Warehouse lighting is mainly perceived as an energy cost issue, and while it is true that typically 65% of total energy costs in ambient stores go in lighting, there are other significant cost issues that are not, perhaps, given as much attention as they deserve. These include maintenance and safety issues and meeting carbon reduction targets and compliance with the Energy Act, 2011, by 2018. But to achieve best financial results it is important to assess the most appropriate lighting controls, where in Europe about 75% of all controllable lighting is only being controlled by primitive on/off switches. Having done that, it is also pressing to compare the various lighting technologies on the market because, depending on site conditions, some technologies will be less effective than others.
LED lights, for example, are becoming more utilized as the preferred lighting for many applications and not least in their favour is their much higher longevity and, therefore, lower maintenance costs, and better colour rendition. They may not, however, be as effective in high bays compared with other lighting technologies. At 9 mt high, for example, one may require two LED lights compared with only one T5 fluorescent tube, and at 12 mt the ratio rises to three to one.
Other lamp types, like high pressure sodium (HPS) have other problems. These include:
Poor colour rendition that makes it harder to read labelling and so on
Warm-up times of several minutes can be an issue if there is a power outage.
HPS lamps degrade over time and create a safety issue – a 60-year old forklift driver needs six times the light level of a 20-year old to see properly.
HPS and fluorescents are not directional, so they waste energy sending light where it is not wanted. They also generate much heat which may need to be offset by air-conditioning. In cold stores this means they would impose extra maintenance costs to control dangerous icicle build-up.
These traditional lights also contain hazardous materials, leading to additional disposal costs.
They are also more fragile and need regular replacement. HPS has a typical life span of 15,000 hours, whereas LED could give 10 years of life, or 100,000 hours, depending on site conditions.
Despite their higher initial cost, LED lamps can, in certain circumstances, deliver a payback in just over one year, which proves the point that whenever buying capital equipment it should be the life cycle costs of the product that should dominate buying decisions. The sting can be taken out of the extra costs of LED if SMEs take advantage of various Government incentives, which can be self financing. The Carbon Trust offers zero per cent loans for energy-saving investments. Loan repayments are calculated to be offset by one’s monthly energy savings so that the investment becomes self financing. Then there is the Enhanced Capital Allowance Scheme, part of the Government’s programme to manage climate change. This provides 100% first-year capital allowances on investments in energy-saving equipment against taxable profits. A third option is to go down the leasing route available from installation companies, which has tax advantages.
A price cannot be put on safety yet what does emerge is that lighting is habitually health and safety’s poor relation. But by ignoring lighting issues there can be very costly consequencs both for a company’s finances and its reputation. The HSE reports that substandard lighting is regulary cited as a contributory factor in workplace accidents and one example should suffice. A Southampton transport firm picked up a £42,000 bill after an employee working under inadequate lights was run over by a forklift and left permanently disabled. On top of that would be any claim against the employer’s insurance company.
Comments are closed.