Have you taken a moment recently to check out what a customer sees when they first approach your business? Do not just examine the lot at noon, when it is bright and sunny. You need to visit your parking lot when it is dark, especially if your business is still courting customers after the sun goes down. You will probably discover that the lighting in your parking lot is not adequate. There are three main reasons you want to have a parking lot with LED Lighting.

Appearance

A poorly-lit lot looks unprofessional and uninviting. This is the first impression your business will make, and you want it to be a positive one. We understand the importance of “leaving the light on” for your customers and we want to help you look good. You want customers to feel like they are welcome, and proper lighting is one way to do that.  Smart Energy will evaluate your parking lot and help you improve your curb appeal and reduce your costs!

Security

This is a huge responsibility. Your customers are coming to your business to spend their hard-earned money. When they pull into your parking lot, you are essentially responsible for their safety. You do not want to make headline news because a customer fell in the dark and suffered some horrible injury. That is certainly not the kind of free press you want to attract.

You also have the responsibility to protect your employees. If they are coming and going in the dark, you want to make sure that they have adequate lighting to see the way to their vehicles. You also have to consider the unpleasant folks in this world who skulk about under the cover of darkness.  Smart Energy’s parking lot solutions provide ample light to satisfy any safety concerns.

Are You Open or Closed?

If your parking lot is dark, most customers will assume that you are closed. This obviously leads to lost revenue, and anybody in business world knows that this is a major issue. If a customer has to question whether you are open or not, you know you have a problem. The parking lot should be bright during business hours and maintain enough light after the business has closed to provide security for your building, but not so bright as to give customers the impression that you are open. Smart Energy will help you install a few lights that are programmed to stay on after hours for security purposes without sending the wrong message to customers. Contact us at for your free assessment at 727-389-0582.

Abandonment

Abandonment deductions enable a business to take a deduction on any property placed into service and then taken out of service before being fully depreciated over the course of its respective useful life. When assets are retired or removed, they are taken off a company’s books (when you relight a facility, you essentially remove the old lighting). Smart Energy Technologies calculates the value of these retired assets and provides all of the necessary documentation needed to claim these tax deductions.

1245/1250

Often when a property is renovated or built some of the additions are considered personal property by the IRS. These assets know as 1245 category assets can be depreciated much faster than the conventional lighting in a building.  Not all lighting qualifies as a 1245 asset, but in retail and some other specific location the benefits can be significant.

Repairs vs. Capitalization

Application of the new repair regulations requires an in-depth understanding of various tax cases and “circumstances” that must be met. Structural components of a building include items with a long tax life (generally 39, 27.5 or 15 years) such as lighting, roofs, HVAC systems, interior and exterior walls, etc. The new regulations allow you to assign a value to those items and write them off when replaced.

Improvements

The regulations continue to require capitalization of amounts paid to improve a unit of tangible property. A unit of property is improved if amounts are paid for activities performed by the taxpayer resulting in:

Betterment

• Amelioration of Pre-Existing Defect
• Material Addition: Expansion/Enlargement
• Material Increase in Productivity or Quality
• Routine Maintenance – Safe Harbor
• Building Refresh

Restoration

Replacement of Component for Which Loss Recognized on Disposition or Casualty

• State of Disrepair: No Longer Functional for its intended use
• Restored to “Like-New” after end of ADR life
• Replacement of Major Component or Substantial Structural Part

Adaptation

• New Use Not Consistent with Taxpayer’s Original Intended Ordinary Use
• Change to a new of different purpose

Conclusion

To take the deductions you need a 3^rd party who completes a certified report, you cannot use bonus depreciation for lighting.  Smart Energy Technologies brings to you significant savings and benefits when relighting or building a new building.

When discussing exterior lighting retrofits, inevitably LED Lighting is included in talks. LED Lighting has become the front runner of options with maintenance and engineering managers, as costs have come down and their reliability and flexibility has increased.

LED Lighting has emerged as a desired option for outdoor projects at institutional and commercial facilities for many reasons, but for 3 main reasons:

Focus. LED Lighting is a very compact source and produces a very directional light. In an outdoor situation where you’re working essentially from a point source, meaning a luminaire from the top of a pole, that’s going to spread the light out, and you need very precise angles and aiming. LED Lighting accomplishes just that. Unlike traditional lighting, which needs reflectors to try and redistribute the light output.

