The Cost-Benefit Analysis of Led Lightings - Case Study Example

Report: The Cost Benefit Analysis of Led Lightings Name Institution Report: The Cost Benefit Analysis of Led Lightings Introduction Saving energy is one of the critical concerns in the world. Individuals and companies endeavour to save energy in order to minimize costs of operations. Inevitably, energy plays a central role in companies and homes, which then leads to incurrence of expenses in footing bills. Regardless of the type of energy, the need to save costs is important and business enterprises and homes should consider ways of ensuring that they consider the cost factor. Economists recommend that companies and individual entrepreneurs should devise ways of regulating energy wastage because unnecessary costs incurred through energy consumption undermine the maximisation of profit. Hence, it is necessary to take advantage of saving costs when there are cost-effective options (Capehart, 2007). It follows that, there are various options that can help in reducing cost of energy in lighting. There are the fluorescent tubes, conventional light bulbs and the LED lights that are available for homes and business institutions to consider. Even though the three types of lightings serve the same purposes, their level of energy consumption varies. Considering that the company seeks to generate maximum profit, it is necessary to compare the three types of lights in order to select one that is more efficient and cost effective. The rationale relies on the various researches conducted by experts regarding the differences between conventional bulbs, fluorescent tubes and LED lightings. Therefore, the report aims at underscoring the reasons why the company should make the necessary changes regarding the type of lightings it uses. The fluorescent tubes, that are currently the major types of lightings in the health department, have led to increased expenses in energy besides other negative effects. Therefore, the report suggests the need to use the economical and eco-friendly LED lightings to save costs. The report provides a detailed analysis concerning the various types of lightings in an attempt to proof the need for change. In essence, it advocates the future impacts of switching from the use of fluorescent tubes to the use of LEDs. Background Financial records in the department indicate that there are high expenses incurred in lightings. The issue emanates from the fact that the department has not begun to use energy saving LEDs. The high cost strains the budgets and affects other sectors in the department. According to the financial records, the high figure has hampered attempts by the department to allocate funds to other areas such as pharmaceuticals, where there is need to increase the stock of drugs. Evidently, establishing changes in the departmental lights will ensure that the department saves substantial amount of money. The replacement of a hundred fluorescent tubes with LEDs will address the challenge of the high expenses. LEDs are small in size and measures from 3 to 8 mm long. Their small size is advantageous because they can serve well in spaces that are too small for other light bulbs to fit. Their small size is also proportional amount of energy it uses to transmit light. The LEDs use little energy as compared to the fluorescent tubes and the conventional bulbs that researchers have found that they are unnecessarily expensive. Additionally, LEDs emit light towards one direction unlike other bulbs that emit light in all directions (Collier, 2005). The fact that the latter emit light in all direction explains why there is high consumption of energy. Research also indicates that the LEDs have a longer lifespan as compared to other lights. They can emit light for 35,000 to 50,000 hours, a period that no other lightings can manage to last. The incandescent bulb emits last for an estimated period of 750 to 2,000 and a compact fluorescent bulb takes about 8,000 to 10,000 hours while a linear fluorescent bulb lasts for 20,000 to 30,000 hours (National Research Council, 2013). Evidently, the LEDs last for a longer period than the rest, a clear indication that they are the best lights that the department should consider using instead of continuing with the fluorescent bulbs. LEDs do not have filaments that break like the other lightings, a matter that shows why they are likely to last longer. Energy experts explain that conventional light bulbs use more energy to emit heat instead of light. Relevant studies reveal that incandescent bulb emits approximately ninety percent of its energy in the form of heat while the remaining ten percent is light. On the other hand, the compact fluorescent bulb uses eighty percent of its energy on heat while the remaining twenty percent generates light. The amount of energy wasted through heat emission by the two types of lightings indicates that there is a necessity for the department to seek a better alternative of the LEDs. The LEDs do not emit any heat but uses little energy to produce light, which means that they are preferable. It is crucial to note that the department does not need heat but mere light for the operation of it services. The LEDs are also preferable because they are always bright every time they are switched on, unlike the fluorescent bulbs that gradually grow bright, and may require backup during emergencies. Since the LEDs operate at low voltage, they are much safer to handle during installation or maintenance. Additionally, there is no danger when the bulbs get exposed to rain or snow. The two weather elements do not interfere with their efficiency. The department acknowledges the need to consider such factors since there are security lights that are exposed to the weather elements. Maintenance records indicate that the department has done several replacements of fluorescent bulbs destroyed by rains (Koreneff and Sims-McLean, 2005). Hence, their replacement with LEDs will save the department the costs incurred through maintenance. At the same time, LED lights are eco-friendly as compared to other lights. The LEDs emit lights that do not contain mercury or any harmful gas or Ultraviolet rays. Research indicates that a thirteen watts LED light bulb emits about sixty eight percent less carbon dioxide that the ordinary forty watts bulb operating for a period of ten hours per day. It is important to note that the health department should take a lead in advocating for better health through the use of eco-friendly lights. Therefore, the replacement of fluorescent bulbs will echo the health concerns that the department should handle. Legislation and standards There is need to consider the national and international standards of lighting. In the country, the Lighting Council Australia is responsible for developing regulations regarding lightings. There are several factors that the council demand from the departments, companies, organizations or homes where people use lightings. These regulations are stipulated in the state laws with clear penalties on those who violate the regulations. Needless to say, the department has considered the restrictions set by the council before this recommendation on the use of LED lightings. The department realized that the LEDs are more acceptable than the fluorescent lightings because of several reasons. The council demands that the lightings used should comply with environmental regulations. It requires that the type of lighting does not emit poisonous gases or wavelengths. Guided by that regulation, the department has noted with concern that the fluorescent bulbs emit some of the gases mentioned and has some level of wavelengths emitted during lighting. Hence, it is necessary to comply with the environmental regulations and use the eco-friendly LED for lightings. The department has realized that it is contradicting its health mandate if it continues using the same fluorescent tubes despite knowledge of the environmental and health dangers associated with them (Hyman, 2000). The department has noted that there is a need to consider the regulations by the council because it represents the state’s lighting industry at the national and international level. Therefore, the restrictions that they give reflect the required standards of lighting. The health department has thus conducted a study on the lighting requirements as labelled by the council and measures are in place to ensure that the installation of the LEDs conforms to the stipulated requirements. The health sector represents a central position in the society and the stakeholders should ensure that it maintains a good relationship with other sectors such as the lighting (Jones and Hitchman, 2009). For that reason, this report concerning the need for a change in lightings is in tandem with the council regulations. Accordingly, the Australian standards dictate that the lightings in a health department should become comfortable to the patients. It indicates that the lights should not neither become too dim nor too bright such that it can damage the patients’ eyesight. The department has put into consideration the factor and recommends that the LEDs with standard light emission for use. The department will consider the factor by suggesting that the wars use the LEDs with low watts. However, in some sections such as the surgery, the surgeons will explain the intensity of light they need in order to ensure that the physicians do not become compromised while protecting the patients. Notably, the surgeons will only use strong lights in illuminating arts of the patient’s body away from the eyes (Moeller, 2005). The national lights standards also direct that the staff involved in cleaning should have adequate light in the places of work so that adequate service delivery becomes attainable. Actually, the department should not consider saving costs until there is too little light in some rooms. The department has also considered the factor and from the analysis, it will avail adequate lighting in all rooms where the staff will clean such as the washrooms. Considering that LED lightings emit light towards one direction, the department recommends the use of adequate number of lightings to avoid undermining the efficiency of the cleaners (Moeller, 2005). Accordingly, the department has also prioritized on the uniformity of the luminance in hospitals as required by the international lighting standards. As indicated by the standards, the wards and other places such as surgery room should have uniform luminance. The department has ensured that this will become possible through the use of bright colours that will reflect light to the entire rooms. The positioning of the lights also shows how the element of luminance has become prioritized. The ward uses cream and white colours that promotes reflection of light and hence minimize the use of much lighting in the rooms. Additionally, the reflections of lights do not affect the comfort of the patients since the number of lightings helps in regulating excessive light emission and reflection (Ott, 2003). In tandem with the required standards, the department has also considered the choice of good colours especially for colour-based diagnostic tests. The use of special lights is recommended for colour test samples for observing changes in particular fluids. Te department has realized that there is ease of operation when using LED lightings than the fluorescent lightings. The efficiency is due to the small sizes of the LEDs as compared to fluorescent lightings. In addition, it is easier to focus light in a particular direction with the use of LEDs since they emit light towards a single direction like the fluorescent that emits light to the entire surrounding (Ott, 2003). Cost-benefit analysis If the department establishes