# My impression of LED street light from field visit (photos)



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

I don't see the point of supplying enough light all night long from street lights to the point that lights aren't even required. In fact, as a taxpayer, I am strongly opposed to paying for such light. Streets should be lit minimally, if at all, IMO.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm betting that LED lights were crazy expensive. They were heavily subsidized at public's expense.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Any money saved on electricity gets wiped away when someone has an accident and blames "poor lighting" as the cause.

YES.. a smart lawyer would claim such a thing and hope for an out of court settlement.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

I don't see why LED has any place if the intent was to reduce the output. This is something that can be easily done using existing technology at much lower cost. They do make lower wattage HPS system. 

Contrary to what LED advocates say, they're not any more efficient, if any, compared to HPS. So, compared to discharge lighting producing equivalent output, it doesn't save any energy. You can not reduce the output by say 1/2, and reduce the power consumption by 1/2 as well and credit LEDs for saving 50% energy, because you can easily achieve the same by simply using lower wattage or lesser number of discharge lamps.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

Electric_Light said:


> I don't see why LED has any place if the intent was to reduce the output. They do make lower wattage HPS system.
> 
> LED saves nothing unless it consumes less power than reaching target light level that can be achieved using discharge lamps.


this is the most nonsensical post I have seen you write yet.



Electric_Light said:


> I don't see why LED has any place if the intent was to reduce the output. They do make lower wattage HPS system .


If the output was reduced (as per your post), why wouldn't LED have any place ? 



Electric_Light said:


> LED saves nothing unless it consumes less power than reaching target light level that can be achieved using discharge lamps.


 Do you really believe that LEDs would not consume less energy ? At the target lighting level, or at the level shown, is it even remotely possible that LEDs would consume anywhere close to the same amount of power ?


There must be some thread of logic that you were thinking but did not post ?


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

wildleg said:


> There must be some thread of logic that you were thinking but did not post ?


The fact he sells a product that LEDs are competing with.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

I too see no point in replacing HPS or MH street lighting with an inferior source - when they should just plain be removed..... IMO if you want to save energy - get rid of the completely unnecessary light - not replace it at exorbanent expense with technology that is not ready for prime time...



Getting rid of street lighting would;
Be better able to see the night sky.
Eliminate energy costs not reduce them..
Cheaper - Demolition is cheaper than replacing in the long run.
Be better for the environment - which was the point in the first place.
Not effect safety - Cars have head lights anyway - and they have gotten better - not worse in light output and quality of light. And most structures already have lighting at the disposal of the owner.
End a pointless exercise to light empty highways and roads all night long.










Top rural area with minimal street lighting - lower suburbia with un-needed lighting.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> Any money saved on electricity gets wiped away when someone has an accident and blames "poor lighting" as the cause.
> 
> YES.. a smart lawyer would claim such a thing and hope for an out of court settlement.


Millions of square miles of rural roads do not have street lighting - it would be a hard case to prove...


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

e57 said:


> I too see no point in replacing HPS or MH street lighting with an inferior source - when they should just plain be removed..... IMO if you want to save energy - get rid of the completely unnecessary light - not replace it at exorbanent expense with technology that is not ready for prime time...
> 
> 
> Getting rid of street lighting would;
> ...


Having no street lights is a bad idea and will lead to more accidents and pedestrians being killed while walking on the shoulder at night.

Every street in my town has lighting.. you don't realize how dark it is till there is a blackout.

When the northeast had a blackout about (5) years ago, driving around was much harder.. I would not want to be sitting on the side of the road trying to change a tire.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Full cut off fixtures ( we don't need to light the sky) would help as well as using better quality LEDs. Most are real crap quality and come out of the lowest bins.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

e57 said:


> Millions of square miles of rural roads do not have street lighting - it would be a hard case to prove...


I am talking about when you have a lighted street and that lighting is reduced.

Lawyers can easily make that point about _WHY_ the accident happened.

He is not looking to win a case.. just get a nice fat check out of the town with 1/3 going to him in a settlement..


