Energy efficiency through lighting systems: a case study at the agriculture faculty building, Kano University of Science and Technology, Wudil, Kano, Nigeria
Energy for lighting consumes about 12% of the world demand. All buildings including universities consume a significant amount of lighting energy but has the most potential in reducing lighting energy consumption. This research was aimed at exploring the use of lighting technology as a way of improvi...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Conference or Workshop Item |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://irep.iium.edu.my/57201/1/57103_ENERGY%20EFFICIENCY.pdf http://irep.iium.edu.my/57201/ |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Energy for lighting consumes about 12% of the world demand. All buildings including universities consume a significant amount of lighting energy but has the most potential in reducing lighting energy consumption. This research was aimed at exploring the use of lighting technology as a way of improving energy efficiency at the Agriculture Faculty Building (AFB), Kano University of Science and Technology (KUST), Wudil in Kano, Nigeria. Three lighting systems: the commonly used T8 fluorescent (FLT8), and the improved T5 fluorescent (FLT5) and light-emitting diode tubular (LED) were experimented to identify which of them would be the most suitable for improving energy efficiency. The methodology involved calculations to determine the energy consumption of the different lamps used. Secondly, the return on investment was obtained by using simple payback period and lastly the GHG reduction savings was calculated to investigate which lighting has the least impact on the environment. The findings from this study show that the FLT5 and LED lamps save more energy as compared to the FLT8. The FLT5 saves 42% of energy consumed while the LED saves 45% of the energy consumed and both reduced the CO2 emission by more than 2 metric tons. The findings also found the return on investment (ROI) in thirty years, where although the LED can save more energy, its ROI is 14 years as compared to 10 years for FLT5. Therefore, the study indicated that FLT5 is a more efficient choice with better GHG reductions in the long run. |
|---|