the recommended change of lightings, it will save on the expenses incurred in paying energy charges. The use of energy saving LED lightings will save cost and improve efficiency at the health department. The following table illustrates the percentage of loss incurred by different types of lightings: Incandescent light bulbs Compact fluorescent light bulbs LED bulbs Life span in hours 1500 10,000 60,000 Watts 60 14 6 Cost $1.345 $2.98 $54.95 KWh of electricity used for over 60,000 hours 3,600 840 360 Electricity cost (@$0.23 per KWh) $821.72 $191.73 $82.17 Bulbs needed for 60,000 hours of usage 40 6 1 Equivalent 60,000 hour bulb expense $53.80 $17.88 $54.95 Total 60,000 hour lighting spend $875.52 $209.61 $137.12 Energy savings as compared to incandescent bulbs $0.00 $665.91 $738.40 Health department light bulbs in number 100 100 100 Estimated daily usage in hours 18 18 18 Days in a month 30 30 30 Dept cost in 60,000 hours $87552 $20961 $13712 Savings by switching from Incandescent bulbs $0.00 $66591 $73840 KWh used per month 3240 756 324 Electricity cost @$0.23 per KWh $745.2 173.88 74.52 Savings from switching from incandescent bulbs $0.00 $571.32 $670.68 KWh used per year $38,880 $9072 $3,888 Electricity cost @$0.23 KWh $8942.4 $2086.56 $894.24 Savings from switching from incandescent bulbs $0.00 $6855.84 $8048.16 From the above table, it is evident that LED lightings are more cost effective than the rest of the lightings. Considering the lifespan of the lightings, it is clear that the LEDs are more economical than the other lightings. The cost of replacement is low for the LEDs and this will save the department the expenses it has continued to incur for many years it has used fluorescent lightings. In essence, the department recommends the use of LEDs for financial, health and environmental reasons. If the department does not make the recommended changes, it will continue to incur cots through maintenance and high cost of energy. Recommendations The department recommends the replacement of fluorescent lightings with LEDs in order to cut cost incurred in energy. The department recommends the replacement of one hundred fluorescent lightings with LED lightings. The lightings will serve several areas of the department and consequently reduce any future unnecessary expenses in energy. The number will suffice the sections that need more energy. However, other sections can have replacement in future together with areas that need additional lightings. The department expects that the replacement will take a short period, approximately a week, depending on the availability of the required lightings. However, maintenance will continue according to the performance of the lightings. Since the issue of installation and maintenance come at a later stage, focus needs to lie on the replacement of the lightings. Once the materials become available, the schedule of replacing will start immediately while the maintenance will follow at a later stage. The maintenance will include checking on the failing lightings, dim lights and damaged lightings. In order for the departed to feel the positive impact of replacement, the exercise will take the shortest possible time. Moreover, the department recommends future purchase and use of LEDs in order to minimize further expenses on replacement. The department acknowledges the high cost of replacement despite future evident savings and advises that the best way to deal with any oter losses is to avoid any other purchase of fluorescent bulbs. Conclusion Replacement of fluorescent lightings with LEDs is crucial because it will help the health department to minimize costs incurred in energy. The department provides the report in order to request the relevant authorities to facilitate the replacement of one hundred fluorescent lightings. The department found that the florescent lightings are responsible for the unnecessary expenses recorded. Following the findings, the department recommends the replacement to become effected within the shortest time possible in order to prevent further losses. Needless to say, the health department also found that there was a need for replacement of lightings due to health and environmental factors. The health department also plays a crucial role in promoting the health of the people. It follows that by effecting the recommended replacements, the health sector ill have fulfilled its expected role of protecting the health of people from exposure of ultraviolet rays. On the same note, the dangers that the other bulbs pose on the environment through emission of greenhouse and other poisonous gases get minimised. Generally, the change will bring positive transformations in the health sector, both within the health department and to the surrounding environment. REFERENCES Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Capehart, B. L. (2007). Encyclopedia of Energy Engineering and Technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Collier, J. L. (2005). Electricity and the Light Bulb. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark. Hyman, J. W. (2000). The Light Book: How Natural and Artificial Light Affect our Health, Mood, and Behavior. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, Inc. Jones, A. C., & Hitchman, M. L. (2009). Chemical Vapour Deposition: Precursors, Processes and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry. Koreneff, I., & Sims-McLean, K. (2005). Information Technology. Glebe, N.S.W: Pascal Press. Moeller, D. W. (2005). Environmental Health. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. National Research Council (U.S.). (2013). Assessment of Advanced Solid-state Lighting. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press. Ott, J. N. (2003). Health and Light: The Effects of Natural and Artificial Light on Man and Other Living Things. Old Greenwich, Conn: Devin-Adair Co. Bottom of Form   Read More