Lighting energy efficiency opportunities at Cheyenne Mountain Air Station

Technical Report · Sat Jun 01 04:00:00 EDT 1996

DOI:https://doi.org/10.2172/432927· OSTI ID:432927

Molburg, J C; Rozo, A J; Sarles, J K; Haffenden, R A; Thimmapuram, P R; Cavallo, J D

CMAS is an intensive user of electricity for lighting because of its size, lack of daylight, and 24-hour operating schedule. Argonne National Laboratory recently conducted a lighting energy conservation evaluation at CMAS. The evaluation included inspection and characterization of existing lighting systems, analysis of energy-efficient retrofit options, and investigation of the environmental effects that these lighting system retrofits could have when they are ready to be disposed of as waste. Argonne devised three retrofit options for the existing lighting systems at various buildings: (1) minimal retrofit--limited fixture replacement; (2) moderate retrofit--more extensive fixture replacement and limited application of motion detectors; and (3) advanced retrofit--fixture replacement, reduction in the number of lamps, expansion of task lighting, and more extensive application of motion detectors. Argonne used data on electricity consumption to analyze the economic and energy effects of these three retrofit options. It performed a cost analysis for each retrofit option in terms of payback. The analysis showed that lighting retrofits result in savings because they reduce electricity consumption, cooling load, and maintenance costs. The payback period for all retrofit options was found to be less than 2 years, with the payback period decreasing for more aggressive retrofits. These short payback periods derived largely from the intensive (24-hours-per-day) use of electric lighting at the facility. Maintenance savings accounted for more than half of the annual energy-related savings under the minimal and moderate retrofit options and slightly less than half of these savings under the advanced retrofit option. Even if maintenance savings were excluded, the payback periods would still be impressive: about 4.4 years for the minimal retrofit option and 2 years for the advanced option. The local and regional environmental impacts of the three retrofit options were minimal.

• Research Organization: Argonne National Lab., IL (United States)
• Sponsoring Organization: Department of Defense, Washington, DC (United States)
• DOE Contract Number: W-31109-ENG-38
• OSTI ID: 432927
• Report Number(s): ANL/EAD--DIS/TM-1; ON: DE97002513
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATION
ECONOMICS
ENERGY CONSERVATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EVALUATED DATA
LIGHTING SYSTEMS
MILITARY FACILITIES
PAYBACK PERIOD