BAGBY

More on CFLs and Health

2011-03-03T09:06:00.001-08:00

The European Union commissioned a report on health impacts. Why it is that Canada and Eurpoe have done this and the US gov't has done nothing is a mystery. Those poor scientists don't get any stimulus.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_019.pdf

UV and EMF Exposure due to CFLs

2011-03-03T08:43:00.000-08:00

Health Canada has done an interesting study that should quell some of the CFL paranoia. It isn't ideal for every use, but they aren't going to kill you. Let's stop building that next coal plant before it starts.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/cfl-impact-study.cfm

Why do we NOT use industrials for everything?

2011-02-06T16:38:00.003-08:00

They are so cheap and readily available ...
...and they look so nice!
::rolls eyes::

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.7

Why do we NOT use industrials for everything?

2011-02-06T16:38:00.001-08:00

They are so cheap and readily available ...
...and they look so nice!
::rolls eyes dramatically::

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.7

I found somebody using LED in a good way

2011-02-01T09:46:00.001-08:00

CRJ900 regional jet. LED along both sides of overhead storage and nifty center aisle twin scallop makers. The latter being pointless but interesting.

Now, if the same technology could be put to figuring out how a plane with range of 2100 miles needs to be refueld to get to Memphis, i wouldnt be sitting here blogging. Or, they could get a fuel pump that works at -9F ... which happens 2-3X per year at DIA.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.6

Lighting and Health

2011-01-31T11:22:00.001-08:00

This is a broad topic, and I'll go so far as to say the lighting industry hasn't scratched the surface, and the medical community seems to have just started. I was poking around related to Irlen's Syndrome that I heard about at ArchLED, and found an interesting snippet on Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_sensitivity

There are a lot of health issue possibilities there and really we only hear about supressed melatonin caused by light exposure at night (ditched that blue or green alarm clock yet) and the effect that might have on cancer rates.

As we design lighting, how are the criteria sorted? Cost is always number one, but what about the costs of the other items? You can get lowest installed cost, put a bunch of people in the office sace, and then folks have decreased production, be it from real illnesses or simply not being able to do their task at peak efficiency because the just can't see.

Food for thought.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.6

"Green"?

2011-01-12T14:31:00.000-08:00

You might think I search out these articles proving that 90% of the sustainable world is bunk. Well, they just flow right in on the Twitter. TreeHugger is all about being sustainable. They have more than once touted things I think are bogus. This time I can't add or subtract from anything I read in what is proposed by our illustrious homebuilders (backed by continued BS from DOE and LEED) as the gold 9or should I say "platinum"?) standard in house. As a fan of M*A*S*H, I will quote Colonel Potter: "HORSE HOCKEY!"

No matter what your stance, go read this and apply it to what you do with lighting: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/builder-concept-home-2011.php

Bravo for trying to make an impact, but can't we all agree that lip service to sustainability is not as good as ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING!?

Food for Thought on Retrofits

2011-01-06T11:47:00.001-08:00

From Seventh Generation: http://www.seventhgeneration.com/learn/ask-science-man/question-rdemore

They make great products BTW.

I think the best idea is to PROPERLY clean and keep the carpet you have if it isnt old and goopy.

Same goes for lighting. There are whole bunch of nice retrofit options from Lithonia where you can take 3 and 4 lamp T8 and T12 and go to T5, T5HO, or HPT8 and get reasonable payback. http://www.lithonia.com/Relight/index.html

My two-bit opinion is that throwing out carpet (old troffer) to buy new bamboo (LED troffer) is not really sustainable. Please argue the point; that's why this is here.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Lighting Person of the Year

2010-12-21T13:27:00.000-08:00

Edison Report is interesting in a way. I often find things there that you wouldn't get elsewhere; now, you have to care about Cooper and Acuity quarterly profit, and since I sold my stock 5+ years ago. But you get an interesting article here and there. Worth a check every other week.

Well, I went to check in my afternoon avoidance of work ... um ... er ... break and I find that Jim Broderick of DOE is their Person of the Year. I then read the comment below the post on that, and I'm not clear if he gets the title because of doing good or bad.

