|
|
 |
|
EV World Open Access Article |
By Bob Lutz's own admission, it was the introduction of the Tesla Roadster that caused General Motors to re-evaluate its stance on electric-drive cars and set in the motion an intense race to bring to market the world's first modern, OEM-built, range-extended electric car, the Chevy Volt.
|
Night Lights and Chevy Volts
The Potential for Charging Electric Vehicles with Improved Efficiencies in Outdoor Lighting
By John Gilkison
Open Access Article Originally Published: September 21, 2008
Since the invention of the electric light, a pall of light pollution has been cast over the land, effacing our vistas of the stars from the night time sky. Over the last twenty years since the formation of the International Dark Sky Association, knowledge of how to preserve this natural heritage through improving outdoor lighting has grown by leaps and bounds. We know with certitude today how replacing standard Semi Cut Off (SCO) lighting fixtures with Full Cut Off (FCO ) outdoor lighting fixtures with thirty percent (30%) reduction in size can put the same amount on light on the ground while keeping light out of the sky. Safety and visual acuity at night can be dramatically improved with the general use of Full Cut Off lighting.
Full Cut Off ( FCO ) lighting fixtures do this by limiting all the light from a fixture to below the horizontal plane. They also limit the emission of light to only a few percentile from between the horizontal plane and 15 degrees below it. This keeps light out of the glare zone which improves visual acuity at night. The electrical efficiencies to be gained by this improvement in fixture technology are at least thirty percent. Quite simply if you are not throwing away thirty percent of the light in useless directions, then fixtures can be downsized by same amount, and still put the same amount of light on the ground with good optics.
Other efficiencies exist to be exploited. They are eliminating fixtures where not really needed, eliminating time of use, or when not needed, and bi level ballast for reducing lighting levels in the morning hours when parking lots are not really being utilized. I would estimate that fully addressing all these aspects would reduce outdoor lighting electrical consumption by at least 50%, but for the purposes of this article we will consider only the more easily reached 30% reduction mentioned above for the full use of FCO fixtures. Consider this 30% figure to be the low hanging fruit of outdoor lighting efficiencies.
One of the major concerns about the coming technology of Plug In Hybrid Electric drive vehicles and pure Electric only Vehicles, is how many of them can be charged using off peak electricity without major investments in new power plants, and in the grid. It is the position of this paper that unexploited electrical efficiencies in lighting in general and outdoor lighting specifically could power millions of these new electric vehicles if these inefficiencies in lighting were to be addressed. Addressing them would not only release wasted electricity for other valuable uses such as charging electric vehicles off peak, but doing so would save billions of dollars for municipalities and cities nationwide.
Since lighting tends to be binned in size increments of thirty percent this paper will use the 30% figure as a goal for improvements in outdoor lighting. In brief a 70 watt light can provide the same light on the ground as a 100 watt for example, if the former is FCO, and the latter is not. Outdoor lighting is by definition using off peak power being switched on by photo sensors after sunset switching off before sunrise.
In the United State of America lighting accounts for twenty two percent (22% ) of all electrical consumption. Outdoor lighting uses eight (8% ) of that 22% total, or only 1.77% of all electricity. This is a vast amount of power amounting to 58,000 GWh/year. Saving 30% of this power through the proper abatement of light pollution with FCO lighting downsized by 30% would liberate 17,400 GWh/year of off peak electricity.
Just how many electric cars could this saved power recharge for how many miles. We will use the new GM Series Hybrid Electric Car the Volt for a baseline. The Volt is designed to have a 40 mile electric drive only range, then a small internal combustion engine will start to recharge the batteries if needed. We will consider a 40 mile daily drive for five days a week using battery power only. The power storage of the Volt is 16 KWh’s and GM has said they have designed this vehicle to deplete the batteries no more then 50% before recharging. That would mean 8 KWh’s are available for this stated 40 mile range. Assuming an 80% charging efficiency this would mean it would take 10 KWh’s of grid power to recharge the GM Volt. At this rate the Volt would use 50 KWh’s of electricity a week, or 2,600 KWh’s a year for 10,600 miles of electric powered driving. I am not saying everyone would operate their vehicle in this manner, only that this is the potential this technology has.