Control Flexibility.  LED Lighting is extremely control-friendly. So is you are looking for a light source to control with sensors or through a Building Automation System, LED Lighting provides superior control compatibility.

Performance. LED Lighting will reduce the maintenance cycle tremendously. It is like, “Set it and Forget it.” You install it and don’t ever worry about maintenance. Your initial investment will be a little higher than traditional lighting sources, but you’ll see savings in energy and maintenance instantly and over the life of the system.

For more information regarding Outdoor LED Lighting, contact Smart Energy Technologies at info@smartenergytec.com.

Installing sensors in your business can save you more money than changing out light bulbs. Even if you never use the sensors, it will save you 5%.

When you are analyzing energy and cost savings opportunities, look at spaces with limited use. Some examples of appropriate applications include copy rooms, restrooms, storage areas, conference rooms, warehouses, break rooms, corridors, filing areas, any space that remains unoccupied more than occupied. You can install a motion sensor and instantly cut 40,50 and even 70% of the energy consumption.

Here is an example to quantify the savings. Your office is 10,000 sq-ft and is illuminated by 250 4 lamp 40 watt T12 fixtures. So, each fixture is 192 watts of power and your annual operating hours are 2,080. You would need 30 ceiling-mount sensors and 9 wall-mount sensors. Assuming a 30% reduction in operational hours, you would save $2,100 a year. With a rebate of $2,400 from your power company, you achieve a payback of 18 months.

Bringing this post back to my title, your local Utility company wants and incentives you to implement sensors in your business. Now I know what you are thinking, My power company is a big meany and does want me to save money. Matter of fact, they want me to spend more. Yes, their business model is built off energy demand and use. The flip side is, Utility companies know business can not grow successfully if they are tethered to a ball and chain. And without business growth and expansion, there is no new demand. Most Utility Companies give $20-$50 per sensor or base it off the hours reduced. That all depends on the scope of use.

Want to know what rebates you may receive? dsireusa.org is a great place to find out what type of energy improvement rebates are available to your business and your home.

Smart Energy Technologies is an LED lighting Design and Development Company that offers a forward thinking LED Retrofit program, called Smart Energy Efficiency Lease Program or SEEL program. It is among only a very few, select companies available in the United States that provides the LED retrofit lighting assistance and LED Lighting systems with guaranteed positive cash flow and no out-of-pocket cost. Smart Energy makes it possible for buildings to achieve guaranteed energy cost savings with an unbelievable positive cash flow with energy saving LED lighting. Smart Energy provides a distinctive 5-year warranty on the lighting installed, with the option of a 15 year insurance policy. After the LED lighting retrofit, the building will enjoy an energy efficient lighting system at no cost, an immediate positive cash flow guaranteed, 5 year warranty, and will become a “Green Business” by reducing carbon emission.

SEEL LED Retrofit Program & Financing Strategy

• Smart Energy Efficiency Lease Program brings you innovative lighting redesign and LED Retrofit program to match IESNA specifications
• ZERO out of pocket expense.
• Guaranteed reduction in your energy bill.
• POSITIVE CASH FLOW – realize cash back from day one after the retrofit is complete.
• 5 year all-inclusive protection plan. We mean everything.
• Your building will enjoy energy efficient lighting and become eco-friendly business.
• Several buildings are now enjoying the benefits of this unique LED retrofit program. Simply request a No Cost Site Evaluation to see if your building qualifies for the retrofit program with Smart Energy financing.

It’s not that difficult

Imagine driving a 1970 Ford F250 390 cubic inch motor, getting 9 mpg. You are given the opportunity to trade in your truck for a brand new 2014 Hybrid Chevy Sierra, with 23 mpg- FOR FREE. As well as driving a completely new fuel efficient truck, it is placed directly under a 5-year bumper to bumper maintenance plan that covers anything that could possibly go wrong. Additionally you get money back in your pocket to pay for fuel.

Would you take that offer?

By starting our SEEL program you’ll be realizing substantial cost savings in a safe and guaranteed way.

Energy is integral to our businesses. Clearly, there’s no way to completely get around energy costs. But the realities of rising energy costs and the impact on businesses cannot be ignored. High energy costs can put businesses at a competitive disadvantage and suck away resources needed for hiring, wage increases, expansion and new investments.

Fortunately, there are cost effective ways to reduce energy expenses. One of the more effective ways is to implement Energy Efficient Lighting, i.e. LED Lighting. LED Lighting will improve light quality, while reducing cost. The savings can be as much as 80%, and in some cases more.

