CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Cars FordGlassHouse

Published on October 3rd, 2014 | by Jake Richardson

10

$7 Million Annual Reduction In Lighting Costs For Ford Due To $25 Million LED Investment

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

October 3rd, 2014 by  

Ford has demonstrated an interest in greening some of its vehicles by using recyclable materials, and making some parts of them recyclable. Investments have also been made in the production of hybrids such as the Fusion and C-Max, and plug-in (Energi) versions of those. There is also the Focus Electric, which only uses electricity.

FordGlassHouse

Now Ford is turning attention to greening its manufacturing facilities. All of them will get LED lights — that’s 25,000 new LED lights to the tune of $25 million dollars. That seems like a lot of money doesn’t it?

However, Ford expects to save about seven million a year, once all the new LEDS have been installed and the old fluorescent bulbs and high-intensity discharge lights are no longer sucking up energy. In fact, Ford has estimated the improved energy efficiency will save about 56 million kilowatt-hours per year. Maintenance costs will be lower as well, because the new lights are expected to last longer — about 15 years.

“We are extremely pleased to install this leading-edge technology in our manufacturing facilities worldwide. This is a long-term investment in our future that highlights our aggressive approach to lead in environmental improvements and achieve operating efficiencies,” said John Fleming, an executive in Global Manufacturing and Labor Affairs.

Another plus is the fact Ford is supporting another technology company — Dialight — by buying their LEDS in large quantities. Dialight is known for creating energy-efficient lighting systems for industrial applications. In 2010, the company was given an award for one of its innovative warehouse lights.

Ford is also reducing CO2 emissions by switching to more-efficient lighting. This is a long quote from a Carnegie Mellon study paper, but it’s relevant and worth reading.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) [3] has estimated that worldwide lighting is responsible for emissions of approximately 1900 Mt CO2 per year, equivalent to 70% of the emissions from the world’s light passenger vehicles.

Eighty percent of these emissions from lighting are associated with electricity generation, but the IEA estimates that about 20% come from the 1% of global lighting that is produced by the direct combustion of paraffin and oil lamps used by the 1.6 billion people who have no access to electricity [3]. Hence, dramatically improved lighting system efficiency, together with electrification that replaces oil lamps with electric lamps, could make a big contribution to controlling global CO2 emissions. A large literature illustrates the cost-effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation through the use of energy efficient technologies such as improved lighting [4]–[13].

Another benefit to a company-wide switch to LEDs is that it demonstrates a company culture that is committed to its values. In other words, when leadership defines a value for its company culture, it helps to generate trust and respect among employees when leaders follow through on those values with their actions. A common way of saying it is “You have to walk the talk,” and it seems that Ford is doing that by investing so much in LEDS for their facilities.

It will also be interesting to see if there is a potential ripple effect to then invest more in solar power. Once total electricity consumption has been reduced, it might seem more feasible to add the new more affordable solar power systems, because it would no longer be necessary to consume at high levels. Energy reduction using LEDS isn’t the most exciting kind of technology to employ, but it sure can be effective.

Image Credit: Dave Parker

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , ,


About the Author

Hello, I have been writing online for some time, and enjoy the outdoors. If you like, you can follow me on Google Plus.



  • smartacus

    it’s a start

  • Michael G

    The headline on this article is horribly misleading and is, in fact, totally false. Nowhere in the article does it state that 70% of Ford’s energy bill is eliminated by switching to LED’s. It states the WORLD-WIDE use of electricity = 70% of the GHG (not Ford’s energy bill) used by the entire WORLD’s cars.

    How the headline writer got the world-wide GHG emissions conflated with Ford’s energy bill is proof-positive that severe AM caffeine deficiency is a horrible curse that we must fight with all our early morning energy – which isn’t very much, in my case.

    By the US EIA, lighting in US commercial buildings accounts for 2.7% of GHG. Autos in the US acct for 18%. Ford’s energy bill also has to include manufacturing. All manufacturing = 22% of GHG.

    GHG come from energy use but is not the same thing.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      I’m not sure if the writer or an editor wrote that headline, but I just found and checked the press release in order to figure out what was up. What it says is “That equates to an up to 70 percent reduction in lighting energy consumption compared to traditional technologies.”

      http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140929005119/en/Ford-Invests-Future-LED-Lighting-Manufacturing-Plants#.VC8nJSmSwts

      Definitely very different from the headline, and also overly generic, so I changed the headline almost completely. Thanks.

      • Michael G.

        Thanks for taking the time and effort to reply. Whoever posted the press release had trouble with numbers. I just posted a blog entry with the US Energy Dept’s data on GHG emissions by end user sector. Lighting is a very small percentage of GHG from residential and commercial use. *Total* GHG emissions for commercial and residential lighting is around 5%. For Ford, one auto plant assembly line probably swamps their lighting use.

        I have no idea why lighting is getting so much attention – even if we halve it with LEDs and CFLs it is not significant. The big wins will be cars/suvs (18% GHG) and residential and commercial heating, cooling, and water heating (about 20%).

        My charts of the DoE data (and some items I got from *your* web site) are here:
        C.f., http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2014/10/ghg-sources-and-solutions.html

  • vensonata

    25,000 lights at $1000 per light = $25,000,000. Ahem, those must be mighty big “lights”. Probably a lot is in the housing and labor for removal and new installation. But the the payback seems about 4 years nevertheless.

  • Damien van Hoogen van

    56 million kilowatt-hours per year would have to be worth at least 11 million dollars, assuming 20c/kWh. So a 2 year payback – not exactly long term investment – does this reflect the short term thinking of business. Also yay Ford!!!

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Clarification: In the US, average price of electricity is 12c/kWh, which would equal a savings of about $6.7 million per year, which is close to the $7 million a year Ford mentions.

  • Matt

    And where else would FORD have gotten an ROI of >28%, with zero risk.

    • JamesWimberley

      Yes. I don’t think we can really give Ford a gold star for values on the basis of a single no-brainer investment. Koch Industries probably use LEDs too. Ford’s evolving product line is a better indicator: okay but not outstanding. It would also be nice to see Ford break ranks with the standard industry moaning about green regulations.

Back to Top ↑