All this is strait forward enough with 17,400,000,000 KWh/year of freed up electricity through addressing lighting pollution abatement, how many GM Volt’s can we recharge yearly. Dividing the total electrical saving by the GM volt’s yearly consumption yields the amazing figure of 6,692,000 GM Volt’s that can be operated without building one new power plant. This scenario has the potential to electrify over 71 billion passenger miles reducing the global climate change impact of the oil that would normally be used for this purpose.
Considering 100 mile range electric only vehicles we could simply divide the vehicle figures by 2.5 which yielding 2.67 million electric only 100 mile range cars with the same platform efficiencies. Since such vehicle would not carry a IC engine they actually would perform better then this. Over 1.3 million 200 mile range electric only vehicles could be operated on this kind of power alone if they were to be commonplace.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 9282 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
12 comments so far...
21-Sep-2008
63977
| |
On this EV theme can I ask that you guys read this article which was intended for Challenge magazine of the Green Liberal Democrats? [- The City "Domes" of Wasted Energy Which Should Be Charging Our EVs -]
http://www.lightpollution.org.uk/dwnLoads/WEH_LP_EVs2_2007.pdf
Posted by: Graham Cliff
|
|
21-Sep-2008
63982
| |
Posted by: Audrey Fischer
|
|
21-Sep-2008
63986
| |
I have been doing detailed energy audits of commercial and residential buildings for years. I have been telling people who will listen that most businesses can reduce their energy consumption by %50. Yes %50. Just upgrading the HAC systems would save a huge amount of energy.(I don't call them HVAC since the vast majority of these systems simply take the fart and smell from one point in the system and then chill it down to pneumonia and respiratory dessication levels or hit it with the flame throwers that try to heat America's Great Jokes known as our building designs. Ventilation is an after thought usually created by all the poor building construction) Lighting could also best be described as a joke. Not only are most areas over lit but with incandescents they also contribute to need for more HAC. It goes on and on. We could easily power huge fleets of EV's just from the power saved by an even tepid effort in conservation.
Posted by: larry elliott
|
|
22-Sep-2008
63994
| |
Dan, you miss my point. There are no negatives to the right solution. There is nothing for public resistance, simply an issue to become aware about. Although light pollution should never have gotten to this point in the first place, I know we can't tear down and replace every streetlight across America today. But, it is reasonable to ask that when aged fixtures need to be replaced, or when new roadways are designed, care goes into choosing intelligent design that is available now that wasn't decades ago. Way too often committees choose light fixtures on what they look like during the day totally unaware of the important considerations. We have only 28 days left for public comment to encourage LED street lights in EPA's Energy Star 2009 Program. This would be a huge step in the right direction on a national scale. The very first light pollution briefing was presented in Washington DC in the Senate and Congress in June and July '08. It will require positive, collective, creative synergy to stop the exponential rate of expansion of light pollution, reverse it and give the kids their Milky Way back. Energy Star is a great national boost but, we can't sit by waiting. So a dream to create little tiny multi-use "StarParks" that are telescope friendly or even just naked-eye friendly so you can view the International Space Station when it flies overhead is a great start. StarParks can be part of a ballpark, tennis court, nature center, church parking lot, state park or a business parking lot in the community. Then, these StarParks can be put on the map, and certainly included on recreational maps along with fishing and hiking. These StarParks can then be connected like sort of ground-based constellations. I will look for sponsors for these constellations. On a individual scale, we can stop allowing our security (blanket) lighting pour into our neighbor's windows. The majority of young kids in America today are of the very first generation with neither a parent or a grandparent who has never seen a beautiful starry night sky first hand (let alone grow up with it). At least when I was growing up, my Mom would often tell me of sledding by starlight on her farm along the Mississippi... one of her favorite childhood memories. I could almost see it myself... although never really did until 35 years later on a trip to Mauna Kea. Personally, I believe a reach for the stars is worth the energy, effort and the royal fight.
Posted by: audrey fischer
|
|
25-Sep-2008
64038
| |
I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade. I'm all for efficiency and I'm all for using full cutoff fixtures. But there's a fundamental misunderstanding in one of the basic premises of this article. Whether a fixture is semi cutoff or full cutoff does not affect its power consumption. Rather, the classification comes from the amount of secondary optics and shielding contained in the fixture that redirects or blocks light above a certain angle. The lamp and ballast inside the fixture, which are what consume power, have nothing to do with this classification.