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> Having no street lights is a bad idea and will lead to more accidents and pedestrians being killed while walking on the shoulder at night.
> 
> Every street in my town has lighting.. you don't realize how dark it is till there is a blackout.
> 
> When the northeast had a blackout about (5) years ago, driving around was much harder.. I would not want to be sitting on the side of the road trying to change a tire.


Do you have sidewalks in your town? 
No head lights in your neck of the world, no hi-beams either? (Still required when driving... :thumbsup Have you tried HID headlights?

Anyway - yes I have seen a black out - had one just the other night... California had many black-outs while Enron (Thieves and Best friends of a certain administration) played "Operation Death Star" and "Kill Grandma" on California during deregulation.... And I have also driven in areas where there is no electricity or lighting - not a problem....

Just think of the lower taxes, and smaller government.... Forget about the milky way....


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> I am talking about when you have a lighted street and that lighting is reduced.
> 
> Lawyers can easily make that point about _WHY_ the accident happened.
> 
> He is not looking to win a case.. just get a nice fat check out of the town with 1/3 going to him in a settlement..


Got documentation or a precedent?


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2010/may/11/the_state_plans_to_turn_off_the_lights-ar-109104/


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> Full cut off fixtures ( we don't need to light the sky) would help as well as using better quality LEDs. Most are real crap quality and come out of the lowest bins.


Note in every picture in the OP there is reflective and ambient light - 'full cut-off' is only a compromise between those who make and design, and those who do not want the light in the first place vs those who want the light.

Effective - to a degree....


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2010/may/11/the_state_plans_to_turn_off_the_lights-ar-109104/


 So how is it working? Results - the test is up?


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

e57 said:


> So how is it working? Results - the test is up?



I have not heard any bad news about it.

It made no sense for these highways to have been lit in the first place.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

e57 said:


> Got documentation or a precedent?


No I don't have anything to show you.

I am telling you from my experience of how lawyers think and the way things are done around here.

They all have expert, (hired guns) to explain their viewpoint to a jury if it ever comes to that.

The towns know this and will do anything to settle the case.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Anyway FWIW RI (the link Bob posted) and my own opinion are not unique... They are doing it lots of places to save money. They did it here on some freeways last year - and I'm yet to here of any big increase of deaths or lawsuits....

There is no need to fear the dark...


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

e57 said:


> Note in every picture in the OP there is reflective and ambient light - 'full cut-off' is only a compromise between those who make and design, and those who do not want the light in the first place vs those who want the light.
> 
> Effective - to a degree....


Properly designed full cut off can make a pretty good dent in light pollution (I'm an amateur astronomer too, it's kind of an important subject to me). We have whole towns in AZ that require full cut off and the difference is quite visible.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

wildleg said:


> If the output was reduced (as per your post), why wouldn't LED have any place ?


Because, if it is determined that the existing streets are over lit, same level of reduction can be achieved using lower wattage discharge lamps, at significantly less cost. 

Having driven through there, I felt it was inadequately lit. It's hard to navigate through.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> Properly designed full cut off can make a pretty good dent in light pollution (I'm an amateur astronomer too, it's kind of an important subject to me). We have whole towns in AZ that require full cut off and the difference is quite visible.


A full cut-off street light is kind of an oxymoron... (Since it should only light the area below it.) If your looking to light an area - and not just have lights for the sake of having lights to point at (which is almost why most places have them in the first place) - you end up installing more of them per mile to do the job... (If you were looking to actually "light" the area)

A hood retro-fit, or the flat lensed type full-cut-off standard still throws an enormous amount of light straight down on to reflective objects and right back into the atmosphere. (Bear with me I live in a fairly high dew point area... With often eye level clouds and clear sky above....) And for viewing the sky - if you're below horizontal of a lamp 30' feet in the air it doesn't matter how far you are from it - you do still get glare.

Anyway - I think you got my point earlier. We humans have had modern electric street lighting for only ~ 100 years. (Not counting gas street lighting of Victorian era, so hardly effective that barely lit the area several feet away.) And in a limited capacity until ~50 years ago. Did we "need" street lighting for any of the millennia before that? No....

