I recorded some test results today at our home office that I thought was an interesting case study in color temperature consistency, it launches an interesting question when it comes to LED’s.
First the background-In an effort to cut costs our budget people looked at the light bulbs we buy most of for our existing stores and went ahead and researched cheaper replacements. The lamp in question is a 35w halogen MR8.
We set up a 2000 hour test of the these lamps setting a base line at zero hour for illuminance and color temperature. Five different manufacturers were tested, each using 14 lamps. We recorded the data both from lamp to lamp and over time in 500 hour intervals. This interval was the 1000 hour mark. I won’t go into minute details on the test results but suffice to say even with our specified brand (the best performing of the group) there was major inconsistencies from lamp to lamp in both color temperature and measured illumination. Swings of as much as 200 kelvin could be reported in our best lamp and far greater in our worst.
The MR8 has never been a lamp with a good reputation, mostly because of the kind of performance issues we found in this examination. But it begs the question if our existing halogen sources are this inconsistent what is holding us back from more wide-spread use of the LED as a replacement? It’s detractors (I among them) saw color temperature as one of the biggest barriers to adoption, but after this test, I’m beginning to wonder if the right answer is a light source I won’t have to touch for 40,000 hours.
This post I will admit is going to be less informative and more anecdotal, but I think it’s observation worth noting. The lighting industry is incredibly small, especially if you isolate it to the US only. I went on a factory tour today to look at some decorative pieces, and during lunch, I mentioned one lighting manufacturer and as is almost always the case two (of the three) people in the room had worked for them at one point or another.
Manufacturers, distributors, and part suppliers all know each other and all talk. As a specifier I find it amazing how quickly one distributor or manufacturer will know about the supposedly competitive bids being sent of to clients. I think it stems from the career path of many in the architectural lighting industry. Many of us came from the theater and filtered into architectural lighting as the entertainment industry remains too small to sustain all those trained for it.
At our heart theater people are gossip kings and queens. Set more than one of us in a room and we’ll be talking about the rest of the industry in no time. As the distributor I met with today said, “it’s a very incestuous industry.” Then the manufacturer turned to me and said “by the way, how’s your old boss doing? We went to college together.”
What does this mean for specifiers out there? Just know that there are no secrets out there. Your projects are going to get talked about throughout the wider lighting community, but more over, you will likely be talked about by the wider community and some of your reputation will rest in the hands of those you meet and work with. Stay open and honest, and you’ll have nothing to fear.
So whether or not you believe the economic stimulus package will save us from unemployment Armageddon. The Treasury and Federal Reserve are doing something less news-making but more important to fixing the economy. They are attempting to stress-test the banks and assign market value to their assets. They will then go in and address the credit markets. Check out this Newshour interview with Tim Geithner on the plans.
I’m no economist, but not I, nor anyone I’ve talked to really knows if the Treasury plan is going to work or not, and if it does, how long it will take. The goal is free up private equity and get people lending again. The private financial sector is the only proper engine for long term economic growth and stability.
My question is…is the design and build industry ready for the turn around? Are we establishing not just plans for specific projects, but best practices that can be shared throughout the industry. When credit starts flowing again, facilities managers, owners and tenants are going to again start worrying about the cost of energy. Is our industry ready to address these concerns?
I wasn’t going to watch the Oscars last night. I was committed to not taking part in another celebrity worship-fest, but our Sunday evening was winding down, and there was precious little on. I love seeing new designs and so we turned to the Oscars to see what they came up with. I want to get this out in the open right up front, I thought the scenic design of the Oscars this year was excellent. Far better than it has been in previous years, especially in my lifetime. But I couldn’t help but wonder, in the world of event design (and since this is a one-nighter, its an event) is there some responsibility to be green?
How does one even attempt to go green when designing something like the Oscars-an event so divorced from reality? Economic realities were certainly scrubbed from the proceedings, gone was Oscar’s sensitivity to times of war when the actors wouldn’t wear gowns or tuxedos. Despite the greatest recession since the great depression, the stars were out in force, be-jeweled and ready to bask in the most self congratulatory event of the year. Where apparently just making a movie, any movie, captures the hearts and imaginations of everyone in the world.
I digress. In some ways Oscar Night represents everything classic hollywood, opulence, star power, glamour, how can that be made sustainable? The key element of the set was a 92,000 crystal valence curtain on the proscenium. Backlit with roving 2500 watt moving lights above a floor embedded with LEDs. Hundreds of theatrical fixtures burning at least 500 watts a piece. That’s just lighting, to say nothing of the footprint of all the rest of production, the transportation, the broadcasting.
As a culture do we need to start thinking about the sustainability of our cultural events? Or are we allowed to cut loose every so often and have a party?
Those of you who read my blog regularly know that I have been rather skeptical about the progress of LED’s. While I do believe they’ll play a major role in lighting design, I also believe they have some way to go before they’ll be “ready for primetime.” Enter the DOE and the L PRIZE. The Department of Energy initiative is designed to stimulate competition and innovation in the solid-state lighting arena by offering incentives to develop energy effiecient lighting sources that can replace our incandescent/halogen sources. From the L PRIZE website:
The L Prize competition will substantially accelerate America’s shift from inefficient, dated lighting products to innovative, high-performance products. Just as Thomas Edison transformed illumination over a century ago, the L Prize will drive innovation and market adoption.