I have big qualms because (as has been blogged roughly 846357 times), you can do better than the best LED luminaire efficacy today with the most generic lensed troffer (and let's not pretend that LED luminaires are in general giving us all kinds of great shielding or anything close to aesthetics) 2GT8 2 32 MVOLT GEB10IS ... becasue what nobody seems to want to factor in is that you have a 0.63 LLF for the LED and a 0.77 for a T8. Crummy F32T8/7800 is 2800 lumens. 80% fixture efficiency. 0.88 BF. All that comes out to 3548 lumens at 59W or 60 lumens per Watt ... right where the LED people get all excited that they have achieved a miraculous new benchmark in greatness.

And oh yeah, that 60 lpW costs you not more than $100. How much was that LED thingy again?

Again, blogged on it before, won't be the last time, if you spend roughly $10 on that $100 troffer, you cna get a High Performnace T8 system with a QHE ballast ISL-SC (0.78BF, 42W) and operate a FO28/835/XP/SS/ECO (2725 lumens) lamp and get 3231 lumens at 42W or 77 lpW.

Anyone know where i can get 77 lpW out of a LED luminaire that gets me nominally 3000 lumens ... for $110? Sorry, I can't hear you over those chirping crickets. Now, if you'd like to pay $200 for that "fancy new efficacious beauty", we can work a deal.

Why does the guy pushing expensive and non-efficacious technology get anything but a poke in the ribs? Kinda sad. If the DOE truly cared about energy savings, they would be pouring Super Big Gulps of HPT8 Kool-Aid.

Macy's to Retrofit 86 Stores to LED PAR38 Lamps

2010-12-14T08:00:00.000-08:00

From TreeHugger:

Macy's stores around the country are about to get a lighting makeover that will curb the company's energy consumption by a huge amount. Retrofitting over 117,000 43-watt halogen-based bulbs used for accent lighting in 86 department stores with 17-watt LED bulbs from Philips -- custom designed for the stores, of course -- will help Macy's trim their electricity use by a whopping 73%.

According to Environmental Leader, the custom-designed Philips EnduraLED PAR38 SP15 lamps (say that three times fast) are rated for a 45,000 hour lifespan. That means they'll last practically forever and their energy efficiency will show Macy's a return on investment before the end of the first year. That is definitely impressive.

Also impressive is the fact that Macy's switch in light bulb preference will make it the first department store to use LEDs on a wide scale. But of course it isn't the first major chain of retailers to do so. Starbucks has earned green props through its initiative to switch 8,000 of its shops to LED lighting to help curb its carbon footprint. As manufacturers get better at crafting a warm tone for LED bulbs, its likely most businesses will find the long-lasting, energy sipping bulbs a perfect alternative.

How Much Fuel Does it Take to Power a Lightbulb for a Year

2010-12-13T09:54:00.000-08:00

I found this via TreeHugger, but it comes from GOOD. Both of them are interesting sites on the whole. I suppose somebody would say you need to have a liberal bent, but I didn't say "drink the Kool Aid" I just think it is an interesting read.

Well, "good" isn't what I'd call this graphic. Who runs anything all day every day in 2010? If they are, let's get the pitchforks. Or, let's legislate tiered energy ( or colloquially "power") bills instead of stuffing the CFL down the throat of the populace who doesn't want it. Smart or not, if the consumer won't take it, then move on ... next idea. We have conglomerate energy companies that have data. We can figure "subsistence energy use pretty easy". From there, why isn't the first tier all but free (because we are pretty much a bunch of socialists as it is) and the second tier takes you to $500 per month?

Seriously. Precious little gets the consumer to adopt intelligent technology (beyond the cool factor of smartphones and iPads ... and over-priced gadgety cars) more than hitting the ol' pocketbook. If you want to put a 100W incandescent "bulb" in every screw shell, knock yourself out. Leave them on all day and night ... but your energy bill will be $1000 you big fat jerk.

The second thought is why we don't legislate controls in residential construction. a wall-mount occupancy sensor is what, $25? How is it not clear to policy makers that focusing on the lamp is not the solution to our energy issues? But, look how long it took for commercial energy codes to force controls.

Then, we have the Lafayette, CO inspector who flat out says he doesn't have time even look at energy code or lighting because he is too busy worrying about life safety ... because we have massive fires that kills hundreds every day? That is another post.

