 |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
Ilsung Moolsan Selects Bridgelux Arrays for its LED Downlights at Sheraton Hotel in Seoul's D-Cube City |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
US State Dept Uses LED Retrofits From Silvermere Group
SSLDesign News Staff
November 1, 2011...The US Embassy in Sri Lanka has converted its warehouse lighting from high-pressure sodium (HPS) bulbs to LED, using high-performance LED retrofit kits from Silvermere in the existing high-bay fixtures. Silvermore notes that HPS bulbs produce low quality light with orange hue and poor color rendering. They produce a lot of heat and require costly replacement every few years. Silvermore says, LEDs offer much longer lasting light, increased energy efficiency and higher quality of light with excellent color rendition.
The Embassy warehouse was using 250w HPS bulbs & ballasts in 30 high-bay fixtures. The total power draw of the lighting system was about 8.25kw. Working with Silvermere, the Embassy decided to replace the 250w HPS bulbs & ballasts with US made 98 W LED retrofit kits in the existing 14” diameter high-bay fixtures.
SSL Design PageTwo members login for more. Guests can view membership details.
EPA Publishes First Draft of Energy Star Lamp Specification
SSLDesign News Staff
October 27, 2011...The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published the first draft of its Energy Star Lamps V 1.0 specification at at www.energystar.gov/lamps. The Lamps specification is intended to replace the Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs, V4.2) and Integral LED Lamp (V1.3) specifications. The EPA is seeking review and comment on the specifications before December 9. The published Lamp specification is presented along with a cover letter.
The EPA says on its energy star web site, "Interested parties who would like to participate in this process who are not already CFL or Integral LED Lamp partners are encouraged to send their contact information to lamps@energystar.gov to be added to the distribution list for specification development updates." The EPA says that it will update the web page periodically when there are new developments.
The Energy Star Lamps specification is limited to lamps intended to be connected to the electric power grid. Notably, certain types of lamps are not included in the EPA's Lamps Specification. Lamps that operate on an external ballast, driver or transformer; lamps powered by an internal power source, e.g. solar; lamps with other power-consuming features that do not provide useful illumination; lamp technologies without applicable industry standardized methods of measurement; lamps with bases not detailed in ANSI standards; and Zhaga-standardized LED light engines are all not included.
The draft includes proposals for performance requirements beyond efficacy. One proposal in the draft is for a minimum rated lumen maintenance lifetime requirement of 10,000 hours for LED lamps. The draft also includes proposed requirements for: photometric performance, lumen maintenance and reliability, luminous intensity distribution, electrical performance, lamp toxic reduction, dimensions, lamp labeling and packaging.
Cree Introduces Improved XLamp MT-G LEDs
LIGHTimes News Staff
October 27, 2011...Cree has introduced its new XLamp MT-G LEDs. Cree notes that the new MT-G LED is more than 10 percent brighter, and can deliver up to 1670 lumens at 85C in warm white (3000K) color temperatures. Additionally, MT-G LEDs are now available in high CRI versions for applications such as retail and restaurant lighting where high CRI and lighting uniformity are required. Cree points out that this new level of performance can both extend existing MT-G designs, and enable applications traditionally supported by halogen light sources.
XLamp MT-G LEDs are reportedly now available with brighter flux and with 90-minimum CRI options. Cree also offers more than 6,000 hours of IESNA LM-80 published lifetime data for the new MT-G, which can assist with Energy Star® qualification. The MT-G LEDs have color temperature options ranging from 2700K to 5000K. They are available in 2- and 4-step EasyWhite™ color temperatures, with the option of either 6V or 36V forward voltages.
SSL Design PageTwo members login for more. Guests can view membership details.
Philips Sheds New Light on Rembrandt Masterpiece
SSLDesign News Staff
October 27, 2011...Royal Philips Electronics (Philips) announced that starting on October 26, that a renowned painting titled, the Night Watch, by Rembrandt van Rijn will be bathed in LED lighting from Philips. Founder of the renovated Amsterdam Rijksmuseum, is now presenting the famous work in LED light. According to Philips, the LED light brings out the best of the painting’s color palette while offering increased sustainability and energy efficiency. LED lighting is a natural choice for museum displays. Not only is it energy efficient and rarely requires maintenance, it also does not produce UV light, which can damage precious works of art.
The 5-year extension of the partnership between Philips and the museaum was sealedin the Rijksmuseum by Frans van Houten, CEO of Philips, and Wim Pijbes, General Director of the Rijksmuseum. The Night Watch was relit for the museum renovation with Philips' LED lighting and an advanced light control system.
SSL Design PageTwo members login for more. Guests can view membership details.
Our news features are reported
by the SSL Design staff writers.
For submissions or content suggestions, you can contact us using
editor -at - solidstatelightingdesign.com
For more information and to reserve promotion space contact
Info7 -at - solidstatelightingdesign.com
or call +1 (512) 257-9888
|
Commentary & Perspectives...
Commercial LED Lighting efficiency standards should not be too stringent
Tom Griffiths - Publisher
October 25, 2011...A very substantial issue of concern that came up at the just-completed SSL Summit NYC is that a fixed efficiency "threshold" on solid state lighting products can represent an arbitrary number that utilities end up wrapping their incentives around, when the "economic" solution would be to optimize the initial costs and efficiency given the local cost of energy. A few more lumens/watt, for example, really isn't useful if it drives product costs up by a disproportionate percentage. I would contend that the utilities and rebate providers are looking for an assurance of accurate specs, light quality and useful life, and that with those, they can easily set their own optimum thresholds. Do we really need sets of fixed "threshold" efficacy given that it will, to some degree, distort and limit the technological and economically-efficient solutions? Similarly, should 'incentive specs', as we'll call them, delve into how efficient certain parts of the lighting system need to be? I'll float a pair of answers out here as "No, they shouldn't, and no they shouldn't".
