Case study · Logistics & warehousing
Executive summary
Alpha Pharm upgraded the lighting across its entire distribution centre in 2019. Annual lighting consumption fell an estimated 55.7%, from 263,520 kWh to 116,772 kWh. The number that matters more, and that almost no lighting proposal puts on the table, is the second one: maximum demand dropped from 85 kVA to 37 kVA. That is an estimated 48 kVA of supply capacity handed back to the business without an application to the utility. All figures on this page are estimates.
146748kWh
Energy saved per year
(estimated)
55.7%
Reduction in lighting
energy (estimated)
29mo
Payback on the
retrofit (estimated)
151tCO₂e
Carbon avoided per
year (estimated)
48.0kVA
Maximum demand
released (estimated)
Figures are estimates derived from project close-out data and standard operating assumptions. They will vary with tariff, run hours and site conditions, and are indicative of this project rather than a guarantee of results on another site.
The project
A pharmaceutical distribution centre is a picking environment before it is anything else. Staff read small print on packaging, at speed, across long aisles and high racking, and a mis-pick in this sector reaches a patient. Lighting that has degraded over a decade does not announce itself; it just makes the work harder and the error rate creep.
Underneath that sat a second, harder constraint. The facility's electrical supply was carrying a lighting load that drew 85 kVA of maximum demand. In South Africa, notified maximum demand is billed as its own line and is capped by the supply agreement. A business that wants to add racking or a second shift finds that the ceiling on its supply binds long before floor space does. Lifting that ceiling means a formal application and a lead time measured in months.
The brief was a full facility upgrade specified for maximum savings, so the whole site was converted rather than the obvious high-hour areas alone. That matters for the demand figure: maximum demand is set by what is drawing at the same instant, and in a facility where the lights come on together across the site, a partial conversion barely moves it.
The result was a 55.7% reduction in annual consumption, 146,748 kWh a year, and a 56.5% reduction in maximum demand, from 85 kVA to 37 kVA.
The payback came out at 2.4 years, which is roughly three times longer than the eight to nine months we typically return on a 24-hour site, and it is worth being straight about why. This was a whole-facility conversion including areas that run for a fraction of the day, so the average run hours across the installed base are far lower than a terminal or a depot apron. Judged on energy alone, that is a reasonable but unremarkable return. Judged with the 48 kVA of released capacity included, it reads differently. That capacity has a value the moment the business wants to grow, and it came without a supply upgrade.
| Area | Legacy installation | Lamphouse specification |
|---|---|---|
| Full facility: racking aisles, picking, packing, receiving and ancillary areas | Legacy installation across the whole site | LED conversion, full facility, specified for maximum savings |
Why it worked
Carried forward
Ask for the maximum demand figure at survey stage, every time. It is on the client's electricity account and it is almost never in the lighting brief. On this project it turned a reasonable energy case into a compelling capacity case, and it is the argument that reaches a financial director rather than a facilities manager.
Supporting references
Tell us the areas, the hours they run, the lux you need to hit and your capex envelope. We'll come back inside the week with a design, a fitting schedule and a payback model.
Related: Logistics & warehousing LED