With that said, finding a company that is in alignment with your measurements of success can be an undertaking.  Here are five tips to help you choose the right LED lighting company:

1. Understand the fixture manufacturer’s claims including the performance of the products, up-front equipment costs, ongoing energy and maintenance costs and after-sale support.
2. Request a “Proof of Concept”. Evaluate the quality of the LED light by comparing the light output and efficiency to your benchmark tests.
3. Evaluate the performance of the LED lighting fixture with your benchmark data and the manufacturer’s photometric reports.
4. Verify the manufacturer’s claims for light and energy performance. I.e., lumen output, lumen maintenance test and IES files.
5. Review the installation requirements for LED lighting fixtures and ensure that your new fixtures are compliant to the National Electric Code requirements for installation of light fixtures.

Energy-efficient lighting retrofits offer an extraordinary chance to cut operating costs and improve lighting quality. But, along with the opportunity for improvement comes the opportunity for mistakes.

1. Choosing the Wrong Team

Energy efficiency is more than the pursuit of energy savings. People are your most important and productive asset, so work-environment quality is critical. A gain in energy savings can be offset by a loss in productivity if quality is not part of the evaluation.

A good partner is just as much an experienced consultant as a provider of equipment and installation services. Beware of “overnight experience” in energy efficiency. If you choose a quality partner, you’ll go a long way toward avoiding the 8 other costly mistakes.

2. Neglecting Front-line People

Sure, savings are important, but tenants and occupants will work in the new environment for years to come; if they don’t like it, someone’s going to hear about it. The best way to avoid complaints is to involve your associates from the start. Solicit ideas from experts and others who have completed similar projects. Keep maintenance personnel in consideration, think about replacement of wearable parts down the road, and be sure to include ease of maintenance in all specifications.

3. Calling in Experts Too Late

Before committing to a project, call in the experts. View your energy-services vendor as a partner, not just a supplier. Be sure your partner can stand behind every statement and warranty. When it comes to project management, you should expect these things from a true energy-services partner:

• Establishment of goals for savings and facility comfort and quality.
• Identification of project requirements.
• A comprehensive audit.
• Proposal development and opportunity to redesign.
• Testing and evaluation.
• Implementation.
• Be sure you clearly outline to all prospective vendors that this is what you want, and be sure you get it.

4. Underestimating the Importance of an Audit

A retrofit is not like a new construction project – there’s no set of blueprints to start from, and usually no pressing construction schedule to keep. It’s the building audit or survey that establishes the foundation for all work to be performed. The audit is the basis for everything from evaluating the project’s financial worth to manufacturing and ordering parts.

Where can things go wrong? There’s the potential for mistakes in identifying existing equipment, its location, and the recommended replacement. There’s the potential to transpose numbers and make errors in tabulation of inventory and scheduling. At Smart Energy Technologies, technicians use hand-held computers to identify fixtures and equipment by building, floor, room, suite and other vital information. This becomes the blueprint for equipment selection, installation, verification, and billing.

5. Using the Wrong Approach

Manufacturers want you to buy their products – even if they portray them as “generic” as part of an overall installed solution. The trick is to get lighting, HVAC, motors, drives, and other energy-using equipment to work together. When you use a systems approach, you can achieve maximum savings and improve quality.

First, establish your objectives for light level, temperature, airflow, and hours of operation, and don’t assume that anything you have must stay the same. For example, most overhead lighting creates unacceptable glare on computer screens, and most desk work can be done with task lighting; a redesign of the entire lighting system may save much more energy than simply changing the existing equipment to the most efficient.

The only way you know you’re making the best choices for energy efficiency is to look at the entire building as a system.

6. Buying Based on Price

Energy-saving retrofit projects bought on price alone are usually a false economy. The few pennies saved upfront can cost thousands in lost savings, increased maintenance costs, and losses in worker productivity. Since the energy savings are paying for the project, why not choose higher quality and avoid risky situations, even if it means adding a few months to the payback?

Ask a qualified contractor to quote the steps of analyzing, designing, and installing a retrofit project, and you’ll know the fair market value for these services. Beware of the company that undercuts the going market price; it’s easy for vendors to cut price if they know how. They can:

• Use untrained labor.
• Substitute lower-grade material or use less material.
• Bid unreliable or untested technology.
• Supply discontinued products from vendors.
• Use a commodity design instead of a custom product.
• Cut corners on installation.
• Skip permits.
• Fail to pay suppliers.
• Ignore UL requirements.