The L Prize is the first government-sponsored technology competition designed to spur lighting manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to replace the common light bulb.
The DOE is offering support in terms of testing and financial backing to the most promising of innovations. I hope this kind of program will get LEDs ready for primetime. I’m always skeptical about government becoming the artibtor of quality, but here are the basic guidlines for the two running contests. I would love lighting geeks like me to weigh in on this one.
This is far off my usual topic of green building and way far from my expertise of lighting, but I thought this clip was highly informative as to how we got here.
First of all let me say if you’re on twitter and not following @sharishapiro you’re missing out on some of the best info and opinion on green building to be found. Her recent blog post Proposing a Band Aid, Where a Transplant is Requiredis a thought-provoking piece about the short comings of the forth coming stimulus package the president is helping to push through congress. To quote:
The problem with the stimulus package and the proposed amendments is not the amount of the allocations, or even the worthiness of some of the programs, like higher education and healthcare. Rather, it is the fundamental perspective on the American economy that it represents.
I just wonder if we in the green building community have lost our sense of scope when it comes to change and nature of government in the US. While I share a desire to see the future of energy use and building in the US forever altered and I believe we need the federal government’s help in getting there, I can’t help but wonder if our disappointment is misplaced. Didn’t we used to think that the government’s role was in passing legislation, not funding every green project we ever imagined?
The fact is if the economy hadn’t slid into this horrendous tail spin we would never see a spending/stimulus bill this massive coming from Washington, and in truth it wouldn’t have been warranted. Perhaps we should take the president at his word. That the primary purpose of this bill is to get people to work, to stimulate demand in the economy and break the downward trend. Not fulfill the agenda of the liberal left in one massive bill passed within 3 weeks of taking office. Candidate Obama never promised us such a thing, and at one point he even said paraphrasing:
I didn’t come to Washington fixing to spend $850 billion
Shari points out in her post that total “green” stimulus equals $62.7 billion. Hold that figure in your head for a second. That amount of green spending from the federal government is huge. Is it big enough to totally change the nature of building in America, not even close. Is it a start? I think so. Does it need to be augmented by strenuous energy code changes and green building incentives? You bet. Most of all does it need to be augmented by the free flow of private capital to get some of these major projects off the ground? Overwhelmingly yes.
Perhaps what we in the green building movement should focus on is advocating for the kinds of regulations that will stimulate private investment in energy saving projects in the private sector. Perhaps we should make sure that the larger agenda isn’t forgotten as the President tends to the meltdown left by his predecessor. This bill was not to be the answer to the prayers of any one group or interest, but a life line to a nation in economic peril.
I came across this article this morning. San Luis Obispo is now looking into regulating light pollution generated by the city so as to improve views of the night sky. The debate on public outdoor lighting always seems to fall between two factions, those concerned with safety and those concerned with aesthic beauty…
“I can’t really see the constellations at night. I do believe I get headaches from it,” said Mallory Caloca.
Others say the lights aren’t a problem at all. In fact, some say there should be more well-lit areas.
“With our women and children in these parking lots, I think they need to have even more light for their protection,” said Willie McAfee.
Not mentioned in this article was the possible adoption of Dark Sky Regulations. The regulations vary from location to location, but the most common feature of these rules is that outdoor lighting fixtures must ensure zero light emits above the 90 degree plane of the fixture. Manufacturers have worked to create fixtures that fulfill this requirement. The idea being that safety is ensured for public areas light parking lots and paths, but the night sky is left unencumbered by spill lighting from the street.
Any Konstructicons have a take on Dark Sky Regulations? These have been controversial in the past, I for one generally believe dark sky is a good guideline if decided upon by a municipality in a democratic way. Forcing dark sky or really any lighting requirement on a town almost never works.
Sometimes I think that as much as the “green” movement is about change its really about getting back to basics in design. Principles we all learned (or should have) at a young age. Sometimes I think it’s about remembering a little history.
I’ll give you an example related to light and see if you haven’t had a similiar experience. This morning like many in a New York winter, I emerged from the subway to enter into an exceedingly bright (if not frigid) midtown Manhattan morning. My eyes immediately adjusted to the bright sunlight and I made my three block walk to my building. Here’s where things get a bit dodgy. Walking through the glass doors my eyes always have a tendency to squint down a bit the lobby is always utterly dark in comparison to the bright morning light, the same lighting levels that seem entirely appropriate in the late evening, are far too low for my sunlight-exposed eyes. Then I enter the elevator and this entirely interior space is about 400% brighter than the lobby was, my eyes attempt to tap dance their pupils back down to adjust when all the sudden the elevator doors open and I’m on my floor. Halogen sources over-light surfaces of the office despite the perfectly adequate sunlight streaming in the windows.
Remind you of where you might work or play? Basic knowledge of our relationship to light would have dictated something much different and much less energy consumptive. Makes me wonder, when we design spaces are we designing them for the humans that will inhabit them? Or are we lost in our own aesthetic dreams?
I came across 
Sometimes I think that as much as the “green” movement is about change its really about getting back to basics in design. Principles we all learned (or should have) at a young age. Sometimes I think it’s about remembering a little history.