At Lightfair International 2011, marketers of LED lighting filled the exhibit halls. More than 20,000 attendees were able to check out LEDs of every imaginable configuration and wattage for an endless range of applications.
But I found my most interesting experience while attending a seminar entitled “Is LED the Answer?”
Frankly, the presentation was a much needed breath of fresh air. Skillfully delivered by Cheryl Ford, a lighting industry veteran and application marketing manager for OSRAM Sylvania, the presentation provided a sensible even-handed evaluation of LED along with several other energy-efficient lighting choices, comparing their performance, advantages, and disadvantages.
This topic interested me for the simple reason that the constant flow of news and publicity regarding LED lighting technology has nearly drowned out conversation about any other choices among energy-efficient lighting technologies. Fortunately, I was pleased to hear a fair and balanced discussion that aimed to answer the question “When does it make sense to consider using available LED lighting solutions?”
Over the past several years, LED hype—including strong support from the U.S. Department of Energy—has worked overtime in order to convince everyone with a pulse that solid-state lighting, and LED lighting in particular, would conquer the commercial lighting market thanks to its miserly energy consumption.
But hold on! According to Ford’s thoughtful presentation, lighting professionals should carefully compare several factors to determine when LED lighting provides a superior choice, and in so doing, they/we will find other lighting technologies that often make more sense as a current solution.
Some observations and examples from Ford’s discussion included actual measurements made by project lighting designers:
- Total cost of ownership has become a more critical measurement of intrinsic value for a particular lighting technology.
- The interest level in induction lighting systems has grown greatly driven by the 100,000-hour lamp life, energy efficiency comparable to LED, and cost effectiveness.
- Ceramic metal halide electronic systems provide very efficient and cost-effective track lighting.
- Extended life T8 fluorescent systems can deliver 55,000-hour lamp life with many alternatives to choose from, including high-efficiency electronic instant start, type CC and LSC, programmed-start paralleled wired, and bi-level dimming ballasts.
- Retrofit replacement using LED low-wattage post-top fixtures can typically save 50% of energy.
- General Nutrition Centers’ lighting retrofit project lowered energy costs by $1.1 million annually by replacing 55,000 halogen 75W PAR30 lamps with LED 15W PAR30 track lighting; generating a simple payback in under one year at $0.11/kWh national average.
- Higher-wattage LED units can result in sticker shock due to the increased number of LEDs required to boost lumen output.
It was good to see LED lighting making substantial progress as illustrated by a growing number of successful case study projects. But it was also refreshing to hear a lighting expert clearly point out numerous applications and completed projects where lighting designers had concluded their best choice was a lighting technology other than LED.
Obviously it is a manufacturer’s smartest bet to point out the benefits represented by each lighting technology the company markets. But as shown by this presentation, as promising as LEDs are, there’s still plenty of room for many other lighting solutions.
Disclaimer