Many offices keep ALL the lights on all night so that the security
people can see intruders, Gordon. They could achieve the same effect
with one 80 W tube on, in a wide angle reflector, for every 200 mē of
office space.
However, there is worse: computers. One day, about 10 days ago, I
visited the CEO of a customer and our business kept me there until about
20h00. As he was escorting me along a corridor with offices along one
side, with a glass partition, I remarked that the 200 or 300 computers I
could see were each drinking in vast amounts of energy with little green
LEDs winking at me, while sitting pretty in an empty office. His reply
was, "Harrumph!". A few weeks later, I visited him again and he told me
that he had asked the IT department why? They waffled about uploading
data to the server. It transpired that he had given instructions for all
the uploading to be done by 19h00 and then all the computers were to be
closed down every night. This saved them an estimated 500 kWh/night with
no disadvantages; the IT people had written a routine that interrogated
each computer in turn for new data to transfer to the server and then
close it down when the transfer was completed.
A couple of years ago, an IT magazine in the UK, PC Pro, specialising in
office IT ran a campaign of switch off your computers at night. This was
reportedly very successful. There were some guys wrote in saying that
the thermal cycling of doing this would reduce the computer lifetime,
but they ran some long-term tests and found that it made no difference
(probably before RoHS!!!)
Brian
Davy, Gordon wrote:
> I have just come across an article in Wikipedia on the subject of
> over-illumination (see below). I had never heard the term before. The
> idea is that most commercial buildings use much more electricity than is
> necessary to provide adequate illumination. This comes about in part
> because the person responsible for paying for the electricity is not
> involved in decisions regarding the design or operation of the lighting.
> The short version is that almost half of commercial lighting may be
> wasted.
>
> Regrettably, the article translates this into a stated number of barrels
> of oil per day in the US instead of what the fraction of total energy
> use in the US that represents. I haven't looked up the figure for total
> energy use, but I assume that the amount of energy wasted by
> over-illumination must be significant.
>
> Therefore, this appears to me to be an overlooked opportunity to save a
> substantial amount of energy. For those folks who believe that
> anthropogenic CO2 contributes significantly to global warming, it's an
> overlooked opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well. The
> following two paragraphs are an excerpt from the article; for more
> information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-illumination.
>
> "Over-illumination is the presence of lighting intensity (illuminance)
> beyond that required for a specified activity. Over-illumination was
> commonly ignored between 1950 and 1995, especially in office and retail
> environments; only since then has the interior design community begun to
> reconsider this practice. Use of more artificial illumination than
> required is expensive and energy-intensive. This includes consideration
> both of the appropriate level of illumination when spaces are in use,
> and when they are unoccupied.
>
> "Since lighting accounts for twenty to forty percent of commercial
> electricity use, depending upon region, the toll of unneeded energy
> consumption in the U.S. alone exceeds 700 million barrels of oil per
> year, based upon estimates that almost half of commercial lighting may
> be wasted (including unneeded overnight lighting of office buildings,
> forsaking available natural light, underutilization of occupancy
> sensors, and under-using discretionary light controls). In response to
> these concerns, the design and architecture communities are making
> greater use of indirect sunlight in modern commercial buildings." [End
> of Wikipedia excerpt]
>
> For existing buildings the obvious way to reduce unneeded illumination
> would be to reduce the number of fluorescent lamps in fixtures used to
> light an area. But here's another way. I didn't know about it until this
> subject came up and it prompted my thinking. I have just found that it
> is possible to have dimmer switches for fluorescent lights that don't
> cause objectionable flicker. The next paragraph is from
> http://www.fifthlight.com/.
>
> "At a time when most commercial buildings are over-lit and
> under-managed, Fifth Light's patented Dimmable Lighting Technology
> provides a key management tool that can be used to conserve energy,
> customize lighting conditions and participate in demand
> management/response programs in order to significantly reduce costs...
> Fifth Light [has developed] a suite of DALI Dimmable Electronic
> Ballasts, Networked ON/OFF and Variable Load Controllers and a
> Management System that delivers sophisticated operating control of each
> individual light fixture in a multi-building network anywhere an
> internet connection is available."
>
> It looks to me that this sophisticated technology would allow a simple
> and practical way to reduce electricity use in areas that are needlessly
> bright.
>
> Since most commercial buildings do not yet have the Fifth Light
> technology installed, what options are available? Clearly, one way to
> reduce energy use is to not light unused areas - turning off lights
> either automatically or voluntarily.
>
> Automatically. Light switches that sense the presence of someone in an
> office were installed here at my location for a while, but they were
> later removed. I think they weren't accurate enough. When the lights go
> out in your office just because you aren't moving around enough you will
> find some way to bypass the switch. The sensor needs to be for infrared,
> not motion. That way the lights go out in your office while you're in it
> only after you die and your body temperature approaches ambient.
>
> Voluntarily. Lack of the ability to monitor individual light fixture
> usage has made attempts by management to get voluntary electricity usage
> reduction depend on altruism. Given human nature that is a very weak
> incentive indeed. Even among the conscientious, enthusiasm wanes within
> months of the promotional program. People, some of whom are careless
> about turning off lights at home, where the cost comes out of their
> pocket, are not likely for very long to turn off lights at work, where
> they will receive no recognition or reward.
>
> The Fifth Light technology allows monitoring and controlling use of
> lighting, fixture by fixture, from any computer with access to the
> internet. Thus it offers management an opportunity to design an
> incentive plan that rewards people for conserving electricity in their
> own area. That way, if you have an office and you'd like to take a
> snooze during lunchtime, you'd have a perfect excuse for turning off the
> lights.
>
> I can only wonder why environmental activists have not started picketing
> the headquarters of companies that have over-illuminated buildings,
> unless it is that they are concerned that they might antagonize (or at
> least fail to win the sympathy of) people whom they need for support.
> This isn't just global warming - it's sustainability.
>
> Maybe Fifth Light is missing a bet here in not contributing to activist
> organizations. I hope they don't see this posting. I wouldn't want to be
> blamed for companies being picketed - even if it is good for their own
> bottom line.
>
> Gordon Davy
>
|