Now just for the case of clarity, we need to point out that lots of good work has been done with regard to incentive specs to help improve consumer understanding of which solutions should be good, and which should be more carefully considered. Energy Star is the prime example of a spec that began to be crafted several years ago, and provided some important metrics that were designed to protect consumer expectations. The underlying philosophy was that consumers were sadly disappointed by the initial crop of CFL light bulbs, and as a result, US consumers in particular were slow to adopt this energy and money saving technology. Still are, actually. Using Energy Star type criteria to evaluate the "value" of an LED replacement lamp (aka LED light bulb) makes perfect sense. The challenge comes when a specific lumen-per-watt efficiency number, along with CRI and other values, are assigned as the threshold for the pass/fail grade. And really, the pass/fail isn't an issue, so much as what decisions are made as a result of the pass/fail, most notably when it comes to energy efficiency rebates and incentives. It's clearly a case where the desire to support a public objective (save energy), is translated to a metric, which limits the economic choice, and economic efficiency, of the purchaser.
In this day and age when people often seem to spend more time dumbing themselves down than getting educated at least to the common sense level, it can be hard to argue that something like Energy Star isn't the best practical approach when it comes to consumers. Seems to me that folks can read labels, and could understand that X number of lumens are needed to do the job, that more lumens per watt are better, and that they need to balance that brightness and efficiency versus their budget and use. Water heaters and other appliances do a good job of simple labeling to let the consumer know how much water they'll use, and/or how much the energy costs will be for average use at an average energy price. Common sense. But common sense is one of the least common of the senses, so OK, we have a threshold for consumers, and let's just hope it's high enough to make a reasonable energy-saving impact, but low enough that it doesn't price the technology away from rapid adoption.
When it comes to commercial purchasers, however, one would hope that we're dealing with adults who can do simple cost-benefit analyses for the goods and services they obtain. Every restaurant owner or retail store operator could be expected to have the basic grasp of what color temperature they need and how bright they want the space. The concept of ROI should not be foreign to them, nor should they have a challenge with how many hours per day they use their lights, how much energy that would mean at XX watts, and how much that should cost. If their energy cost are Y-cents per kWh, the total cost of operation over the life would be Z, and if it costs 30-cents per hour, then Z would be a bigger number. Should be simple enough for them to then figure out Z for a 50 lpw (lumen-per-watt) choice, versus a 70 lpw, compare that to the purchase cost, and make a decision. Better color rendering from one or the other? Factor that in to the subjective part of the decision making. So naturally, we might ask, "But what if they don't know how to do that, or don't understand the differences in CRI or omni-directionality?" (or beam angle for the PAR-style bulb, or whatever). Well then, the buyers who don't invest in the knowledge about things important to their business will end up operating at a disadvantage to their more-knowledgeable competitors, and as a result, will operate with lower profits and will possibly be driven out of business. That's how it's supposed to work. Economic ignorance is not supposed to be rewarded, nor should we protect business owners who apply it. Plus, the need for education creates other opportunities for exceptional performance, as LED lighting suppliers can step up and provide the education on their labels, in their ads, with product inserts, on their websites and (oh my) through their sales forces. The manufacturers that provide better education will enjoy more brand strength, which can translate to higher market share, improved margins, and will put some hurt on the suppliers that don't bring that added-value to the customer relationship. Again, that's how it's supposed to work!
Artificial thresholds distort this process, especially if they are what you could consider to be 'a technical stretch'. Maybe we could leave out the thresholds and let informed market participants decide what's best for their business, and if they choose not to be informed, the market will spit them out (or force them to become informed to be more efficient economic participants). That applies equally to the incentive providers, as well as the incentive partakers. We can produce more overall benefit not by accepting one luminaire at 60 lpw, and rejecting one that is only 59.5 (but costs 30% less), but through some form of "quality assurance" that allows users simple confidence that the specs and lifetimes are accurate. Ultimately, that's what they are using for their value and ROI calculations, so let's address it where the rubber meets the road. Maybe that can become a useful role for organizations such as the Design Lights Consortium or Energy Star for commercial users. If we have to justify it with a threshold, fine, but make it something that isn't a technical stretch. At first glance, it appears that the fresh draft of Energy Star for Lamps (Light Bulbs) Version 1.0 is doing just that (way to go Alex and team!). By the way, comments are accepted until December 9, as described in the cover letter, so if you have a stake, comment. As a technology-neutral platform, the first draft has set minimum lifetimes at 10,000 hours, efficacy in the range of 40-60 lumens-per-watt, and even added a 5-minute-on/5-minute-off cycling that represents a more realistic model for occupancy sensor use. All are specs that should be achievable for the incumbent CFLs, and a slam-dunk for LEDs, without penalizing the newer technology simply for being better. Level the field, let knowledge find its natural path into the market, and we'll see things operate more efficiently not only with regard to energy savings, but also in the wider sense of more opportunity for prosperity for all.
Current PageTwo members may access extended content by logging in here
or Sign up for a SSL Design PageTwo membership now
Copyright 2007 by Veriphos Communications. LLC
Content under license