lighting modifications trough out the buildings and efficient HVAC integration in Downing Hall. These retrofit occurred across the three following phases: 1. Corridors and Classroom Lighting 2. Lobby HVAC System, Lobby Lighting and Mechanical Chairman s Office 3. Stairs, Restrooms and Auditorium 4. Labs and Teaching Lab Lighting 3. 1 Corridor and Classroom Lighting For the corridors and selected classrooms on every floor in Downing Hall, fixtures with 4 were replaced with ceiling reflector fixtures that require 2 -T8 bulbs that and consume 32W/bulb, in comparison with 40W/bulb for the s. Due to the higher quality of light from the T8 fixtures, some hallways that originally had 14 - fixtures were replaced with only 8-T8 fixtures. For the corridors and classrooms in the Chemical Engineering Building, 141 (2x2) deep recess T8 fixtures replaced the fixtures. The T8 fixtures use 2 tubular 32W bulbs in contrast to the 4- fixtures. Figure 1. New corridor lights In terms of classrooms in Downing, 32 fixtures were replaced with the 32W (2x2) deep recess T8 fixture that uses 3 bulbs. Figure 2. Chemical engineering classroom T8 Replacement DH Corridors DH Classrooms CE Corridors CE Classrooms Table 1. Fixture conversion from to T8 in Downing Hall (DH) and Chemical Engineering Hall (CH) T8 DH Corridors DH Classrooms CE Corridors CE Classrooms Table 2. Bulb conversion from to T8 in Downing Hall (DH) and Chemical Engineering Hall (CH) ISBN:

3 Power Difference (W) DH Corridors 1168 DH Classrooms 280 CE Corridors 528 CE Classrooms 1728 Table 3. Power difference based on retrofit of bulbs and fixtures in Downing Hall (DH) and Chemical Engineering Hall (CH) 3. 2 Lobby Lighting and Chairman s Office In terms of lighting, the lobby area has been fitted with a mixture of various efficient lighting fixtures. include 4 LED based outdoor lights that consume 14W, 8 sconces that consume 32W, 1 LED strip lights for 2 new display cases that consume 12W, and 25 ceiling reflector fixtures that require 2 -T8 bulbs that consume 32W/bulb. Using comparable and 60W incandescent, a power difference of 2,680W was calculated (assuming 20W fluorescent lighting comparable for the LED strips and no comparison for the outside lights). Figure 4. Downing Hall lobby after retrofit Figure 5. Sconces in Downing Hall Lobby It also must be noted that the modifications to the lobby included day lighting where large double pane windows with gas filler were installed to allow for natural light penetration. This dramatically enhances the lighting solutions installed in the lobby area. Figure 3. Downing Hall Lobby retrofit ISBN:

4 3. 3 Stairs, restrooms, and auditorium The stairwell lighting in both Downing Hall and the Chemical Engineering Building was replaced. 18 strip lighting fixtures that contain 2 4-inch T8 bulbs replaced the bulbs in the Chemical Engineering Building. 13 Wall Strip lights that contained 1-T8 bulb and 1 strip light that contained 2-T8 bulbs were installed in Downing. Considering the lighting installed in both building stairwells, a power difference of 528W is achieved. Figure 6. Exterior entrance tower before The auditorium was retrofitted with 22 LED light fixtures that consume 20W in the general seating area. In addition, 8-T-8 strip lights that contain 1-32W bulb were installed over the stage area. These fixtures replaced 12 strip lights with 2inch bulbs, 30 strip lights with 4inch bulbs, and 12 (2X4) fixtures that contained 4 florescent bulbs. This retrofit produces a power difference of 2,568W. Figure 7. Exterior entrance tower after As for the Chairman's Mechanical Engineer office, 17 (2x2) deep recess T8 fixtures replaced the fixtures. The T8 fixtures use 2 tubular 32W bulbs in contrast to the 4- fixtures. This provided a power difference of 1,632W. Figure 8. Downing Hall Auditorium Lighting ISBN:

5 DH Bathrooms T8 CE Bathrooms Table 5. Bathroom bulb conversion from to T8 in Downing Hall (DH) and Chemical Engineering Hall (CH) Figure 9. Downing Hall Auditorium Stage Lighting For the bathrooms, fixtures with 4 were replaced with ceiling reflector fixtures that require 2 -T8 bulbs that and consume 32W/bulb, in comparison with 40W/bulb for the s. The total wattage difference considering the stairwells, the auditorium and bathrooms provides a power difference of 3,512W. T8 Replacement DH Bathrooms CE Bathrooms 6 6 Table 4. Bathroom fixture conversion from to T8 in Downing Hall (DH) and Chemical Engineering Hall (CH) Power Difference (W) DH Bathrooms 320 CE Bathrooms 96 Table 6. Power difference based on retrofit of bulbs and fixtures in Downing Hall (DH) and Chemical Engineering Hall (CH) bathrooms 3.4 Laboratories and teaching laboratories Laboratories and teaching laboratories were modified with (2x2) recessed 40W T5 fixture that use 3 bulbs. The amount of fixtures replaced amounted to 380. This results in a power difference of 9,120W. 4. Results Using the annual operating hours of 4,500 HR/Yearly and the utility rate of $0.10/KWH, the projected annual energy reduction, annual cost savings, and CO 2 reductions is: Annual Energy: 80,856KWH Annual Cost Savings: $8, 086 Annual CO 2 reduction: Metric Tons ISBN:

6 5. Conclusion This lighting retrofit is a case study for 2 buildings on a university campus that has over 50 buildings. The case study does not include energy efficiency retrofit measures associated with mechanical systems, envelope, energy management systems, or an integrated energy management strategy. Just focuses in on the efficient lighting, this study presents the potential for major energy reduction and a cost savings of $80,000 over a ten year period. Beyond the cost savings, rebates were obtained based on the technology that brought in a first year funding of approximately $20,200. These types of incentives across a major campus could be highly valuable to help universities meet energy goals and reduce operation cost. 1. US Energy Administration. May 28, Web. July How much energy is consumed in residential and commercial buildings in the United States? < id=86&t=1>. 2. Katherine Brandon. Improving Energy Efficiency. The White House. White House.gov. June 29, 2009 Web. July < ving-energy-efficiency>. 3. Meryl Gottlieb. Universities Paid to Reduce their Energy Efficiency. USA Today News. USA Today. June 7, Web. July < ation/2013/06/07/universities-profitingfrom-energy-savings/ />. 4. Steve Sorrell, Dr Joachim Schleich, Dr Sue Scott, Eoin O'Malley, Fergal Trace, Ulla Boede, Katrin Ostertag, Dr. Peter Radgen. Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Public and Private Organisations. Environment and Energy Programme. SPRU Environment and Energy, September Web. July < blications/reports/barriers/finalsection4.p df>. 5. Eoin O Malley, Sue Scott, Steve Sorrell. Barriers to Energy Efficiency: Evidence from Selected Sectors. The Economic and Social Research Institute. September 18, Web. July < releases_archive/2003/barriers_to_energ y_effici/>. ISBN: