I’m not posting this to vent, I’m asking the questions for the benefit of the industry.
Normally I’m the kind of guy that starts reading something with a pessimistic bent. There are precious few people that could author anything (especially on lighting) where I would take it all as fact.
But, I start reading the Osram Sylvania Commercial Lighting Survey (press release here, full survey is linked there) with an open mind. I started my career 16 years ago trying to understand the industry; 2 CU lighting degrees left me knowing more than I would ever need to know about how light bounced around a room. I haven’t figured out this industry yet, nor do I frankly think anyone ever will. I am 100% open to whatever Osvania can find out for us. Nice job to even think about doing it!
In question #4 I saw that 32% of respondents are IES members. Interesting. Fine I suppose. Disappointing, but I see how showroom folks (among others) don’t want to participate ... even though the IES should be the driver for their niche as well. Whatever; too each his/her own; their loss.
By question #5 I find myself really scratching my head. 32% of respondents are IES members but only 16% are “LC” certified by the National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professionals (NCQLP)? Oh brother. 10 years ago, I was sold on the LC having value. I have maintained that at significant cost to my employers, and time out of my pocket. I have yet to see where it matters (especially when I have in my possession two CU lighting degrees), and if half the IES members in this survey aren’t “LC”, then maybe it truly doesn’t have value.
What happened that we (based on this survey representing "specifiers") don't need to show that we know about lighting? Why is it left to an electrical PE exam to certify that a specifier understands anything they are doing that would be written in the IES Handbook? I haven’t heard from anyone that “the PE exam is really thorough on lighting”; I normally get laughs when I ask about lighting in the PE exam.
I’m still waiting for an upper level test to truly show we know something. If states certify interior designers to keep somebody from putting a red couch into a purple room (and oh yes, I could explode on a rant of epic proportion but I am afraid of Ann Paden who might kill me), why can’t we as an industry even *start* to lobby for real lighting certification when us lighting dorks can cause serious health problems with the way we “do” lighting?
Time for a change in lighting industry attitude ... on both sides.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Great Sustainable Product
As we all work diligently pulling gobs and gobs of watts out of projects (and we're all using control systems to reduce kWh, right?!), we can't forget we have other impacts on the planet as we do that.
I'm sure you've seen plenty of us face-to-face bringing you all kinds of wonderful lighting products so I'm going to throw out a product that is sustainable but isn't lighting with the hope we can all be globally more sustainable ourselves ... not just making our customers more sustainable.
There is a great little company here in Boulder; English Retreads. As a self-described hardcore vegetarian, Heather English wanted a new handbag that was fashionable and invincible but couldn't go for leather. So, she started a company that makes them from recycled truck inner tubes. My wife has had one for over a year, and it looks just as good as they day she got it. They have recently added accessories like belts that are eco-chic.
I'm sure you've seen plenty of us face-to-face bringing you all kinds of wonderful lighting products so I'm going to throw out a product that is sustainable but isn't lighting with the hope we can all be globally more sustainable ourselves ... not just making our customers more sustainable.
There is a great little company here in Boulder; English Retreads. As a self-described hardcore vegetarian, Heather English wanted a new handbag that was fashionable and invincible but couldn't go for leather. So, she started a company that makes them from recycled truck inner tubes. My wife has had one for over a year, and it looks just as good as they day she got it. They have recently added accessories like belts that are eco-chic.
2 Lamps = 3 Lamps?
You have certainly seen some of the new high performance T8 products being touted by major manufacturers, and if you haven't, give us a call. But is this real or is it marketing hype? Well, straight from the nerd's mouth, I can tell you it works!
Here is the math: (I will use Osram nomenclature but that is only because their catalog is on top of the pile. Others make great products as well.)
Good ol' 700 series phosphor T8
FO32/735/ECO = 2800 lumens with a 0.90 lamp lumen depreciation (LLD)
A standard 3-lamp GEB would be a 0.88 ballast factor and use 86W
So we have 3 x 2800 x 0.88 x 0.90 = 6653 lumens
High performance T8
FO32/835/XPS/ECO = 3100 lumens with a 0.95 LLD
A 2-lamp high efficiency ballast would be a 1.20 ballast factor and use 74W
So we have 2 x 3100 x 1.20 x 0.95 = 7068 lumens
That is apples-to-apples, no smoke and mirrors, right out of the book ... and it even outperforms by more than 6%. Right know I hope you're thinking one or both of two things:
1) Why have I not been using this before?
2) I am going to use that on all my projects from now on.
Notice how that 7068 is green? You have 96 lpW instead of 77 lpW. That can make all the difference when you need to hit mandated lighting power density and meeting IES recommended practice, both of which are sort of a good thing to do, right?
We are always poised with real-world experience to help you through these things, so never be bashful about giving us a call.
Here is the math: (I will use Osram nomenclature but that is only because their catalog is on top of the pile. Others make great products as well.)
Good ol' 700 series phosphor T8
FO32/735/ECO = 2800 lumens with a 0.90 lamp lumen depreciation (LLD)
A standard 3-lamp GEB would be a 0.88 ballast factor and use 86W
So we have 3 x 2800 x 0.88 x 0.90 = 6653 lumens
High performance T8
FO32/835/XPS/ECO = 3100 lumens with a 0.95 LLD
A 2-lamp high efficiency ballast would be a 1.20 ballast factor and use 74W
So we have 2 x 3100 x 1.20 x 0.95 = 7068 lumens
That is apples-to-apples, no smoke and mirrors, right out of the book ... and it even outperforms by more than 6%. Right know I hope you're thinking one or both of two things:
1) Why have I not been using this before?
2) I am going to use that on all my projects from now on.
Notice how that 7068 is green? You have 96 lpW instead of 77 lpW. That can make all the difference when you need to hit mandated lighting power density and meeting IES recommended practice, both of which are sort of a good thing to do, right?
We are always poised with real-world experience to help you through these things, so never be bashful about giving us a call.
Why can't Eric just give me what I asked for?
I get a lot of simple requests for spaces with lensed troffers and parabolics. Since I am an eco-nut, you will probably get a layout back that is more eneryg efficient. Have you looked at those alternates? I won't be too hurt if you answer negative.
I know times are tough. I certainly have plenty to do as well. I really am not just trying to sell you more expensive stuff. These are truly better options.
You can save power, money, spew into the air, and destruction of the Earth in other ways today by making the energy-efficient choice. Pulse-start lamps are now forced on us because we (as the lighting industry) collectively dropped the ball. Can we maybe move to high-efficiency fluorescent lamps and ballasts and get 102 lpW (lumes per Watt) instead of 82 lpW out of "old-school T8"? Can we maybe do that before the government forces us?
Why not? It is a 25% savings. Remember that 17 month payback on the pulse-start in my last post? Well, it costs about $10 to save that 20W. I'll cut to the chase this time - it is a 2 year payback. And you know what? The "fancy T8" have 42000 hour life and the "old-school" 735 phosphor lamps have 25000.
The next time you get an RT5, ES8, or even simply an alternate lamp-ballast when you ask me for a parabolic or lensed troffer layout, please at least give my options a quick look.
Now, what if you paid the national average of $0.10/kWh? What if you lived on Oahu (I know, cry them a river) and paid $0.22!?! Who says you don't pay that much real soon ... and why shouldn't you? Is there a reason the cost of these resources should decrease (don't forget about inflation) with a limited supply and increased demand? Nope.
Do you complain about milk being $3 a gallon? How much do oyu now pay for your microbrew with the hops shortage? Do you think that price will go back down? Will that keep you from buying your favorite IPA? ... probably not ... and what is your payback on IPA again ...
I know times are tough. I certainly have plenty to do as well. I really am not just trying to sell you more expensive stuff. These are truly better options.
You can save power, money, spew into the air, and destruction of the Earth in other ways today by making the energy-efficient choice. Pulse-start lamps are now forced on us because we (as the lighting industry) collectively dropped the ball. Can we maybe move to high-efficiency fluorescent lamps and ballasts and get 102 lpW (lumes per Watt) instead of 82 lpW out of "old-school T8"? Can we maybe do that before the government forces us?
Why not? It is a 25% savings. Remember that 17 month payback on the pulse-start in my last post? Well, it costs about $10 to save that 20W. I'll cut to the chase this time - it is a 2 year payback. And you know what? The "fancy T8" have 42000 hour life and the "old-school" 735 phosphor lamps have 25000.
The next time you get an RT5, ES8, or even simply an alternate lamp-ballast when you ask me for a parabolic or lensed troffer layout, please at least give my options a quick look.
Now, what if you paid the national average of $0.10/kWh? What if you lived on Oahu (I know, cry them a river) and paid $0.22!?! Who says you don't pay that much real soon ... and why shouldn't you? Is there a reason the cost of these resources should decrease (don't forget about inflation) with a limited supply and increased demand? Nope.
Do you complain about milk being $3 a gallon? How much do oyu now pay for your microbrew with the hops shortage? Do you think that price will go back down? Will that keep you from buying your favorite IPA? ... probably not ... and what is your payback on IPA again ...
What Will Make Us Sustainable?
So maybe you'll consider a new technology if it saves 20%? Good start.
What might stop that process and cause a move to old technology? The evil payback analysis. Hey look, I spend money, I get how it works. There is a reason I don't have PV covering my whole roof ... yet!
I am no pricing genius, but here is what I recall from a year ago ... before we had EISA driving the demand/cost curve: moving from probe-start 400W to pulse-start 320W in a architectural cast shoebox cost about $40. You save 90W. At $0.07/kWh, that is $27.60 in savings. You have a 17 month payback.
I don't know about you, but if I could get 17 month payback on a PV array, I might have my yard covered in panels.
It seems obvious, but as I continually discuss this with society, it seems missed; you have to massively decrease demand, and then you can go look for the panacea that removes us from fossil fuel dependence.
What makes us sustainable is reducing energy use. Buy a control system, buy an occupancy/vacancy sensor, just turn off the lights. Maybe the right answer is to retrofit instead of renovate? All that stuff you tear out has to go somewhere ...
What might stop that process and cause a move to old technology? The evil payback analysis. Hey look, I spend money, I get how it works. There is a reason I don't have PV covering my whole roof ... yet!
I am no pricing genius, but here is what I recall from a year ago ... before we had EISA driving the demand/cost curve: moving from probe-start 400W to pulse-start 320W in a architectural cast shoebox cost about $40. You save 90W. At $0.07/kWh, that is $27.60 in savings. You have a 17 month payback.
I don't know about you, but if I could get 17 month payback on a PV array, I might have my yard covered in panels.
It seems obvious, but as I continually discuss this with society, it seems missed; you have to massively decrease demand, and then you can go look for the panacea that removes us from fossil fuel dependence.
What makes us sustainable is reducing energy use. Buy a control system, buy an occupancy/vacancy sensor, just turn off the lights. Maybe the right answer is to retrofit instead of renovate? All that stuff you tear out has to go somewhere ...
Sustainable?
Why is it that we need the Federal government to outlaw a lamp (via EISA) in order to get the lighting world to move to that technology?
Pulse-start has been common for at least a decade. Venture has produced a 320W lamp for about that long. This lamp has the same maintained lumens as a 400W probe-start and it is 368 ballast Watts and not the 458W of the probe-start ballast. That is 20% less energy and 20% less power bill.These things do operate for 12 hours per day on average over the year.
Shouldn't it be clear that pulse-start should be used de facto? Shouldn't we as an industry have driven the probe-start lamp out of existence? Yes on two counts. The $64 question is why did this not happen with logic instead of legislation?
Answer? The incorrect assumption that lowest installed cost is the most important. Sure it is important, but only if "sustainable" is something you say and not that you do. Do you buy anything that is recyclable or recycled? What is your payback on that? Before you spend a lot of time thinking about it, it is exactly zero. In fact, you probably pay more for recycled content anything.
If you go with the 320W lamp, you save 400 kWh a year. Sure that is $20-30, but there is a payback.
Now, what if you weren't blessed with $0.07/kWh in Western NC? ... I'll get to that in the next blog.
Pulse-start has been common for at least a decade. Venture has produced a 320W lamp for about that long. This lamp has the same maintained lumens as a 400W probe-start and it is 368 ballast Watts and not the 458W of the probe-start ballast. That is 20% less energy and 20% less power bill.These things do operate for 12 hours per day on average over the year.
Shouldn't it be clear that pulse-start should be used de facto? Shouldn't we as an industry have driven the probe-start lamp out of existence? Yes on two counts. The $64 question is why did this not happen with logic instead of legislation?
Answer? The incorrect assumption that lowest installed cost is the most important. Sure it is important, but only if "sustainable" is something you say and not that you do. Do you buy anything that is recyclable or recycled? What is your payback on that? Before you spend a lot of time thinking about it, it is exactly zero. In fact, you probably pay more for recycled content anything.
If you go with the 320W lamp, you save 400 kWh a year. Sure that is $20-30, but there is a payback.
Now, what if you weren't blessed with $0.07/kWh in Western NC? ... I'll get to that in the next blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)