Simply Green News and Entertainment

Friday the 13th – Scary Facts About Fluorescent Lighting


GREENandSAVE Staff
Posted on Friday 13th November 2009

Approximately a quarter of the total electricity generated in the U.S. is used for lighting, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Lighting in homes represents as much as 25 percent of a home’s electricity use while more than half of the energy is consumed in the commercial sector, due to the fact that lighting is used most during periods of peak electrical demand and also contributes to a building's internal heat generation, which then ups air-conditioning load, DOE says.

The U.S. spends approximately $58 billion annually to light homes, offices, streets and factories. The significance of that figure lies in the fact that the conversion of electricity into useful light is one of the least efficient energy conversion processes in buildings today. DOE and efficiency advocates promote newer lighting technologies to improve the energy efficiency of lighting and reduce building energy consumption and costs.

Most existing buildings are outfitted with older building materials and technology, particularly fluorescent lights, which add to a building’s inefficiency and operating costs. Additionally, fluorescent lights:

  • are breakable, unlike light emitting diode (LED) tube lights.

  • contain mercury, which if released emits vapors that are toxic to humans, particularly children and pregnant women, if exposure is significant.

  • flicker as they die out.

  • if unfiltered, due to the ultraviolet radiation emitted, have been alleged to acerbate or trigger problems in individuals with lupus or suffering from headaches or migraine headaches.

  • have a ”warm up” time.

  • are expensive to recycle.

  • give off heat.

  • do not work well in severe cold.

Conversely, commercial application of LED lighting provides many advantages. LED lighting is a solid-state lighting technology, of which DOE says, “No other lighting technology offers as much potential to save energy and enhance the quality of our building environments, contributing to our nation's energy and climate change solutions.”

Here are some unique LED characteristics courtesy of DOE:

  • directional light emission.

  • can be very compact and low-profile.

  • resistant to breaking – no breakable glass or filaments.

  • cold temperature operation – performance improves in the cold.

  • require no "warm up" time.

  • compatible with electronic controls to change light levels and color characteristics.

  • no infrared or ultraviolet radiation emitted.

  • last longer than conventional bulbs.

Also, lighting upgrades pay for themselves in the energy and maintenance saved. Upgrading to LED lighting yields approximately 60 to 90 percent savings on lighting costs and such energy-efficiency improvements increase net operating income and asset value. In fact, ENERGY STAR calculates that a 10 percent decrease in energy use could lead to a 1.5 percent increase in net operating income, with even more impressive figures as energy savings grow.

Businesses and universities of various sizes have reduced annual operating costs by installing energy efficient lighting in their buildings. One private company, LED Saving Solutions is in the business of making energy efficiency possible and has forged production and financial partnerships that allow it to take on the initial cost of replacing conventional lighting, making the retrofit cash-flow positive for properties from the start.

