Can Smart Lighting Become a Carbon-Management Tool for Net-Zero Buildings?

Hi,

If as you propose, lighting could be "optimised" (and I think you actually mean reduced) in response to high carbon generation then why shouldn't that optimisation persist continually, saving energy (and thus money and carbon) all the time?

I would suggest that the possibility that the lighting could be "optimised" whilst still meeting the design requirements suggests that the original designers failed to optimise it in the first place, or that the cost of optimising it was large compared to the energy (and hence carbon) savings which might be achieved.

Sorry this response isn't as positive as you might hope.

Thank you for the constructive feedback, I appreciate the challenge, as I think it raises an important point about how we define “optimisation” in engineering design.
I agree that, if a lighting system can be reduced while continuously meeting all the relevant design requirements, then it would make sense to do so regardless of the carbon intensity of the electricity at that particular moment, however, I think there is another aspect worth considering.
Cost is inevitably one of the fundamental factors in engineering design, as designers have to work within the client’s requirement and project budget, and therefore I would not necessarily describe a system that was not designed with future carbon considerations in mind as a failure on the part of the original engineers, since they may have made a perfectly reasonable decision based on the requirements and priorities that existed at the time, although it is worth acknowledging that some countries are now introducing increasingly stringent regulations requiring carbon emissions and environmental impact to be considered in building design, which means that the priorities and requirements influencing engineering decisions are also evolving.
However, the challenge I am trying to raise is whether financial cost should remain the only significant optimisation criterion when the long-term environmental cost of carbon emissions is becoming increasingly important, as a solution can be financially more expensive or less energy-efficient in a conventional sense, yet still be considered worthwhile when its contribution to decarbonisation is taken into account.
Green hydrogen is a good example, as producing green hydrogen is currently relatively expensive and the overall energy pathway involves significant conversion losses when renewable electricity is converted into hydrogen and subsequently converted back into useful energy, which from a simple energy-efficiency or short-term cost perspective can make the process difficult to justify in many applications, nevertheless, substantial investment is being made in green hydrogen because the objective is not simply to minimise the immediate cost or maximise energy efficiency, but also to reduce carbon emissions and develop alternatives for sectors where direct electrification is difficult.
I see a similar question emerging in buildings, as perhaps the objective should not simply be “What is the lowest-cost or lowest-energy lighting system?”, but rather “What is the lowest-carbon solution that remains technically, economically and operationally viable?”
This is where my original question about carbon-aware lighting comes from, as I am interested in whether, after conventional lighting optimisation has already been applied, there could still be additional opportunities to reduce operational carbon by considering factors such as renewable-energy availability and electricity carbon intensity.
Of course, this would need to be justified quantitatively, as the additional carbon reduction would have to be significant enough to justify the additional cost and complexity of the control system. So I completely agree that cost-effectiveness must remain an important consideration, however, my question is whether, in the context of net-zero buildings, we should broaden the definition of optimisation to include the long-term environmental cost of carbon emissions, rather than considering financial cost and energy consumption alone.
I appreciate your comment because it highlights an important question that I think needs to be addressed before this idea can be developed further.

Thank you for the constructive feedback, I appreciate the challenge, as I think it raises an important point about how we define “optimisation” in engineering design.
I agree that, if a lighting system can be reduced while continuously meeting all the relevant design requirements, then it would make sense to do so regardless of the carbon intensity of the electricity at that particular moment, however, I think there is another aspect worth considering.
Cost is inevitably one of the fundamental factors in engineering design, as designers have to work within the client’s requirement and project budget, and therefore I would not necessarily describe a system that was not designed with future carbon considerations in mind as a failure on the part of the original engineers, since they may have made a perfectly reasonable decision based on the requirements and priorities that existed at the time, although it is worth acknowledging that some countries are now introducing increasingly stringent regulations requiring carbon emissions and environmental impact to be considered in building design, which means that the priorities and requirements influencing engineering decisions are also evolving.
However, the challenge I am trying to raise is whether financial cost should remain the only significant optimisation criterion when the long-term environmental cost of carbon emissions is becoming increasingly important, as a solution can be financially more expensive or less energy-efficient in a conventional sense, yet still be considered worthwhile when its contribution to decarbonisation is taken into account.
Green hydrogen is a good example, as producing green hydrogen is currently relatively expensive and the overall energy pathway involves significant conversion losses when renewable electricity is converted into hydrogen and subsequently converted back into useful energy, which from a simple energy-efficiency or short-term cost perspective can make the process difficult to justify in many applications, nevertheless, substantial investment is being made in green hydrogen because the objective is not simply to minimise the immediate cost or maximise energy efficiency, but also to reduce carbon emissions and develop alternatives for sectors where direct electrification is difficult.
I see a similar question emerging in buildings, as perhaps the objective should not simply be “What is the lowest-cost or lowest-energy lighting system?”, but rather “What is the lowest-carbon solution that remains technically, economically and operationally viable?”
This is where my original question about carbon-aware lighting comes from, as I am interested in whether, after conventional lighting optimisation has already been applied, there could still be additional opportunities to reduce operational carbon by considering factors such as renewable-energy availability and electricity carbon intensity.
Of course, this would need to be justified quantitatively, as the additional carbon reduction would have to be significant enough to justify the additional cost and complexity of the control system. So I completely agree that cost-effectiveness must remain an important consideration, however, my question is whether, in the context of net-zero buildings, we should broaden the definition of optimisation to include the long-term environmental cost of carbon emissions, rather than considering financial cost and energy consumption alone.
I appreciate your comment because it highlights an important question that I think needs to be addressed before this idea can be developed further.