Mines' century-old 'M' going green
By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 10:29 a.m., April 9, 2008
Updated 02:32 p.m., April 9, 2008
Photo by Colorado School of Mines
Guggenheim Hall with the lit "M" behind it on the campus of Colorado School of Mines in Golden.
Photo by Colorado School of Mines
Guggenheim Hall with Mount Zion and the "M" behind it on the campus of Colorado School of Mines in Golden. Members of Mines' Blue Key International Honor Society will swap out the monument's 1,653 incandescent light bulbs for energy-efficient light-emitting diodes, called LEDs.
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Budding engineers at Colorado School of Mines will put energy efficiency where their M is, showing in a dramatic way how much energy can be saved by swapping out yesteryear's light bulbs.
The giant M on Mount Zion above the Mines campus in Golden is turning 100 this year and it's time, say students, to do something green for the school's initial landmark.
Members of Mines' Blue Key International Honor Society next month will swap out the monument's 1,653 incandescent light bulbs for energy-efficient light-emitting diodes, called LEDs.
How much difference will it make?
According to the Mines Blue Key member Steven Meyerhoff, it costs about $2,100 in energy bills to light the "M" for one year. With the LED conversion, the cost will drop to about $310. Each night, the new LEDS will use about one-sixth the kilowatts as the currents bulbs use.
The LEDS cost a lot more -- about $18 compared to 75 cents for a conventional 75-watt bulb -- so it will take a lot of years to achieve overall savings.
But as Mines spokeswoman Karen Gilbert points out, if energy costs continue to climb, the break-even date will come sooner.
It costs some $1,500 a year to buy new light bulbs for the M and to pay for incidentals related to replacing them annually, even though most of the labor is provided by students for practically nothing, she said.
The conventional light bulbs last about 1,500 hours, versus 30,000 to 60,000 for the LEDs.
Also, the LEDs are made of a plastic that withstands the wintertime chipping off of color, and the colors on the LEDS show up much brighter on the mountain, she said.
So, the wizards at Mines are going to have a lot more fun with the new lights -- a brighter orange pumpkin on Halloween, and more flashy light shows throughout the year, she said.
Finally, "We want this to be a statement and symbol of the school and the students' commitment to the environment, above and beyond the number of years it might take to save money."
Blue Key is trying to secure the $30,000 to buy the LEDs and green up the M by the time it reaches its 100th birthday on May 18.
A century ago, 250 Mines students and 20 professors loaded a supply train of burros and packed their way up Mount Zion with rocks to make the M.
In 1931, the Blue Key members used a tractor, generator, poles wire and bulbs to light the M for homecoming. It was such a hit, that the lights became permanent the next year.
A Mines student design team computerized the lighting five years ago.
Each fall, incoming freshmen carry 10-pound rocks from campus to the M and coat the symbol with fresh whitewash.
Graduating seniors can return to the M and retrieve the rocks.
Comments
Posted by Froward69 on April 9, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wheres SASQUACH, marine grunting or Earl. they should come out from under their rocks to protest this action by "Ignorant" engineering students. I bet Mines will be labeled a Liberal arts college now...
(sarcasm)
Good job Mines. I am proud of you all.
now just make Compact fluorescent bulbs compatible with Photocell switches. So they last longer like incandescent bulbs.
Posted by smith on April 9, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's easy to be green, as long as your not picking up the tab.
Posted by SASQUATCH on April 9, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DOES THIS MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD? Do you feel better now? Yes, we know that you care more than the rest of us care and that makes you better than us. But how you feel is what really matters most. If you get that warm and cuddly feeling deep inside, then you can declare victory. You are at one with the universe and and your existance makes you matter globally. You have meaning.
Aaahhhh, you have attained the desired inner glow and complete harmonic convergence.
Posted by SASQUATCH on April 9, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let us gather together and celebrate this joyous occassion:
http://www.amazingfartvideos.com/?Fil...
Posted by Dan2 on April 9, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, initial cost will be aprox $30,000, and it will take a little less than 10 years to actually break even, and the LED's will need to be replaced every 10 or so years for another $30,000 (assuming price of LED's stays constant). Standard bulbs with a cost of $3600/yr vs the LED cost of $3000/yr for 10 years + $310 in electricity cost for a net 10 year savings of $290, or $29/yr, or less than buying a Starbucks coffee only once every other month.
While I am all for energy savings, this actually doesn't save us really anything now does it? That must be why the article didn't mention how long it would take to realize a break even point, and what the ACTUAL savings is. On appearance alone, looks like another "green feel-good" policy that is for show only. Or am I missing a hidden point here?
Posted by Bagel on April 9, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Energy savings is not the same as fiscal savings. Energy savings translates to less pollution. Longer lifespan of sources means fewer raw materials.
But LED prices are already on a sharp downward trend, in 10 years they should cost less than traditional bulbs.
Posted by Dan2 on April 9, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bagel,
I doubt that we would see that drastic of a decline in the cost of LED's to go from $18/bulb to <$0.75/bulb. That would create the same problem that the US Mint has in producing penny's as they cost more to make than their value.
Also, if comparing fiscal spend to energy consumption and pollution, why not have the "M" powered 100% by renewable, clean energy, such as wind (even make a deal between school of the mines and the wind laboratory 8 miles north)? Then there is a net sum gain in both fiscal spend, and energy consumption, correct?
