WSU Energy Program Logo
Bonneville Power Administration Logo
  • Home
  • About
  • Database
      • Browse
      • Energy Systems
        • Building Envelope
        • Electronics
        • HVAC
        • Irrigation
        • Lighting
        • Motors & Drives
        • Multiple Energy Systems
        • Power Systems
        • Process Loads & Appliances
        • Refrigeration
        • Transportation
        • Water Heating
      • Sector
        • Agricultural
        • Commercial
        • Industrial
        • Residential
        • Utility
  • TAG Portal
      • 2017 Residential Lighting TAG (#14)
      • 2016 Multifamily Building TAG (#13)
      • 2015-1 Commercial HVAC TAG (#11)
      • 2014 Residential Building TAG (#10)
      • 2014 Commercial Building TAG (#9)
      • 2013 Information Technology TAG (#8)
      • 2013 ALCS TAG (#7)
      • 2012 Smart Thermostat TAG (#6)
      • 2012 LED Lighting TAG (#5)
      • 2011 Energy Management TAG (#4)
      • 2010 HVAC TAG (#3)
      • 2009 HVAC TAG (#2)
      • 2009 Lighting TAG (#1)
  • Webinars
    • Webinar Archives
  • Glossary
>

Summary

Fiber Optics for Daylighting

Interior Lighting: Fiber Optic Daylighting w/Daylight Harvesting Controls vs. Fluorescent Lighting Without Controls

Use of fiber optic cables to convey daylight into a building's interior from sun-tracking rooftop collectors that use parabolic mirrors or Fresnel lenses.

Synopsis:

Fiber optic daylighting systems include a collector, reflectors, filters, lenses to direct light to the fiber optic cables and a fixture to distribute the light.  The daylight is gathered and concentrated by collectors using parabolic mirrors or Fresnel lenses that track the sun as it moves through the sky.  UV and IR light is filtered as the visible light is collected and transmitted into the building. The system may provide stand-alone daytime lighting or be part of a hybrid solar lighting system that is integrated with electric lighting and controls to make the same fixtures usable at times of low or no daylight.

A separate but related technology is remote source lighting, which also includes light pipes. Unlike direct skylights, they do not transmit heat or UV radiation.  How far the light can be transported depends on the quality of the materials used and the wavelength of the light transmitted.  Some early failures were due to thermal impacts, but new, efficient systems are operating at 65% to 75% of their theoretical limit, depending on the mirror efficiencies at a specific location.

Costs have suppressed adoption of this technology in the United States compared to some Asian and European locations, and the main providers of this technology are from those regions. As energy costs increase, this may be a more attractive system, but at the same time, the use of occupancy sensors and emergency of LED lighting technologies have greatly reduced lighting energy costs and the potential energy savings that can be obtained by fiber optic daylighting approaches.   Simpler daylighting approaches include re-directing window films and use of a tubular skylight with a prismatic diffuser at the end of a short light pipe.  The skylight is effective for low buildings with a large footprint such as warehouses, workshops, and retail spaces.  A thermal break is provided to prevent condensation and thermal losses.

Energy Savings: 70%
Energy Savings Rating: Not rated.  What's this?
LevelStatusDescription
1Concept not validatedClaims of energy savings may not be credible due to lack of documentation or validation by unbiased experts.
2Concept validated:An unbiased expert has validated efficiency concepts through technical review and calculations based on engineering principles.
3Limited assessmentAn unbiased expert has measured technology characteristics and factors of energy use through one or more tests in typical applications with a clear baseline.
4Extensive assessmentAdditional testing in relevant applications and environments has increased knowledge of performance across a broad range of products, applications, and system conditions.
5Comprehensive analysisResults of lab and field tests have been used to develop methods for reliable prediction of performance across the range of intended applications.
6Approved measureProtocols for technology application are established and approved.
Simple Payback, New Construction (years): 117.5   What's this?
Simple Payback, Retrofit (years): 117.6   What's this?

Simple Payback is one tool used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a proposed investment, such as the investment in an energy efficient technology. Simple payback indicates how many years it will take for the initial investment to "pay itself back." The basic formula for calculating a simple payback is:

Simple Payback = Incremental First Cost / Annual Savings

The Incremental Cost is determined by subtracting the Baseline First Cost from the Measure First Cost.

For New Construction, the Baseline First Cost is the cost to purchase the standard practice technology. The Measure First Cost is the cost of the alternative, more energy efficienct technology. Installation costs are not included, as it is assumed that installation costs are approximately the same for the Baseline and the Emerging Technology.

For Retrofit scenarios, the Baseline First Cost is $0, since the baseline scenario is to leave the existing equipment in place. The Emerging Technology First Cost is the Measure First Cost plus Installation Cost (the cost of the replacement technology, plus the labor cost to install it). Retrofit scenarios generally have a higher First Cost and longer Simple Paybacks than New Construction scenarios.

Simple Paybacks are called "simple" because they do not include details such as the time value of money or inflation, and often do not include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs or end-of-life disposal costs. However, they can still provide a powerful tool for a quick assessment of a proposed measure. These paybacks are rough estimates based upon best available data, and should be treated with caution. For major financial decisions, it is suggested that a full Lifecycle Cost Analysis be performed which includes the unique details of your situation.

