Open AccessA Facility Lighting Comparison Based on Energy Savings and Efficiency, Pollution Prevention and Life Cycle Assessment
Author(s) -
Zonghua Xu,
Neelnayana Kalita Mim,
Matthew Franchetti,
Ashok Kumar
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
environmental management and sustainable development
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2164-7682
DOI - 10.5296/emsd.v5i2.9801
Subject(s) - incandescent light bulb , greenhouse gas , life cycle assessment , environmental science , light emitting diode , carbon footprint , tonne , led lamp , automotive engineering , engineering , waste management , electrical engineering , ecology , macroeconomics , production (economics) , economics , biology
The objective of this study is to compare the energy efficiency, potential energy savings and the environmental impact among different lighting types-incandescent lamps, CFL (compact fluorescent light) lamps and LED (light-emitting diode) lamps in a manufacturing facility. Three different tools were applied: Energy Assessment Spreadsheet (EAS), Pollution Prevention (P2) tool and GaBi 6. EAS was used to calculate the energy savings, P2 tool was used for carbon footprint analysis, and GaBi was used for the life cycle assessment (LCA) in lightings’ use phase. The results indicated a saving of over $21,000 and a reduction of 151 MT CO 2 e (metric tons of CO 2 equivalents) greenhouse gases (GHGs) using CFL in comparison to incandescent lamps. Approximately, $24,000 could be saved and 170 MTCO 2 e of GHGs could be reduced by using LED lamps instead of incandescent lamps every year for the operation phase of the facility. The environmental impact categories identified from the LCA in lighting use phase indicated that using incandescent lamps for the facility was much more harmful for the environment than using CFL and LED lamps. Additionally, the environmental impact from the use of LED lamps for the facility was less than that of CFL lamps.