To an untrained observer, these tactics may go unnoticed, so establish criteria for product quality, and the quality of the installation work and crews, and communicate this to potential vendors before sending out for quotations.

7. Failing to Scrutinize Proposals

Go back and look carefully at the proposals you have received. Check facts and figures; then, double check.

Most of the information you’ll need to make a decision is contained within the audit report: one more reason you can’t underestimate the value of the comprehensive audit and the complete, clear design proposal.

Another important point: Choosing a company without adequate financial resources can be dangerous. Invariably, there are always some adjustments to be made on a retrofit project. Your energy-services project provider must be able to absorb those costs and deliver as promised. An inability to pay suppliers, limited credit lines, or cash-flow problems can lead to delays and liens. If there are major problems, the customer becomes the natural focus for legal recourse.

8. Holding Back Too Long

There are two main reasons why companies hold back. One reason is corporate inertia. After all, the building is usually comfortable, and the lights still work; no one is complaining. With constant on-the-job pressures, who has the time for anything but today’s most urgent crisis? The other reason for delay is to wait for a new rate schedule, rebate, or technology.

But, the truth is, the savings you gain from a properly planned lighting retrofit almost always outweigh other considerations. Take advantage of energy savings now. Delaying a decision in anticipation of any future possibility means you’ll miss out on immediate savings.

9. Overlooking Opportunities

It’s a big mistake to believe that installing new equipment to save energy is “not in the budget.” That’s like saying you can’t afford to save money. The mere act of paying your electricity bill means there’s cash waiting to work for you.

To begin with, financial programs are available that will create positive cash flow from the start. In turn, a properly designed program virtually guarantees that your monthly savings will exceed your monthly payment.

If you’re a real estate developer or a building owner, make your space more competitive by upgrading to improved air-conditioning with better controls and better-looking light fixtures with appropriate light levels. An attractive, efficient building is one more step toward higher tenant retention.

Mistakes happen. Keep in mind that an energy-efficiency retrofit is more than the sum of component parts. These retrofit projects, by their very nature, require an educated buyer to sort through competing claims and ensure that quality and service are part of the evaluation process.

The study tested and demonstrated the improvements in visual acuity in students when switching from traditional, relatively low, Color Correlated Temperature (CCT) lighting to a higher CCT lighting product. The findings of this study are important when considering lighting for an environment that involves reading, writing, and environmental interaction.

Smart Energy offers a broad range of LED solutions to accommodate the needs of every customer. Products vary in size, wattage and color, enabling custom solutions for any application.

Overview

Past studies have shown that varying the ambient light spectrum of essentially white light but at fixed photopic levels affects the visual acuity of adults of all ages. In this study those results including the vision and energy savings implications are extended to young children.

Near visual acuity (obtained by utilizing Bailey‐Lovie letter charts adjusted for the typical reading condition of 400 mm distance) of 27 children aged 10‐11 years old was measured by a licensed optometrist under ceiling lighting provided by two different but readily available fluorescent lamps. The measurements were obtained in a room on the school premises outfitted with specially designed lensed luminaries that simultaneously housed both lamp types whose light levels were separately controllable by a wall mounted switch/control.

One lamp type was the traditional standard school fluorescent lamp of measured correlated color temperature (CCT) 3600 K while the other lamp was of higher color temperature with a measured CCT of 5500 K. The luminaries were specifically designed to provide equal luminance distributions for each lamp type.

Acuities were measured under three lighting conditions, either both lamp types providing equal task luminance or a condition where the task luminance of the 5500K lamp was set to a 50% lower value. The equal luminance conditions had the luminance at the eye of the tested student (in the direction of gaze) adjusted to the value 85 cd/m2. For the equal lighting condition, the Wilcox on sign test applied to the results showed that visual acuity was significantly better (PB/0.001) under the higher CCT lamp with 24 of the 27 children having better acuity under the higher CCT lamp. There was one tie score while two scored better under the standard lamp. (Also noted, the tie student and one of reversals did better under the lower luminance condition than either of the other two conditions.)