I'm not the only one

2010-10-26T08:15:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of interesting sustainability blogs. TreeHugger has a lot of good articles that run the gamut of the built environment. Most time I read an article there, I find myself thinking about lighting; I'm cursed not being able to get rid of it from my brain.

This article is really a whopper. Not only does it discuss why we stupid Americans build 2X the house we can ever use (well, not me, we own a 1300 sqft townhouse), it has a great phrase at the end; "... we need to properly price energy to create an incentive to conserve". Read that again. Think about it.

I have said this for 4-5 years. If energy was dollars per kWh instead of pennies, then everyone would have no choice but to stop using it. "We" focus on stupid concepts like ethanol in order to offset gasoline in cars when there is no way we ever solve the problem that way; it is a bandage on a shotgun wound. That logic leads us to twisty CFL "bulbs" that everyone seems to hate (mostly out of ignorance), but they use 1/4 the energy. Band-Aid. Why is the first step not mandatory occupancy sensors? Who cares what you have installed if you don't ever turn it on?

Right now, as much as the pundits would argue otherwise, I say we are still in an early-adopter phase of "green". Most people are doing anything along the sustainably intelligent lines because they want to hug trees. Global warming, blah blah blah. Who cares if it is real? Who cares if we are causing it? No matter what, we run out of coal. We run out of oil. We run out of natural gas. Doesn't matter if any of it is causing global warming. We. Run. Out. ... and your kids might be alive to see some of it. Your grandchildren certainly will be.

What we need is a different economic process. You want to keep your 100W incandescent? Fine by me. That will be $50 to buy it please. $49.50 of which goes to fund thin-film PV or something else. Why do we only have a ban on new probe-start metal halide? That causes phase-out in what, 20 years ... only happens when the pulse-start retrofit kit (or does LED leapfrog that?) is cheaper than the probe-start ballast that keeps failing. How do you get adoption of a more efficacious technology?

"... we need to properly price energy to create an incentive to conserve"

How many veggie burger luminaires do we have?

2010-10-19T08:38:00.001-07:00

Read this blog from Car Talk. Jay Leno on cars is always interesting.

Have you heard the veggie burger theory? I hadn’t either, but it goes like this, according to Leno. “They make it look like a hamburger, but when you bite into it you go, ‘Phaaa, it doesn’t taste like a hamburger.’ Auto companies will take a Volkswagen Rabbit or something like that, pull the engine out, add in batteries, and now you have something that’s less than what you started with.”

Now let's get to lighting. Here is a LED luminaire. Before anyone even gets the idea, this is not a pick on LEDTronics session; just an example, and if it wasn't totally crap then I couldn't pick on it ... oh wait. Read all that gibberish and you see some great marketing. This "uses half the area of 4ft lamps" is my favorite; who cares? I've been at this lighting thing for 15 years and I don't recall picketing and strikes over the size of troffers in grid ceilings.

The "800" unit outputs 2753 lumens at 36W = 76 lpW. Not bad all-in-all; sure beats the 50 lpW a lot of these products tout as "great". However, I have to just laugh at it replacing a 2x4 troffer. Excuse me? What color is the sky in your universe? I yank open my trusty Acuity PSG (hey, if you like somebody else, you will find the same troffers with the same basic performance) and find a run-o-the-mill troffer. Let's say I want to be uber-green; I'm going for a 2-lamp with a Osram QHE ballast. i.e. "High Performance T8". There is another blog post on this subject, and please go read it; it will change how you spec troffers at minimum.

What we've got is a Lithonia 2GT8 G 2 32 MVOLT OS10ISX with a Osram FO28/835/XP/SS/ECO lamp. 82% efficiency. 2725 lumens per lamp. I get 3932 lumens total at 48W = 82 lpW. What do you think cost is on this thing? I'm not a pricing guy but the base troffer is not $50 and the options probably add maybe $10.

Do you think anyone makes a $60 LED troffer ... that is 7% less efficacy ... that likely doesn't even put out enough light to get you viable illuminance at 8x8 on center? I'll bet you the lowest price you get is at least 3X that. Who knows why.

‘Phaaa, it doesn’t taste like a hamburger.’

Hold the phone! A valid LED product?! Finally.

