Two fundamental points are:

1) Three-quarters of all lighting currently installed uses older, less energy efficient technology, developed before the 1970s – a figure based on Philips analysis of sales figures and existing lighting installations; and,

2) During the last decade there has been a revolution in lighting technology, especially in energy efficient solutions. These developments, well documented by trade media, cover all key areas of lighting such as light sources, control gear and luminaire optics as well as lighting control sensors and LEDs (light-emitting diodes).

The output of 530 power stations

Philips, the world’s leading lighting supplier, has assessed the potential savings. Assuming an achievable 40% average saving in lighting energy consumption, there would be running cost savings – or a business potential – worth 106 billion euros per year. This is the equivalent of 555 million tons of CO2, or the equivalent output of 530 power stations. And new lighting technologies not only offer energy savings, they also provide a higher quality of light.

Logically we should encourage, and indeed speed up, the switch from older lighting technology to the technology on the market today. But current changeover and refurbishment rates are slow, for example, in Europe they are 3% per year in street lighting and 5 to 6% per year in office lighting. These rates demonstrate a key issue. Even if a new energy saving technology is developed, it takes almost a generation for it to be fully adopted, and by then something better has been developed in its turn. Nor will the original technology disappear as it will be discounted at a lower intial price.

The reality of the potential savings becomes more meaningful when viewed in the context in which lighting is used. In office or building lighting, for example, the difference in energy consumption between older and newer technologies can be between 30% and 70%. This includes the use of lighting controls, which turn the lights off automatically when nobody is present and adjust light levels in the office when natural daylight is present. These technologies are no longer the complex technical solutions they used to be. Today simple plug-and-play systems are available which can save up to 70% of energy consumed. It is a sobering fact that in Europe only about 1% of buildings, offices or schools use lighting controls of any sort.

A similar picture can be found in road & street lighting where cities and municipalities can make very significant savings. Old street lighting technologies date from technology developed in the 1960s. Today new solutions, such as the CosmoPolis system, can offer energy savings of 50% and a far higher quality of lighting. We can also control the light levels making dimming and presence detection a reality for even greater savings. The same kind of energy efficiency story can also be told for retail, industrial, and hotel lighting.

As for home lighting we have been producing the ordinary household light bulb for more than 100 years. This uses 4 times more energy than existing compact fluorescent alternatives. Yet we still buy 12 billion of these incandescent lamps per year worldwide. The collective cost in terms of energy and costs is huge. In December 2006 Philips called for the replacement of incandescent light bulbs within ten years.

During the next few years, we expect to be able to announce further technology breakthroughs. LED technology will have a greater impact in both commercial applications and the home. Already we have domestic decorative LED light bulbs, which can replace incandescent light bulbs where only a decorative effect is required both indoors and outdoors. Howver, the light output of these current LED light bulbs is not yet comparable to conventional lighting.

The issue is clear, the solution is simple – just switch. But why is it not happening faster?

Barriers and solutions

The barriers include a lack of interest in new lighting technologies and an inititial investment hurdle. Firstly, if we are to make a difference in the struggle against climate change, apathy is not going to help. Secondly, although new lighting technologies offer major savings over their lifetime, there is an initial cost.

New legislation is needed to set minimum performance criteria for lighting. This should be supported by the development of tax incentives to encourage new technologies or discourage older, less efficient technologies. Local governements could adopt stricter green procurement policies and targets could be set for CO2 per M2 of Office or km/Road. The development of new financing incentives and energy pricing initiatives offers the potential to remove one of the largest barriers – that of higher initial investment costs – and access the business opportunity for financial institutions or ESCOs (energy service companies) to repay investments out of energy savings.

Energy efficient lighting does provide a significant contribution to reducing CO2 emissions in our struggle with climate change.

W: www.asimpleswitch.com