Paired t‐tests comparing the lower luminance condition showed a significant difference for the 5500 K lamps at the two luminance’s, but no significant difference when comparing the 3600 K lamps at the higher luminance value with the 5500 K lamps at the lower luminance. However there was a strong trend for the 5500 K lower luminance condition to provide better acuity with the results showing sixties and 14 out of the remaining 21 having better acuity under the lower luminance condition of the 5500 K lamps. Pupil sizes of four children under the two different lamp types for the equal luminance condition were also measured based on averaging multiple frames of calibrated video camera images of their eyes. Average pupil size was significantly smaller under the 5500 K lighting as compared to the 3600 K lighting for all these children consistent with prior measurements of adults. This suggests an explanatory mechanism of the results based on the relatively more bluish spectral content of the 5500 K lighting causing comparatively greater pupil constriction and thereby improving visual optical quality. Based on visual acuity as a criterion for light level, these results imply a highly cost effective means for achieving improved vision and major energy savings by employing higher color temperature lamps for school lighting.

During the 1990s a number of laboratory studies carried out on young adults and set in simulated work environments compared the effects of different light spectra on visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and brightness perception. Those studies found that light with greater blue content ie, higher correlated color temperature (CCT) allowed better visual acuity and greater brightness perception compared to light of lower CCT, both lighting conditions controlled to be at the same photopic light level. Furthermore the laboratory studies demonstrated that the underlying mechanism for the acuity results was due to the greater effectiveness of bluish spectral content on pupil size variation. The higher CCT lighting yielded comparatively smaller pupils for a given photopic light level thereby confining the object light rays to the more central region of the eye where optical quality is generally better. Subsequent studies on more than 100 young adults found similar results on both distance and near visual acuity where the spectrum of the surround lighting was varied while either the task lighting was the same as the surround or alternatively designed so that its spectrum remained fixed. At the same illuminance level, surround lighting of higher CCT provided better acuity, consistent with the above laboratory results that claimed pupil size is mainly controlled by the surround lighting and its spectrum. It has also been speculated that the acuity benefits resulting from a spectrally driven smaller pupil would lead to an improvement in reading speed. These previous studies suggest a new principle for lighting applications where higher CCT lighting is substituted for the present choice of lower CCT lighting that is the typical standard for most buildings. This principle allows, at one extreme, to obtain maximum acuity benefits by keeping light levels unchanged or at the other extreme to obtain maximum energy savings by lowering light levels with the higher CCT lighting while maintaining the status quo for acuity. The extension of such a principle to school buildings would also be supported if the visual benefits obtained for adults occurred as well for children. The study reported here was undertaken principally for that reason.

Testing

A practicing licensed optometrist (MJM) measured the students’ visual acuity with the charts held in a vertical position and at a testing distance of 400 mm. To maintain this distance during testing, a fixed string placed across the desk was in contact with the bridge of the student’s nose. A separate recording form was provided for each tested student that contained the particular chart letters and the lighting information. The following testing rules were then applied. Each tested student was closely monitored to assure that the test distance was accurate and that s/he was not squinting. The student was firmly encouraged to guess all of the letters. Each measurement for all conditions was started on the top line and finished on the one line for which the student could not correctly identify any of the letters. They were tested on all lines in between. For each row on which the student was tested, each letter that they properly identified was circled on the recording form and added one point to the score.

Pupil Size Measurement

In a separate testing session in the test room, pupil area measurements of four children (three girls, one boy) who did not participate in the acuity study but who were of the same age group were determined under the equal     luminance condition for the low CCT and high CCT lightings. The measurements were obtained by analyzing digital images of the portion of the upper face containing the eyes. The images were gathered by a Sony video camera (model 4000) at the rate of 28 frames per second with 10 s of data for each child under each lighting condition. Calibration of the images was determined by placing sensors of known fixed size in the eye position of a manikin’s head placed in the student viewing position. During the data gathering the tested children fixated on the camera that was positioned on the desk at the chart position ie, 40 cm from their forehead. To assure that pupil size had adapted to the different lighting conditions, at least 5 min of adaptation time was allowed before data were taken. The pupil area was calculated from each frame by pixel count. Mean pupil area for each child under each lighting condition was determined by averaging the 70 data values obtained from every other frame over a 5‐s data interval. The 5‐s interval was arbitrarily chosen from the middle of the 10‐s period but was the same selection for all the tested children. In addition to the mean pupil areas the maximum and minimum pupil areas of the continuously fluctuating pupil of each tested child were also determined.

Discussion

The reading of printed matter or of a computer screen is one of the most ubiquitous activities of our society. A tried and true measure of the visual clarity of letters is the measurement of visual acuity, as better visual acuity means that the letters are seen more clearly and sharply. A lighting environment that can provide optimum acuity in an economically efficient manner should therefore be considered as both desirable and advantageous.