Not saying we need to ditch all of them, but we never needed 90% of them in the first place. (Yes 90%...)


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

e57 said:


> There is no need to fear the dark...


No, not at all, that is why cars are equipped with headlights. The output of LED streetlights are somewhat less than the HPS, but it is a much nicer color.

~Matt


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

e57 said:


> A full cut-off street light is kind of an oxymoron... (Since it should only light the area below it.) If your looking to light an area - and not just have lights for the sake of having lights to point at (which is almost why most places have them in the first place) - you end up installing more of them per mile to do the job... (If you were looking to actually "light" the area)
> 
> A hood retro-fit, or the flat lensed type full-cut-off standard still throws an enormous amount of light straight down on to reflective objects and right back into the atmosphere. (Bear with me I live in a fairly high dew point area... With often eye level clouds and clear sky above....) And for viewing the sky - if you're below horizontal of a lamp 30' feet in the air it doesn't matter how far you are from it - you do still get glare.
> 
> ...


I never said the did all that great of job. I would be fine with fewer street lights too.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

To leave or remove street lights is a whole different topic... 

This topic is dedicated to point out that, LEDs can not perform comparably to existing discharge lamps or have high enough efficacy gain to offset its outrageous initial cost. 

Today's HPS lamps last 30,000 hrs to 65% survival and maintains 80+ % lumens. Used with the latest available ballast, like the modern electronic ones meant for lower wattage discharge lamps, efficacy should be just as good as the bet LEDs or better and LEDs are not cost competitive. 

http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_en/browseliterature/download/p-5781.pdf

The fixture shape is shown in photos and the HPS lamp inside those fixtures are 100W. 50 and 70W HPS are available options if "lower output" is considered adequate.




> Anyway - I think you got my point earlier. We humans have had modern electric street lighting for only ~ 100 years. (Not counting gas street lighting of Victorian era, so hardly effective that barely lit the area several feet away.) And in a limited capacity until ~50 years ago. Did we "need" street lighting for any of the millennia before that? No....
> 
> Not saying we need to ditch all of them, but we never needed 90% of them in the first place. (Yes 90%...)


We did away without automobiles, air conditioners, computers, cell phones, or refrigerators in 1900. When model T became available, it was hardly a household commodity. It's the 21st century. We live under fluorescent lights(well, I do) when we're not outdoors during daylight.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Who really gets to see this anymore:

http://vimeo.com/14352658

Hit the "full Screen" button
and
Turn up the volume if you have good speakers..




.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Electric_Light said:


> To leave or remove street lights is a whole different topic...
> 
> This topic is dedicated to point out that, LEDs can not perform comparably to existing discharge lamps or have high enough efficacy gain to offset its outrageous initial cost.
> 
> Today's HPS lamps last 30,000 hrs to 65% survival and maintains 80+ % lumens. Used with the latest available ballast, like the modern electronic ones meant for lower wattage discharge lamps, efficacy should be just as good as the bet LEDs or better and LEDs are not cost competitive.


Cars used to be less efficient.

Planes used to be less efficient

Fluorescent lamps used to be less efficient


LEDs like all other technology will become more efficient, costs of production will fall, longevity will increase and colors will become closer to what we want.

It is like you are possessed into sticking with the old even though history proves those that refuse to move on are left in the dust.

IBM was one of the most powerful corporations in the world, than it decided that the 'PC' was not a good idea. 

Instead of fighting a crusade that cannot be won perhaps you should look for new opportunities.


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

"No need to fear the dark"??????????????

Ever watch "Cops" or shows of the such? I just read this mornings paper, would you like to see the police blotter?

These kids can't work, they have to rip people off to get their fixes. Work? What's that????? While most of us are cutting Z's, these young friggers are out "working", working on whatever you have in your van, or garage. There was only eight automobile break-ins Friday night. Can't remember when a stereo was ganked in the middle of the day at a grocery store or Wal-Mart, but of course there are always the brave ones too that try.