Posted on 13 November 2009 - 11:37pm by Guest.
Funny, the last time I did the math, a high efficiency florescent fixture actually produced more lumens per watt than an LED fixture. Now the LED had a better quality light, produced excellent directionality, and can be cycled on and off without premature failure and last for a very very long time. But there will continue to be a place for florescent and incandescent for the foreseeable future because both have characteristics that are not replaceable by LEDs.
For the record I use CF, incandescent(standard and halogen), T8, T5, and T12 florescent tubes, MH, HPS, and LED fixtures depending ENTIRELY on the exact situation. None are useful for all situations.
Posted on 14 November 2009 - 1:48am by David.
Electronic ballasts cycle 20 thousand times per second rather than 60, which means no visible flicker. As well, many are instant on.
The big problem with LEDs at moment is cost, LEDs are *very* expensive compared to alternatives for larger amounts of light, eg less than a dollar for a conventional 60 watt bulb, flourescent replacement may cost $2, while LED bulb may cost $60+.
LEDs currently use rare earths, and as result price may not come down for a while as demand comes up because the raw materials may have shortage.
One of the real potentials with LEDs is grow lights, they are easier to tune for the exact spectrums that plants like than the alternatives. But cost needs to come down for this to become mainstream.
Posted on 15 November 2009 - 11:02am by Guest.
When looking at cost of LED lighting, it is unintelligent to look at only the up-front cost to buy the bulb. The operating costs significantly outweigh any upfront costs. Would you buy a brand new Cadillac Escalade for $1,000 if it only got one mile to the gallon? Fluorescents and incandescents could be free and they still wouldn't be a good investment.
Posted on 16 November 2009 - 1:05pm by Not verified.
Lumens per output is nothing but an equation for current lighting products. That's why LED's dont mathmatically produce the same or better lumens mathmatically (on paper)
Take foot candle readings with current product and then install a LED and do the same. The foot candles (light) at the ground should be the same if not better.
Posted on 18 November 2009 - 7:14pm by Wmjm.
Not verified wrote:
>> Posted on 16 November 2009 - 1:05pm, by Not verified (not verified).
>> Lumens per output is nothing but an equation for current lighting products.
>> That's why LED's dont mathmatically produce the same or better lumens mathmatically (on paper)
>> Take foot candle readings with current product and then install a LED and do the same.
>> The foot candles (light) at the ground should be the same if not better.
This is oversimplified, I know, since this is just a message-comment thread. So could you post the source of:
1) "nothing but an equation for current lighting products." and
2) "Take foot candle [i.e. footcandle, or lux] readings... ...should be the same if not better."
Thanks! Bill
Posted on 1 March 2010 - 1:30am by soy wax candle.
5
so how can we save energy?
Posted on 19 March 2010 - 12:52am by itil certification.
2
While Friday the 13th Part 2 is not my favorite Friday (that would be Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter, due to both an early-puberty crush on one Corey Feldman and a scary obsession with both Crispin Glover and horny twins), it does feature my favorite Friday Final Girl – and indeed, perhaps one of my favorite Final Girls of all time, a certain Miss Amy Steel. See Amy show up late for the first day of work. See Amy drink. See Amy play tricks on her WASPy boyfriend. See Amy play chess, spout off about child psychology, piss herself, run around the woods for hours, hug a puppy, and sink a machete into Jason’s shoulder. See Amy walk away with the movie, the series, and my cold, brittle heart.
Posted on 19 March 2010 - 12:55am by cisa.
3
Things begin 2 months after the close of the first film, which left original Final Girl Adrienne King soggy with pondwater and a story of a deformed boy who lives in Crystal Lake. These days, Adrienne is looking a bit worse for the wear – even though it’s only been 2 months, she looks like she’s been ridden hard, and in a drawn-out scene built mostly of incredibly long Steadicam takes, we see the toll that being the only survivor of the original massacre has taken on her. A shower and a classic cat-scare later, Adrienne is gazing in horror at a head in her fridge and screaming at the ice-pick in her temple. It’s ten minutes into the movie, and our heroine is toast.
Posted on 19 March 2010 - 12:56am by ccna.
3
And sexy they are. Sad to say, this might be one of my favorite Fridays even without the Unsinkable Ms. Steel simply because of the bounty of hotties that has taken up residence up the road from our beloved Camp Crystal Lake (yes, this one takes place somewhere else, remember?). There’s the (ahem) “gentlemanly” Russell Todd, who brandished his chiseled good looks in a few other horror titles (Chopping Mall and He Knows You’re Alone, most notably) and who here receives limited screen time but some fabulous sweaters. There’s the white-hot Kirsten Baker, who does the obligatory naked swim and models some hot workout wear and short-shorts (check out that apple-bottom! Whoa!) before getting hers. Even Lauren-Marie Taylor (also in Neighbors and one of my faves, Girls Nite Out), who is too mousy to be flat-out hot, gets a disgusting pre-sex moment when she sprays perfume in her crotch before riding a cripple (she never makes it, instead becoming the object in one of the most famous subjective POV shots in horror film history). John Furey as Paul, Ginny’s (Amy’s) boyfriend, is what you’d get if you stuffed Eric Stoltz into a JC Penney catalogue model, but he’s certainly better than most Final Boys and gets a great campfire story showcase monologue (which would be used as archive footage in the Final Chapter). We’ve even got what is unquestionably the hottest Jason, Warrington Gillette, who is oddly shot to look like he's about 5 foot tall and sadly spends the entire film with a bag over his head.
Posted on 19 March 2010 - 12:58am by mcitp dumps.
4
Indeed, there are other castmembers who would be better served by wearing sacks over their heads. Unfortunately, our resident Rutting Couple leaves a lot to be desired; considering that this couple is supposed to be the very vision of unbridled teen lust, they really could have thrown us a bone and cast sexier actors. As it is, we have a frizzy, duck-shaped girl and a nondescript goober who wander around looking for places to hump, talk incessantly about how oversexed they are, and generally gross us out with their pigginess (it isn’t altogether unreasonable, then, that they end up skewered like hogs on a barbecue spit). I spent most of the time they were onscreen transfixed by the puffy expanse of Marta Kober’s nimbus-like hair, trying with all my might to not picture the couple naked.
Posted on 14 May 2010 - 8:38am by Beads.
5
This lighting is harmful for eyes as far as I know.. if I had to choose between the money saved and my eyes I would choose eyes you know
Posted on 16 July 2010 - 9:14pm by yamaha raptor 250r.
5
I did not know that flourescent lights can be harmful in some ways.. I would buy an incandescent bulb and replace some of the flourescents in my house.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
 
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
   ___    _       _   _   _   _   ____    _  __
/ _ \ | | | \ | | | | | | | _ \ | |/ /
| | | | | | | \| | | | | | | |_) | | ' /
| |_| | | |___ | |\ | | |_| | | __/ | . \
\__\_\ |_____| |_| \_| \___/ |_| |_|\_\
Enter the code depicted in ASCII art style.
LED Saving Solutions