The energy savings estimates are based upon an electric rate of $.09/kWh, and are calculated by comparing the range of estimated energy savings to the baseline energy use. For most technologies, this results in "Typical," "Fast" and "Slow" payback estimates, corresponding with the "Typical," "High" and "Low" estimates of energy savings, respectively.

Status:

Details

Fiber Optics for Daylighting

Interior Lighting: Fiber Optic Daylighting w/Daylight Harvesting Controls vs. Fluorescent Lighting Without Controls

Use of fiber optic cables to convey daylight into a building's interior from sun-tracking rooftop collectors that use parabolic mirrors or Fresnel lenses.
Item ID: 143
Sector: Commercial
Energy System: Lighting--Fixtures: Indoor
Technical Advisory Group: 2009 Lighting TAG (#1)
Technical Advisory Group: 2014 Commercial Building TAG (#9)
Average TAG Rating: 1.85 out of 5
TAG Ranking Date: 03/17/2014
TAG Rating Commentary:
  1. Only for special cases; in general this will be too complex and too expensive to have wide market penetration; and it works best in sunny climates since it needs direct sunlight to perform well.... whoops!
  2. This is a component that could serve a daylighting and/or electric lighting system.  I cannot evaluate on its own.  Prior experience with plastic fibers showed increased absorption in the red part of the spectrum, significantly affecting the transmitted spectral power distribution in terms of chromaticity and color rendering. Glass fibers do a better job but are more expensive and hard to bend and protect.
  3. Reservations based on grounds of customer need and ease of implementation criteria.
  4. Is it cost effective? Is it apt for the N.W.?

Synopsis:

Fiber optic daylighting systems include a collector, reflectors, filters, lenses to direct light to the fiber optic cables and a fixture to distribute the light.  The daylight is gathered and concentrated by collectors using parabolic mirrors or Fresnel lenses that track the sun as it moves through the sky.  UV and IR light is filtered as the visible light is collected and transmitted into the building. The system may provide stand-alone daytime lighting or be part of a hybrid solar lighting system that is integrated with electric lighting and controls to make the same fixtures usable at times of low or no daylight.

A separate but related technology is remote source lighting, which also includes light pipes. Unlike direct skylights, they do not transmit heat or UV radiation.  How far the light can be transported depends on the quality of the materials used and the wavelength of the light transmitted.  Some early failures were due to thermal impacts, but new, efficient systems are operating at 65% to 75% of their theoretical limit, depending on the mirror efficiencies at a specific location.

Costs have suppressed adoption of this technology in the United States compared to some Asian and European locations, and the main providers of this technology are from those regions. As energy costs increase, this may be a more attractive system, but at the same time, the use of occupancy sensors and emergency of LED lighting technologies have greatly reduced lighting energy costs and the potential energy savings that can be obtained by fiber optic daylighting approaches.   Simpler daylighting approaches include re-directing window films and use of a tubular skylight with a prismatic diffuser at the end of a short light pipe.  The skylight is effective for low buildings with a large footprint such as warehouses, workshops, and retail spaces.  A thermal break is provided to prevent condensation and thermal losses.

Baseline Example:

Baseline Description: Code-minimum office lighting
Baseline Energy Use: 2.7 kWh per year per square foot

Comments:

The baseline value is based on office lighting, with a baseline of the 2009 Washington non-residential energy code standard of 0.91 W/sf, in office lighting without perimeter daylighting or skylights, operating 3000 hrs. per year. 

Manufacturer's Energy Savings Claims: Currently no data available.
Best Estimate of Energy Savings:

"Typical" Savings: 70%

Comments:

A number of articles regarding fiber-optic daylighting occurred in the 2008-2009 time period.  Note that a conventional lighting system with daylighting/dimming control is necessary as solar light is not always available when needed.  ORNL originated the concept of a hybrid lighting system in the mid-1990's---with this approach, an electric lighting source provided illumination to the fiber optic array during periods of low solar light.  As of 2008, about 25 units had been installed in the continental U.S. and Hawaii, with many being beta test sites.  Early installation of this technology were applied in a niche market that was willing to pay a premium for a novelty technology.  The approximate cost is $20,000 to light up a 1,000 square foot area.  This offsets about 500 W when replacing fluorescent lighting but more than 3,000 Watts given an incandescent light source (Maxey, 2008).  (Note: building codes allow about 0.91 W/sf for office space, so the incandescent source is no longer feasible and is a technology of the past).  Assume that natural lighting can offset 70% of the energy use of the conventional lighting system. 

Energy Use of Emerging Technology:
.8 kWh per square foot per year What's this?

Energy Use of an Emerging Technology is based upon the following algorithm.

Baseline Energy Use - (Baseline Energy Use * Best Estimate of Energy Savings (either Typical savings OR the high range of savings.))