.............and I live in a population of only 14K


I personally don't mind my tax $'s going into street lighting, 'cause we're certainly not seeing any more patrol:no:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Yeah I have watched cops a lot, I see a lot of street lights that are on and yet the cops still have crime to fight.

Let the property owners light their own property if they want but don't suck off my tax money to light every mile of sidewalk all night long.


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> Yeah I have watched cops a lot, I see a lot of street lights that are on and yet the cops still have crime to fight.
> 
> Let the property owners light their own property if they want but don't suck off my tax money to light every mile of sidewalk all night long.


 
I see your side. In this town, many resort to parking on the street and that is where most of the break-ins occur. Lighting up the town all night like a stadium won't stop crime, fully agreed Bob, but it does give many a good "peace" of mind. When I lived in NC, there was only one post light on the way down the mountain into town, but all I had to worry about was deer popping out to greet me. Two completely different scenarios.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> Cars used to be less efficient.
> 
> Planes used to be less efficient
> 
> ...


LEDs have already come a long way. They're much more efficient in very low power applications and they're replacing fluorescent and incandescent in back lights, indicators, flashlights, etc. Without questions, LEDs are one of the most efficient light source for single digit and fractional watt lighting applications. Discharge lamps have to operate at high temperatures and they are not practical at say 1W. They do have MH in teen watt these days though.

LEDs are good for small stuff, but not for every thing. MH don't belong in cell phone back light and LEDs don't really belong in street or stadium lighting.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> Having no street lights is a bad idea and will lead to more accidents and pedestrians being killed while walking on the shoulder at night.
> 
> Every street in my town has lighting.. you don't realize how dark it is till there is a blackout.
> 
> When the northeast had a blackout about (5) years ago, driving around was much harder.. I would not want to be sitting on the side of the road trying to change a tire.


 

You're such a city slicker. I grew up hours away from any streetlight, and currently, I live 30 minutes from the closest street light. Surely you're kidding.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

76nemo said:


> "No need to fear the dark"??????????????
> 
> Ever watch "Cops" or shows of the such? I just read this mornings paper, would you like to see the police blotter?
> 
> ...


Dare I say it, I grew up in an area where car stereos were a sport as well. Broad day light, or street lighting is not a deterrent. *Knowing the area is not apathetic to crime is.* Most of the time someone can hear or see something - but don't do anything because it's not 'your stuff' - wont even call the cops who may or may not show up.

That said - my van has IR flood, and cameras to match... (2) 150 halogens on it all night from two different angles. The slightest noise - and I'm out there no matter what I have on at the time. And while there were a number of attempts on my van some time ago - I think word got around that I will come out, and will get physical with you. It will not be easy.

One thought I didn't know who he was, (and that I knew he was checking my windows) at the supermarket, told him to stay clear of me in more than a few words and that I had pictures of him near my house - he crosses the street on my block now...

Back to the lighting though.... There are street lights out on my street, I'm equally between both.... (People still tried....) For street lighting... fairly well lit... Thieves however don't care about that - those are street lights and they are everywhere dimly lighting broad areas.... If you have some fairly bright lighting from your house - or lighting your area and your stuff... The minds then say - OK that person in that house owns that stuff. It's no longer just in the general lighting area.... Motion sensors for lighting - work fine... But add to that - a little noise. A slight beep (as if it were an alarm) or a clicking sound (close to the rails of a shot gut), or the '150Lbs rottweiler' sound would be a better deterrent..... :thumbsup:


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Black4Truck said:


> Any money saved on electricity gets wiped away when someone has an accident and blames "poor lighting" as the cause.
> 
> YES.. a smart lawyer would claim such a thing and hope for an out of court settlement.


 Or those like myself, I must have attained over 50 cobraheads and crossarms from the county since 2004. My front yard is currently lit by a 250 hps on a 8' crossarm attached line side to a private pole . My nieghbors like it and have asked to have their personal streetlight installed on their lots.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

I have seen some LED street lights that look very nice, so it all depends on the wattage you get. I've seen some Gas Station canopy lights done in LED, and the place was lit up like Christmas. Might not be a fair blanket statement you used to say they should not replace HID in "x" applications. 