2010-10-14T12:15:00.000-07:00

Okay, so the title is a bit brutal, there are LED products that are valid, and by "valid" I do mean "for real lighting jobs under normal circumstances", por ejemplo:
- If your relamping plans involve the word "scaffolding", maybe LED is a good choice.
- If your project goals involve the words "LEED" (is that a word or a phrase or ...) and/or the name of a metal like silver, gold, or platinum, maybe LED is for you.
- Cove lighting
- anything where color is involved ... and I'm not talking about cool white as a color

What I keep hoping for (think back to recent posting on the promise of LED) is a real, normal, generic luminaire with LED as the source. Well, I think we finally have one that meets my uber-nerdy criteria for a proper LED luminaire. Gotham has 4" solid state downlights that absolutely kick the snot out of anything you can do with CFL (let's assume incandescent is dead since the DOE is on a mission to rid us of this useful plague).

For years there seems to be an objection to a 6" hole in a 8-9ft ceiling. Who knows why. Who knows why once The Decider finds out they are looking at 35-40% efficiency. You'd think logic would trump "gaping holes". So what I have seen a lot of is people using CFL because it is better than incandescent for the ol' power budget, but yet it doesn't output hardly any usable light. Good gravy.

With LED, we can have a 4" hole and calm the aesthetic nerves of that chunk of the industry while not creating ulcers on the ASHRAE 90.1 committee.

(Grant me some liberty with specific Watts please; none of know what gets shipped day-to-day.)

4" 26TRT = 590 lumens and 28W = 21 lpW with a 1.0 S/MH
4" 18TRT = 530 lumens and 19W = 28 lpW with a 1.0 S/MH (notice how aperture governs output?)
Can't get any more lamp into that due to heat ... onward and upward to the 5"-ers ...

5" 32TRT = 1050 lumens and 36W = 29 lpW with a 1.2 S/MH
Well, so much for that idea ... 32W is the cap there ... of we go to the 6"-ers

6" 42TRT = 1300 lumens and 48W = 27 lpW with a 1.0 S/MH
Again, can't cram a bigger lamp into that one. Why do I keep trying ot get more light out it you ask? Hold that thought.

8" 42TRT = 1800 lumens and 48W = 38 lpW with a 1.0 S/MH (still only 57% efficient)

:: drum roll :: (and why I stopped there)

Gotham ALED 35/18 4AR LS = 1600 lumens and 38W = 42 lpW with a 1.25 S/MH

Moral of the story? You can have a 4" hole that puts out the same light as a 8" hole (and BTW that is not 2X the hole, holes are seen by apparent area and that would be related to area; it is pi*16 versus pi*64, and that is then a factor of 4!) but it is 20% less power.

I'll ignore the fact that we have 4X the luminance out of our 4" wonder. Count your blessings, I just wrote something positive about LEDs.

What a "wonderful" solution

2010-10-13T11:05:00.001-07:00

We save all these Watts of energy with lighting, but then it seems to me we waste that effort (okay, I work from my house and live 3 blocks from the grocery store). But, how do we offset the use of fossil fuel when growing the stuff that makes the ethanol takes SO MUCH fossil fuel? Just. Flat. Stupid.

EPA to allow 15% ethanol in gasoline, up from 10% now - Drive On: A conversation about the cars and trucks we drive - USATODAY.com

Why is this on the Bagby blog? We do the same thing when we ship energy efficient products from China to Mexico for assembly and then ship them to jobs. Not all that much we can do about it, but it still makes just as little sense as covering the Earth in corn ... to satisfy probably 20% of the US demand.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.3

Is the technology really the better option

2010-10-12T11:38:00.001-07:00

I will let somebody else do most of my post for me.

E-Reader Versus Book: The Eco-Math | Ecological intelligence | Daniel Goleman

In the end, the high tech gizmo that is cool turns out not to be the best option. Are there enough posts here to allow you to connect the dots on what lighting things this study brings to mind?

Wouldn't it be too fabulous if we could have a dissection of lighting products like this? Get going on that Acuity.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.3

LED streetlights are good ... sorta

2010-10-11T14:45:00.000-07:00

The Lighting Research Center at RPI has released a new report through their National Lighting Product Information Program (NLPIP). If you haven't read any of the previous reports, there is some interesting stuff in there.

You can get a read-only version here. They will email you a printable file if you provide your email address here.