The results of this study show that both light level and lighting spectrum affect visual acuity under typical conditions of reading. It is not surprising that light level affects acuity, but there is a general absence of appreciation for the effects of light spectrum. In this study where two different but commercially readily available light spectra were compared for their effects on the near visual acuity of elementary school children, the results showed significant effects of spectrum. At the same light intensity at the eye, visual acuity was significantly better for the high CCT lighting. Furthermore visual acuity was at least equal to (and with a strong trend to be better) than the traditionally installed low CCT lighting when the high CCT lighting level was reduced by 50% compared to the low CCT lighting. These results suggest a highly cost effective strategy for improving elementary school classroom lighting based on replacing the conventional low CCT (3500K) lamps with high CCT lamps (5500K or higher).

The particular strategy varying at one end from maintaining the status quo in visual acuity with maximum savings in lighting energy costs or at the other end maintaining current lighting energy costs but providing a higher degree of visual acuity. The changing of pupil size under the two different spectra offers a credible mechanism for the results obtained here. Such a mechanism is consistent with current views of optical quality of the eye and with previous laboratory spectral acuity studies of both young and elderly adults. These previous laboratory studies investigated the spectral and intensity variation of steady state pupil size of many adult subjects at typical photopic levels and established that pupil size variation closely followed a scotopic‐like spectrum. The measured pupil size variations were completely incompatible with standard photopic sensitivity function. Similar conclusions about the spectral dependence of other papillary behavior have recently been found in mice and primates. A smaller pupil improves retinal image quality and visual acuity by eliminating peripheral aberrations and also by increasing the depth of focus for an eye especially with an uncorrected refractive error. At light levels typical of interior environments, this positive effect overcomes any reduction of acuity resulting from the decrease in retinal illuminance associated with a smaller pupil. This conclusion is also supported by data from previous studies.

Each of the four children whose pupil size was measured under the two spectra had smaller pupils under the high CCT lighting. Although the pupil sizes of the participating children were not measured during the actual acuity testing, we suggest that if their pupils were measured, the resultant size differences would most likely be consistent with the data of the four children measured. Thus a parsimonious explanation of the spectral acuity effects found here is that these are a consequence of the spectrally induced pupil size changes.

The vertical placement of the eye chart during testing closely simulates the vision conditions of computer reading, especially the accommodation requirement. Because smaller pupils reduce the eyes’ accommodating response it is possible, besides the acuity benefit that a greater degree of visual comfort could be provided by high CCT ambient lighting in the computer environment.

Conclusion

The results presented here show that by changing from the more traditional 3500K lighting to higher color temperature lighting it is possible to provide a higher quality of the visual environment at a reduced lighting energy cost. This double benefit should be a consideration for those concerned with management of elementary school education.

Reference

Source of Text:

A comparison of traditional and high color temperature lighting on the near acuity of elementary school children. Lighting Res. Technol. 38,1 (2006) pp. 41_/52. Received 15 November 2004; revised 10 May 2005; accepted 10 May 2005.

SM Berman Phd, M Navvab Phd FIES, MJ Martin OD, J Sheedy d OD Phd and W Tithof Phd

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA

College of Architecture, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USAc.     Bay City, Michigan, USA

Bay City Public Schools, Bay City, Michigan, USA

Sources Cited:

1 Boyce PR, Akashi Y, Hunter CM, Bullough JD. The impact of spectral power distribution

on the performance of an achromatic visual task. Lighting Res. Technol. 2003; 35: 141_/61.

2 Milova A. The influence of light of different spectral composition on the visual performance, CIE Compte Rendu, 17th Session of the CIE. Barcelona; 1971: 84_/85.

3 Halonen L. Effects of lighting and task parameters on visual acuity and performance. Thesis

for Doctor of Technology, Helsinki University of Technology, 1993. 4 Halonen L, Eloholma M. Effect of luminance level and spectral composition on visual acuity and performance, CIE symposium on advances in photometry, December 1994. Vienna; 1995: 139_/45.5 Vrabel PL, Bernecker CA, Mistrick RG. Visual performance and visual clarity under electric light sources. Part 1_/visual performance, Journal

of the Illum. Eng. Soc. 1995; 24: 69_/80. 6 Veitch JA, McColl SL. Modulation of fluorescent

light: flicker rate and light source effects on visual performance and visual comfort. Lighting

Res. Technol.