The reason there is research continuing on LED is due to the fact that they think it's possible to achieve 500 lm/w.  That will blow away pretty much any other light source we currently have.

so while yes, the LED product is currently limited, I'm happy to let the product mature and evaluate its progress as the prices come down. Not in a hurry to put it in, but I think it's crazy to deny its time is coming.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

*Re: My impression of LED street light from field visit*

There are far more inappropriate LED installations than there are justifiable ones. New technology and new gadgets seem to get attention in that way. Being a lighting designer first, I can be the LED's strongest opponent. 

That being 'said', there are a few factors that should follow. There are several luminaire types that can benefit with LEDs and really save up to 50% in energy consumption today, even before LED efficacy is raised any more.

When the IES photometric file shows a bulb fixture to be 65% efficient, that is a prime application for LEDs. A properly designed LED fixture can usually get 90% of its light out of the fixture and onto the target. 

We have replaced a few 175W MH post-top globe fixtures with 80W LED retrofits that actually had higher foot candle readings than the original light source. 

But a word of caution - energy savings alone doesn't make the ROI justifiable. The reduced maintenance is essential to make the day with LEDs. Use an ROI calculator before going down the LED path!


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Lighting Retro said:


> so while yes, the LED product is currently limited, I'm happy to let the product mature and evaluate its progress as the prices come down. Not in a hurry to put it in, but I think it's crazy to deny its time is coming.


That seems reasonable and sensible. :thumbsup:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Electric_Light said:


> LEDs are good for small stuff, but not for every thing. MH don't belong in cell phone back light* and LEDs don't really belong in street or stadium lighting.*


Yet .... they don't belong in those applications yet if the only measure is the lighting quality.

I showed you one supermarket that went all LED, to them the 'Green Image' regardless of it being false or imagined is worth it to them.

It is those types of installations that help mature the technology and bring it closer to mainstream.

Personally I don't care if the customer wants incandescent, HIDs or LEDs, as long as they are not lighting the place with candles I am happy. :laughing: 

Right now we are using 26 watt medium base CFLs for our temp strings. If someone suggested that 2 years ago we would have laughed at them. Who knows, maybe two years from now we will be using LED temp light strings.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> I have seen some LED street lights that look very nice, so it all depends on the wattage you get. I've seen some Gas Station canopy lights done in LED, and the place was lit up like Christmas. Might not be a fair blanket statement you used to say they should not replace HID in "x" applications.


Sure, but at what gross cost? (not including energy trust, and various subsidies that do not apply to other technologies). You can make them put out similar output, but the passer-bys can't see the wattage consumption. 




> The reason there is research continuing on LED is due to the fact that they think it's possible to achieve 500 lm/w.  That will blow away pretty much any other light source we currently have.


Not going to happen. Pick 555nm, green light, where our eyes are the most sensitive. Given 555nm light source with one watt radiant power, the lumen output is 683. So, if LED luminaire turned every watt of power into watt of 555nm radiant energy, you'll get 683lm/W, but that is not a practical color for general lighting. Use trichromatic sources (three narrow band LEDs used to produce white) and you get close to 400lm/W, assuming each LEDs are converting electricity to light at 100% efficiency. 500lm/W white LED would be going against law of conservation of energy.

Using a HHV of 132MJ/gallon, a gasoline engine can produce 49.15hp-hr/gallon if it made no waste heat, no noise, no HC emissions and all energy from gasoline exited the crankshaft. You can not exceed that efficiency, because that is assuming 100% utilization of fuel's available energy. Realistically, its about 25% of that these days. 100% efficient LED is as unrealistic as 100% efficient engine. 

Low pressure sodium lights that we don't use much that emit almost exclusively at 590nm has a production lamp efficacy of around 175lm/W. 