Technical Potential:
Units: square foot
Potential number of units replaced by this technology: 640,537,500
Comments:

This technology could technically be used for virtually any commercial building, so we start the total of the entire commercial building stock in the Northwest. However, about 60% of commercial floor space is single-story, for which a better solution is skylights, or perimeter daylighting. Likewise, this is not appropriate for building perimeter zones. In addition, it would not likely be used in warehouses or unconditioned spaces. The numbers are taken from preliminary updated numbers from the 2013 update to the Commercial Building Stock Assessment (CBSA) using the estimates for 2014 (before the update was completed -- from early January, 2014) multiplied times the percentage of commercial space that is conditioned based on the 2009 CBSA, times our rough estimate of 25% of applicable space, which would not count single stories, top stories, or perimeter space.

 Fiber-Optic Daylighting Commercial Floor Space 
 Total Floor space   -s.f. Warehouse   non-Warehouse   % Conditioned   %Applicable   Applicable Space 
 Source   (NEEA, 2014)   (NEEA, 2009 App C)   (NEEA, 2009 App C)  (NEEA, 2009 App C) WSU EP
 Values:           3,118,000,000      173,000,000       2,945,000,000 87.0% 25.0%         640,537,500
Regional Technical Potential:
1.21 TWh per year
138 aMW
What's this?

Regional Technical Potential of an Emerging Technology is calculated as follows:

Baseline Energy Use * Estimate of Energy Savings (either Typical savings OR the high range of savings) * Technical Potential (potential number of units replaced by the Emerging Technology)

First Cost:

Installed first cost per: square foot
Emerging Technology Unit Cost (Equipment Only): $20.00
Emerging Technology Installation Cost (Labor, Disposal, Etc.): $0.01
Baseline Technology Unit Cost (Equipment Only): $0.01

Comments:

Even supporters of this technology indicate that "The technical complexity of hybrid solar lighting does not easily translate into a cost-effective lighting system" and also note that "Tax incentives and local utility rates available within a given region significantly affect the economic benefit".  ORNL researchers suggest a cost of $20,000 to light up a 1,000 square foot area with the hope that design changes will allow costs to decrease by more than 50% within a few years (Maxey, 2008).  It is claimed that one collector can power 8-12 fluorescent fixtures displacing about 1 kW of electrical lighting load (Mayhoub, 2010).  This is about $20.00/sf.

In lighting only designs, waste heat is directed out of the visible light sent to the building interior.  This technology may well benefit from design integration where the solar collectors provide space or water heating as well as interior lighting.  In addition, space cooling loads may be reduced as heat is not transferred down the fiber optic cables (Energy Center of Wisconsin, 2008).

Cost Effectiveness:

Simple payback, new construction (years): 117.5

Simple payback, retrofit (years): 117.6

What's this?

Cost Effectiveness is calculated using baseline energy use, best estimate of typical energy savings, and first cost. It does not account for factors such as impacts on O&M costs (which could be significant if product life is greatly extended) or savings of non-electric fuels such as natural gas. Actual overall cost effectiveness could be significantly different based on these other factors.

Reference and Citations:

NEEA, 01/01/2014. Total Pacific Northwest Building Stock Based on Preliminary Numbers from the 2013 Update to the CBSA
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

CADMUS, 12/21/2009. Northwest Commercial Building Stock Assessment (CBSA): Final Report
Prepared by the CADMUS Group for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

L. Curt Maxey, 09/17/2008. Hybrid Solar Lighting: Final Technical Report and Results of Field Trial Program
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Christopher Werring, 05/18/2009. Design and Application of Fiber Optic Daylighting Systems
Kansas State University

Curt Maxey, 06/01/2008. Hybrid Solar Lighting
Photonics Spectra

Energy Center of Wisconsin, 10/01/2008. Fiber Optic Daylighting
EnLighten: the Bimonthly Newsletter of the Daylighting Collaborative , 1

MS Mayhoub, 01/01/2010. Towards Hybrid Lighting Systems: A Review
Lighting Res. Technol , 42

Rank & Scores

Fiber Optics for Daylighting

2014 Commercial Building TAG (#9)


Technical Advisory Group: 2014 Commercial Building TAG (#9)
TAG Ranking: 42 out of 44 Technologies (2014 Commercial TAG strategies ranked separately)
Average TAG Rating: 1.85 out of 5
TAG Ranking Date: 03/17/2014
TAG Rating Commentary:

  1. Only for special cases; in general this will be too complex and too expensive to have wide market penetration; and it works best in sunny climates since it needs direct sunlight to perform well.... whoops!
  2. This is a component that could serve a daylighting and/or electric lighting system.  I cannot evaluate on its own.  Prior experience with plastic fibers showed increased absorption in the red part of the spectrum, significantly affecting the transmitted spectral power distribution in terms of chromaticity and color rendering. Glass fibers do a better job but are more expensive and hard to bend and protect.
  3. Reservations based on grounds of customer need and ease of implementation criteria.
  4. Is it cost effective? Is it apt for the N.W.?


2009 Lighting TAG (#1)


Technical Advisory Group: 2009 Lighting TAG (#1)
TAG Ranking:
Average TAG Rating:
TAG Ranking Date:
TAG Rating Commentary:

Contact
Copyright 2023 Washington State University
disclaimer and privacy policies

Bonneville Power Administration Logo