Acknowledgements:

We thank Smart Energy Technologies, Inc who kindly purchased the test room luminaries and the related control components that allowed this study to be undertaken.

We all bought into the hype that Fluorescent Lamps are more energy efficient, last longer and pay for themselves. But a growing number of people are complaining that those energy savings are offset by the high cost of the lamps, and the reality that they can fail long before they are supposed to. It’s the dirty little secret of fluorescent lamps.

Manufacturers claim fluorescent lamps will last 15,000-30,000 hours and have a lifespan 10 times that of a traditional lighting. But many manufacturers admit the lamps life is much shorter, if the lamps are not used for 12 plus hours a day. Then you are wasting money on electricity.The U.S. department of energy now suggest not using fluorescent lamps if they are not going to be for at least 15 minutes.

So what can businesses do? Consider switching LED Lighting. LED lights are far more efficient than  fluorescent lamps. I am sure I know what you are saying, LED’s are too expensive. The ROI is not their. If we compared fluorescents and LED’s side-by-side, from a technical stand point, it would make complete sense. If you compare foot-candle ratio, a 25 watt super T8 at 2400 lumens and a 18 watt LED T8 at 1750 lumens mounted at the same height, the foot-candle of the 25 watt T8 is 36.1fc and the foot-candle of a 18 watt LED is 35fc. A difference of 1fc, which is unnoticeable to the naked eye. So technically, a 18 watt LED T8 is 28% more efficient than a high efficiency 25 watt fluorescent and produces the same amount of light over a given surface.

Now onto what really counts, the payback. Smart Energy Technologies recently retrofitted the corporate center of an international business process management company. The CEO of the company gave Smart Energy strict measurements of success. The main requirement for the entire project, ROI less than 2.5 years.

Their corporate center had 264 3-lamp fluorescent fixtures, equaling 792 32 watt fluorescent lamps. After carefully understanding their use of lighting, level of light required and expected energy savings, Smart Energy designed a LED lighting solution that exceeded their expectation. Smart Energy reduced the total number of fixtures to 200 and implemented 600 15 watt LED T8’s. The company’s energy costs for just their fluorescent T8’s was $11,400 per year. After we retrofitted to LED, the company is spending $3,300 per year. With a total savings of $8,100 and $19,200 to retrofit to LED, Smart Energy’s lighting solution provided a ROI less than 30 months and a 5 year warranty.

This is one of several projects we have successfully completed and exceeded the company’s measurements of success. Fluorescent lamps are a waste of money when when you look at cost to re-lamp due to burning out, heat generated raises A/C costs and light waste over the work plane. Switching to LED tubes comes down to education. And the fact is, the price of LED tubes is coming down and the effectiveness of the LED is improving. In today’s market, any company can make the switch to LED T8’s and meet and or exceed their expectations.

The standard incandescent bulb — what we typically think of as a “basic light bulb” — is a pretty inefficient piece of technology, wasting 90 to 98% of its electrical use as heat rather than useful light. Much better are fluorescents, including the now-ubiquitous compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), which are roughly 75% more efficient for the same light output.

By now, many people are aware of this fact, but few have taken a moment to actually calculate how much money they could save if they switched out their high-use bulbs to CFLs, as the commercials instruct us. In his book Wind Power for Dummies, Ian Woofenden calculates that a family using a 75-watt incandescent for six hours per day would spend about $54 a year on energy (at 32 cents per kWh, which admittedly is higher than most current prices, although experts expect utility rates to climb in the near future), including the costs of replacement bulbs at 75 cents each. If they replaced that instead with a 20-watt CFL, to produce the same amount of light, it would cost $14 a year to power. That fluorescent probably cost $6 but should last them four years at a use of six hours a day (without rapid switching), leading to a total expenditure of $15.50 per year over that time — $38.50 less per year than using incandescents. That’s a simple return on investment (ROI) of 642% per year.

That kind of ROI is hard to beat, which explains why heavy energy users, such as the managers of large commercial buildings, are switching to greener lighting in droves. Few technologies provide such a rapid payback on investment, and this blows away potential rivals like generating your own solar or wind power.

One caveat: as we point out in Green Lighting, lighting tends to make up only about 9% of the typical American home’s annual electricity use, so switching out your bulbs isn’t necessarily going to make you rich (though it is certainly great for the planet). For commercial facilities, however, lighting makes up an average of 38% of electricity use.