skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Quick lighting upgrades that yield significant energy


A brief article for BOMA's magazine about quick lighting energy efficiency upgrades.

Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
OSTI Identifier:
Report Number(s):
DOE Contract Number:
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: BOMA Magazine, (November | December 2017):46-49
Country of Publication:
United States

Citation Formats

Myer, Michael. Quick lighting upgrades that yield significant energy. United States: N. p., 2017. Web.
Myer, Michael. Quick lighting upgrades that yield significant energy. United States.
Myer, Michael. 2017. "Quick lighting upgrades that yield significant energy". United States. doi:.
title = {Quick lighting upgrades that yield significant energy},
author = {Myer, Michael},
abstractNote = {A brief article for BOMA's magazine about quick lighting energy efficiency upgrades.},
doi = {},
journal = {BOMA Magazine, (November | December 2017):46-49},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2017,
month =
  • This report provides a description for QECBs, their benefits, and how they can be used in various cases.
  • The Lumina Project and Lighting Africa conducted a full-scale field test involving a switch from kerosene to solar-LED lighting for commercial broiler chicken production at an off-grid farm in Kenya. The test achieved lower operating costs, produced substantially more light, improved the working environment, and had no adverse effect on yields. A strategy using conventional solar-fluorescent lighting also achieved comparable yields, but entailed a six-fold higher capital cost and significantly higher recurring battery replacement costs. Thanks to higher energy and optical efficiencies, the LED system provided approximately twice the illumination to the chicken-production area and yet drew less than halfmore » the power.At the study farm, 3000 chickens were grown in each of three identical houses under kerosene, fluorescent, and LED lighting configurations. Under baseline conditions, a yearly expenditure of 1,200 USD is required to illuminate the three houses with kerosene. The LED system eliminates this fuel use and expense with a corresponding simple payback time of 1.5 years, while the solar-fluorescent system has a payback time of 9.3 years. The corresponding reduction in fuel expenditure in both cases represents a 15percent increase in after-tax net income (revenues minus expenses) across the entire business operation. The differential cost-effectiveness between the LED and fluorescent systems would be substantially greater if the fluorescent system were upsized to provide the same light as the LED system. Providing light with the fluorescent or LED systems is also far more economical than connecting to the grid in this case. The estimated grid-connection cost at this facility is 1.7 million Kenya Schillings (approximately 21,250 USD), which is nearly six-times the cost of the fluorescent system and 35-times the cost of the LED system.The LED system also confers various non-energy benefits. The relative uniformity of LED lighting, compared to the fluorescent or kerosene lighting, reduced crowding which in turn created a less stressful environment for the chickens. The far higher levels of illumination also created a better environment for the workers, while eliminating the time required for obtaining fuel and maintaining kerosene lanterns. An additional advantage of the LED system relative to the solar fluorescent system was that the former does not require a skilled technician to carry out the installation. The portable LED system lighting layout is also more easily adjusted than that of the hardwired fluorescent systems. Furthermore, switching to the LED system avoids over one metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions per house on an annual basis compared to kerosene. There is high potential for replication of this particular LED lighting strategy in the developing world. In order to estimate the scale of kerosene use and the potential for savings, more information is needed on the numbers of chickens produced off-grid, as well as lighting uses for other categories of poultry production (egg layers, indigenous broilers ). Our discovery that weight gain did not slow in the solar-fluorescent house after it experienced extended lighting outages beginning on day 14 of the 35-day study suggests that conventional farming practices in Kenyan broiler operations may call for more hours of lighting than is needed to achieve least-cost production.« less
  • Lighting upgrades including neon to LED, incandescent to CFL's and T-12 to T-8 and T-5's were completed through this grant. A total of 16 Chickasaw nation facilities decreased their carbon footprint because of these grant funds. Calculations used were based on comparing the energy usage from the previous year's average and the current energy usage. For facilities without a full year's set of energy bills, the month after installation was compared to the same month from the previous year. Overall, the effect the lighting change-outs had for the gaming centers and casinos far exceeded expectations. For the Madill Gaming Center;more » both an interior and exterior upgrade was performed which resulted in a 31% decrease in energy consumption. This same reduction was seen in every facility that participated in the grant. Just by simply changing out light bulbs to newer energy efficient equivalents, a decrease in energy usage can be achieved and this was validated by the return on investment seen at Chickasaw Nation facilities. Along with the technical project tasks were awareness sessions presented at Chickasaw Head Starts. The positive message of environmental stewardship was passed down to head start students and passed along to Chickasaw employees. Excitement was created in those that learned what they could do to help reduce their energy bills and many followed through and took the idea home. For a fairy low cost, the general public can also use this technique to lower their energy consumption both at home and at work. Although the idea behind the project was somewhat simple, true benefits have been gained through environmental awareness and reductions of energy costs.« less
  • One treatment method of municipal solid waste, incineration, has fallen in and out of public favor. In the 1970s, emerging consciousness of the threat to groundwater posed by leaking landfills made incineration an attractive option. Prompted by disrupted energy supplies and steeply rising prices, more than 100 municipalities began to generate electricity from the heat produced by burning trash. In the 1990s, the pendulum of public enthusiasm has swung away from incineration. Energy prices have declined dramatically, and safety and siting concerns complicate new projects. A recent Supreme Court decision ruled that municipal incinerator ash must be tested as hazardousmore » waste and disposed accordingly if levels of such pollutants as cadmium and lead exceed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act limits. So-called flow control regulations, which allowed municipalities to apportion garbage disposal to ensure steady supplies to incinerators, also have been struck down. EPA is tackling the issue of air emissions from waste-to-energy and non-energy-producing municipal waste combustors. Emissions guidelines for MWCs and new-source performance standards for new units, proposed Sept. 20 under Sec. 129 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, are the culmination of a stalled and litigated initiative dating back to the CAA Amendments of 1977.« less