Nord Gear 2007 Case Study
In the pictures, you will not see much difference; the light is sufficient for the task in both photos. The big difference is the operating and maintenance costs of the light. EPS retrofitted the entire facility and achieved the following results.
| Before | After | Savings | |
|---|---|---|---|
| kW Demand | 105.2 | 50.7 | 54.5 |
| kWh | 505,037 | 223,085 | 281,952 |
| Energy Costs | $36,615.00 | $16,173.00 | $20,441.00 |
| Rated Lamp Life | 20,000 hours | 45,000 hours | |
| Lumen Depreciation | 20% in 4,000 hrs | 7% in 40,000 hrs |
The savings results pretty much speak for themselves. What they do not tell you is by using higher quality light, Nord Gear had increased productivity, fewer production errors, and more cheerful employees. People do not like the thought of working in a cave and when you install daylight type light, they respond to it.
In addition to saving money on maintenance, maintenance people love the fact that we get them down to just 2 types of lamps and 3 types of ballasts. This is always a headache with multiple types of fixtures.