This is yet another example of doing what is "popular" and "feels good" vs. what actually has net gain benefit and may be "outside the box," don't you think?
Posted by Bagel on April 9, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem in the cost of LEDs right now is that they're a (relatively) new technology, so companies keep building plants and new processes to build them, which increases the cost per unit. As the manufacturing becomes more streamlined the costs will come down.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to power the M with clean energy, but it's a separate issue from the fact that LEDs use far less of that energy than standard bulbs. You could have that windfarm power just the M using standard bulbs, or you could have it power the M with LEDs and have some energy left over for other means. (note: I have no idea how much power either the windfarm generates or the M consumes),
No, it is not just what is 'popular' and 'feels good'. There is irrefutable evidence that LEDs outperform standard bulbs. Yes, they cost more money. Would you argue the performance of a moped versus a porsche because of the price? They both get you where you're going.
Posted by wshugs on April 9, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How are they going to keep them from being pilfered?
Posted by greenleaf on April 9, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Squatch,
You have to admit Froward has a point!
Posted by soqrbrad on April 9, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a member of blue key and have worked closely with Steve and helped to write the Tech Fee proposal for the LEDs at Mines.
Everyone in the discussion here is forgetting key items.
1) The bulbs we buy MUST be weather proof. I don't know if you have looked outside but its raining now and we are going to get 6 inches of snow... That might wreck havoc on an electrical system. This increases the cost substantially.
2) If you have recently heard with President Bush's recent Energy Bill, they are phasing out incandescent bulbs by 2012. So how do you propose we light the M when we can no longer buy incandescent bulbs? By starting this project now, and fund raising now, we can be set up before that time comes.
There is more to this than just the feel good of going green.
As for how we protect the bulbs, the M is surrounded by razor wire and is monitored by closed circuit television.
Besides lasting longer these LED bulbs are more durable and will be replaced a lot less and will have much less of an environmental impact. There is a lot of broken glass around the M due to broken bulbs caused by the weather. With the thick plastic this will not happen. And LED's don't really "burn out" they dim until they are barely visible.
I hope this clears up the confusion.
Posted by soqrbrad on April 9, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As for trying to out math a Mines student:
Dan2,
Lets keep your assumption of $30,000 initial cost and based on the numbers in the article we save $1790 per year on electricity costs alone. We also could factor the $1500 per year we spend on replacing broken or burned out incandescent bulbs but for the sake of argument lets say our savings are $2000 per year. That leaves 15 years to pay back the investment.
"The LED's will need to be replaced every 10 or so years for another $30,000"
This is where your math goes horribly wrong, might I ask if you are a CU alumni?
To start out let us assume that the M is lit 10 hours per night. With the new LED bulbs they last 30-60,000 hours as opposed to the 1,500 of conventional bulbs. So for every LED you replace you would replace at least 20 incandescent bulbs but it could be as many as 40 (30/1.5 = 20 and 60/1.5 = 40). Assuming we keep the incandescent bulbs and replace that same bulb 30 times at 0.75 cents per bulb, we would spend 22.50 to fill a socket with incandescent bulbs, but with the LEDs we would replace it one time for a cost of $18. A savings of 4.50 per bulb.
Looking at the whole total, one LED bulb that lasts 45,000 hours would light the M for 4500 days or 12.32 years but it could last as much as 16.43 years assuming it would last the full 60,000 hours. One incandescent bulb only would last 150 days, not even half a year.
Also the M does not have to be replaced as a whole every time a bulb burns out. So your figure of 30,000 every 10 years if bogus.
To summarize:
Based on running time one LED bulb would outlast 20 incandescent bulbs. It would actually be closer to 30 actually because LED bulbs can handle being turned on and off frequently where as incandescent bulbs cannot and burn out much shorter than their 1500 hour lifetime. Also the coloring of the led bulbs does not weather and the plastic will not crack as opposed to incandescent ones which would have to be replaced even before they burn up their 1,500 hour lifetime.
Based on this calculation for every LED bulb we would be saving 4.50 per bulb. Assuming we are only using the white bulbs every night (which is usually the case), we have 551 white bulbs times 4.50 per bulb which saves the M $2479.50 over the cost of replacing the incandescents once the first round of LEDs would burn out. This translates to, based on your assumption of a starbucks coffee costing 4.84 cents (29 dollars spent on coffee every other month) purchasing 1.4 starbucks coffees per day.
Based on this savings over incandescent bulbs in addition to the energy savings listed above the actual pay back time is around 6.7 years [30,000/(2000+2479.50)]
Once again, do not try to out math an engineer.
Posted by Bagel on April 9, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You think a lot of yourself, don't you?
Posted by soqrbrad on April 10, 2008 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yup, pretty much, prove me wrong :-D If people don't have the facts or good math, why should they be allowed to post their wrong information.
Posted by SASQUATCH on April 10, 2008 at 6:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT!
Posted by Bagel on April 10, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think anyone was trying to "outmath" you. You basically came on, asserted your superiority, and then called him an idiot. When you get out of school you'll realize that often you do not have all the information, yet you still have to try to make judgments.
Also, you seem to assume you're the only engineer who reads the news.
Posted by greenleaf on April 10, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SQUATCH.
This might be your best posting of the day!
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.