Friday the 13th – Scary Facts About Fluorescent Lighting

Photo gallery.hd.org
- Exporting Coal, Exporting Emissions
- Big Nuclear Is Going Solar
- Not Guilty
- White House Ready to Learn More About Clean Coal
- Insulation From Space?
- European Union To Set High Efficiency Standards For Buildings
- Greening Commercial Buildings Makes ‘Solid Business Sense,’ Report Says
- LED Lighting Initiative Lauded In Midwest Energy Awards
- Could Reducing Energy Costs Help States' Economies?
- House Passes Health Care Bill; Cost Containment Remains Top Concern
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.



E-mail
RSS







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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Post new comment