In actuality, and I almost hate to say this, a full cutoff fixture is LESS efficacious than a semi-cutoff, all other things being equal, because you're essentially absorbing some of the light produced by the lamp with the extra optics and shielding. In other words, the lamp is consuming the same power and producing the same light but you're getting less light out of the fixture. There are some nice illustrations on this website: http://www.lithonia.com/NighttimeFriendly/Cutoff.asp.
To save energy you really need to switch to a different light source, such as LEDs, that put a sufficient amount of light where you want it for much lower wattage. I've just now greatly simplified things; lighting is actually quite complex and there are many factors that go into selecting what is appropriate (including the wants and preferences of the users, such as the automotive dealers previously mentioned). Visibility, glare, and all kinds of other factors are important too.
B
Posted by: Bruk B
|
|
29-Sep-2008
64086
| |
I will try to answer a few of the comments having just gotten back from a week long vacation. First I would like to thank everyone who posted for your comments and your concerns. The two major points which were posted as problems with this proposal were the concern over government intervention, and that of fixture efficiencies. First off, the U.S. Federal Government has a long history of regulating in the market place for many reasons. Energy efficiency and pollution controls come to mind. In the sphere of outdoor lighting I maintain that both of these reasons apply, and that federal government regulation is the best way to accomplish the twin goals of reducing light pollution, and in improving the energy efficiency of outdoor lighting in fixtures, and in fixture utilization. The concerns about fixture efficiencies are completely misplaced in my view. By the criteria mention, a bare bulb mounted on top of a pole with no surrounding fixture at all would be the most efficient. Of course it would be broadcasting about sixty percent of it's light in useless directions, but this would be of no concern to a lighting engineer after the holy grail of fixture efficiency. Even though a FCO fixture may be less efficient fixture wise then a SCO fixture the FCO fixture wins hands down on putting more of the light where it is actually needed, and that is on the ground. My proposals are actually modest considering that the truth of the matter is probably more then fifty percent of all outdoor lighting electricity usage is unjustified by any rational criteria. With FCO fixtures we can downsize to the next size light and ballast combination and still have the same amount of light on the ground. There is no real justification for this monumental waste other then unlearned ignorance, learned ignorance, and greed.
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
28-Sep-2008
64075
| |
Hey Bruk, Rain during a parade? I'll bring an umbrella and enjoy! Fully shielded light fixtures have an umbrella-of-sorts built in to their design.
Full cut off lights require less wattage to illuminate the key intended target area than unshielded lights do--thus the savings of dollars and energy.
The *extra bonus* lighting you talk about from the unshielded or semi-shielded fixture, is UNWANTED light. This light causes glare, which lessens the safety of drivers, passengers and pedestrians. It causes sky glow and is the reason we cannot see stars. It is invasive, and comes into people's homes at night unless you use the heaviest of curtains or blinds... forget about wanting an open window and breeze in your bedroom at night. It also is not healthy for plants, animal and... us. Thanks but no-thanks for that *bonus* lighting!
Posted by: Audrey Fischer
|
|
21-Sep-2008
63979
| |
Great ideas. My friend, you have been kindly, though wisely conservative with your article. I can understand that some exterior site and building lighting is essential for security of commercial establishments. Major streets must also be illuminated. However, do we need to light parking lots brightly with 250W to 400W MH or at all when businesses are closed in a shopping center or office complex? Do car dealerships need their 1000W fixtures blaring all night? Assuming 100 SF of commercial and institutional space per U.S. resident, 4 parking spaces per 1000 SF of building, and an average of 325 SF per parking space including drives, how many WH are consumed illuminating that 39 billion SF of parking when no one is there? Most of these parking facilities are designed to accommodate a level of demand that exists only 2 to 4 days a year, ensuring that a large percentage of illuminated spaces are empty most of the time ...even when the businesses are open. A meager percentage of operations are open all night, and many of those have greatly reduced parking needs even when they are. Then let's start to talk about the increased HVAC loads from all of this black and gray thermal mass. I would hope that controls are required to be more sophisticated than just photo-electric switches. One cannot count on the municipalities or county administrations to effect this change in a broad way. It must be state law, federal law, or become part of standard building codes.
Posted by: Shawn M
|
|
21-Sep-2008
63983
| |
Eye-opening Bolt of Volts -- thanks John. It makes perfect sense. Reducing waste of energy and dollars of misdirected lighting, will leave the intended target even better, more safely illuminated and give nature back her starry night sky. The beauty in this action is that essentially this same savings of energy and tax dollars instead of being used to harm us can effectively lead us to less dependance on foreign oil and a healthier, safer and more beautiful Earth. It's wonderful when good things fall into place when you do the right things for the right reasons. Shawn, I agree with you that lighting codes should be mandated by law. Did you know that we are currently well into the 60-day window for public comment on street lighting becoming adopted by the EPA 2009 Energy Star Program? We have less than 30 days left to voice opinion that all new LED street light fixtures nationwide be of efficient fully-shielded design and wattage to effectively light its intended target without producing glare interference to drivers or disturbing the beauty of the night sky.
send comments to:ssl@energystar.gov
Read more > >http://www.darksky.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=74975 We need to say good-bye to some of our ways we have gotten used to. We've reached a time to re-think, re-energize and step into the future. What was once considered beautiful, brilliant, extravagant lighting is now becoming to be recognized as it should be, a shameful screaming ignorance of wasted tax dollars and energy at a time when we need to conserve. Light pollution puts energy waste on glaring display. it's wasted energy can be redirected to power the future in positive ways. :>)Audrey Fischer, Chicago
PS. I'm looking forward to my new VOLT.
Posted by: Audrey Fischer
|
|
21-Sep-2008
63990
| |
John, thank you for a thought provoking article; extremely interesting. I see two problems, however, with your recommendations. First, you propose restrictive regulations incompatible with the nature of our free American society. The Chinese government could easily get away with it, but here it is a non-starter. Enforcement would be a bureaucratic nightmare and there would be endless lawsuits on constitutional grounds. Second, night-time electricity is cheaper, further reducing the incentive for the users to cut back as time-of-use pricing becomes more prevalent. A more practical approach would be utility sponsored programs to persuade big users on economic grounds: Install intelligent FOC lighting systems and reap significant savings while achieving the same overall lighting effect.
Posted by: Dan Rivers
|
|
22-Sep-2008
63992
| |
Dan, where do you believe a little *responsibility* fits in with our free American society? There is an important point that light pollution can migrate 200 miles from its source. Individuals/communities/businesses/public policies have both a shared responsibility and benefit to the reduction of light pollution and its energy waste--and why not? There are zero negatives! We as a nation are becoming increasingly receptive to learning more about conservation and appreciate the benefits and value of our resources. The invention of the electric light is barely more than 100 years old and has effectively changed the natural cycle of light for life on a planet who has been evolving for 4.6 billion years. This is not without consequence. The outmoded night light you are grasping so tightly to is the link that breaks the natural day/night cycle that is now a proven link to cancer and depression among humans, interrupts the migratory routes of birds and turtles, nocturnal animals, trees and plant life. As a volunteer, I talk to hundreds of children with their parents at festivals. When I show them a photograph of a starry night sky with the Milky Way, some did not recognize it at all and others thought it was an exaggerated painting. When I asked them individually, what do you think happened to the stars, why can't you see them? The MOST common answer was: they believed the stars DIED. When I told them it was light pollution from poorly designed light fixtures, their answer was FIX the Lights! I want to see more STARS! We can at least put up the *right* light when it comes time for new lights. Protecting our heritage for todays and future generations while we appreciate, conserve and protect our natural resources *are* the noble goals for America. Head-in-the-sand (or light pollution) is a non-excuse.
Posted by: audrey fischer
|
|
22-Sep-2008
63993
| |
Audrey, you misunderstand my point. Avoiding light pollution and saving energy are both noble goals, which I personally endorse. I use CFLs both at home and in my company building. As a boy I remember seeing the stars so clearly, but when I lived in LA we only saw the biggest ones through the smog and city lights. My point is simply one of practicality: I don't see contemporary American society easily accepting the kinds of regulation the article recommends. So, there is no need to convert me on this topic; I already agree to the need to control light and energy. Rather, please tell us how you believe such regulation can be effectively instituted. Will it be federal or state law? If the latter, you have 50 arenas in which to operate. If the former, I believe that you'll have a battle royal on your hands.
Posted by: Dan Rivers
|
|
|
September ePOLL
Do you agree that the $100 billion invested in technology innovation was an appropriate expenditure by the American government?
|