The abstract is below, but my synopsis of the synopsis is that you have 2X the life-cycle cost with no more than 10% power reduction over likely-installed HPS. I gave the report the ol' 3 minute read and will save the in-depth poring over for when I want to get to sleep 2 hours in advance of my body clock on my next Charlotte trip. Okay, it isn't that bad; the first sections look actually interesting in how they went about determining what to buy.

I will be freakishly optimistic and say that it is really good that we have only a 2X life-cycles cost (and no, there is no sarcasm to that); I am used ot seeing 4-6X for LED versus conventional in general (not just streetlights).

Abstract
The National Lighting Product Information Program (NLPIP) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Lighting Research Center (LRC) purchased 14 streetlights, identified by a specifier survey, between July and October 2009. Four used high pressure sodium (HPS), one used induction, eight used light-emitting diodes (LEDs), and one used pulse-start metal halide (PSMH) light sources. NLPIP determined how many of each type of streetlight were needed to illuminate 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometer [km]) of a collector roadway to meet the design criteria specified by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) RP-8-00 (R2005), the American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting (referred to as RP-8 below). NLPIP then calculated power demand and costs per mile.
NLPIP found that:
On average, the LED streetlights and the induction streetlight could be spaced only about one half the distance of the HPS and PSMH streetlights and still meet the RP-8 lighting criteria. If an HPS or PSMH streetlight system just meeting RP-8 is replaced with the LED or induction streetlights tested in this report on a one-for-one basis, the streetlight system will not meet RP-8.
The life cycle cost per mile is dominated by the initial and installation cost of the poles, not the initial cost of streetlights or any potential energy or maintenance cost savings. Because of the narrower pole spacing required to meet RP-8, the life cycle cost of the LED streetlights tested for this study is up to twice that of the HPS and PSMH streetlights tested.
On average, the LED streetlights require 1% and 10% less power per mile than the HPS streetlights tested in staggered and single-sided layouts, respectively. On average, the LED streetlights require 8% and 24% less power than the PSMH streetlight tested in single-sided and staggered layouts, respectively.
The street-side lumens metric is a useful parameter for comparing streetlight layout costs.
At the illuminance levels typical of collector roadways, power requirements for "white light" sources are 3% to 19% lower than HPS sources based on models of mesopic photometry.

LED Products

2010-10-01T14:16:00.001-07:00

LED luminaires is all the industry seems to talk about ... still.

I'm all about technology; love it. I blow money on it when it is totally not necessary, but I don't kid myself that I need a $5000 road bike and related gizmos. I know it is a want; I could have the same fun on an aluminum frame. It is cool. Nothing more or less.

David DiLaura wrote a wonderful editorial for the IESNA's Leukos in January of 2007 that questioned just this:

"What is disconcerting is not the waiting - any technology must be worked on and pass through initial and difficult problem-solving phases - but rather the untoward hype, promotion, and public policy influence the the promise of LEDs has generated."

Uh, almost 4 years later, I don't see that anyone could argue with that today anymore than they could in Jan 2007.

With the never ending blather on the promise of LED, why don't I see it moving more rapidly to being a truly valid solution for general area lighting? Haitz's Law doesn't apply to the actual release of product from manufacturers in an $8BB industry? Not that there aren't products. Gotham just today released a 4" downlight with 1800 lumens; that sure beats the snot out of what you get with any 4" CFL.

Sure, sure, there are myriad specialty applications that make sense, but if this thing is truly what "they" say it is, don't we need to have more progress than we have had over the last 4 years?

On the other hand, maybe the slow progress will stem the tide of fanaticism and we can settle into the reality of a 50,000-hour T8 lamp being just as good as an LED ... at 1/6th the cost.

Is the NCQLP Dead and I Missed It?

2010-09-29T08:57:00.000-07:00

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.

Great Sustainable Product

2010-09-28T13:09:00.003-07:00

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.

2 Lamps = 3 Lamps?

2010-09-28T13:09:00.001-07:00

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.

Why can't Eric just give me what I asked for?

2010-09-28T13:08:00.003-07:00

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 ...

What Will Make Us Sustainable?

2010-09-28T13:08:00.001-07:00

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 ...

Sustainable?

2010-09-28T13:07:00.001-07:00

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.

Bagby Blog Relaunch

2010-09-28T13:06:00.000-07:00

We are going to be blogging again. If you have suggestions, please let us know.