> so while yes, the LED product is currently limited, I'm happy to let the product mature and evaluate its progress as the prices come down. Not in a hurry to put it in, but I think it's crazy to deny its time is coming.


Every light source have the potential to have much higher lumens per watt if we use theoretical maximum.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> There are far more inappropriate LED installations than there are justifiable ones. New technology and new gadgets seem to get attention in that way. Being a lighting designer first, I can be the LED's strongest opponent.
> 
> That being 'said', there are a few factors that should follow. There are several luminaire types that can benefit with LEDs and really save up to 50% in energy consumption today, even before LED efficacy is raised any more.
> 
> ...


LEDs do indeed have advantage for highly directional lights. For example, in the consumer product range, many manufacturers offer R-xx shaped LED screw-in accempt lamps. The focused, narrow beam produces theatre spotlight like beam good for decorative use, but for disperse and indirect lighting, LEDs don't have any inherent advantage. 

There are fluorescent fixtures with 80+ % efficiency. Not all of it is directed straight down, but allowed to scatter and spill out the top, t hen bounce off the ceiling so you'll have semi-indirect lighting that's desirable for indoor lighting. 

When you said 80W LED replaced 175W MH and foot candle readings were higher, where were you making the measurements? How old was the metal halide fixture and do you suppose the cutting edge metal halide fixture using a lower wattage lamp and a compact ceramic MH(that allows better control using optics) and advanced optics to have better result than before or are you going to credit LEDs for improvement? 

Top tier LEDs maintain output better than the average MH, HPS maintains lumens better than LEDs. LEDs maintain 70% in 50,000 hours, while HPS maintains 80-90% before reaching end-of-life at 30,000 hours and more or less ambient independent. After allowing for LEDs higher depreciation and adverse impact from high ambient, a lower output HPS can be used to maintain the 70% of what LEDs would put up new. 

output checks on new install, of course, compares non-depreciated LEDs to HPS or MH that's been depreciated.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

*Re: My impression of LED street light from field visit*



Electric_Light said:


> When you said 80W LED replaced 175W MH and foot candle readings were higher, where were you making the measurements? How old was the metal halide fixture and do you suppose the cutting edge metal halide fixture using a lower wattage lamp and a compact ceramic MH(that allows better control using optics) and advanced optics to have better result than before or are you going to credit LEDs for improvement?
> 
> Top tier LEDs maintain output better than the average MH, HPS maintains lumens better than LEDs. LEDs maintain 70% in 50,000 hours, while HPS maintains 80-90% before reaching end-of-life at 30,000 hours and more or less ambient independent. After allowing for LEDs higher depreciation and adverse impact from high ambient, a lower output HPS can be used to maintain the 70% of what LEDs would put up new.


The measurements were on the ground at same positions for both lights.
The MH was aged, not sure how old, but by your figures (above) it probably had at least 85% original lumens.

Lots could be redesigned to better utilize the bulb for better luminaire efficacy. However, the bulb size and associated optics size would make that a strange looking fixture. In that regard, the LEDs make optical design way more practical.

The reduced maintenance aspect is where the LED pays back, and typically in the best of circumstances, HID is relamped twice during the LED life. When scheduled maintenance involves a bucket truck and two men, the energy savings is gravy. 

I am working with a college that will retrofit 400 globes with our LED product, for less than half the cost the OEM wants for their LED package. They are doing it purely for maintenance savings because staff has other things to do. The retrofit is a pretty sweet job for a contractor.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> The measurements were on the ground at same positions for both lights.
> The MH was aged, not sure how old, but by your figures (above) it probably had at least 85% original lumens.


My figures were for HPS. Standard MH depreciate much worse. They lose as much as 40%. 




> Lots could be redesigned to better utilize the bulb for better luminaire efficacy. However, the bulb size and associated optics size would make that a strange looking fixture.


Have you seen the newer ceramic tube metal halide system? The arc is in a small sphere with a 1/2" arc length and the bulb itself is substantially smaller than the common HPS or MH you see today. These are rated 20-30K hours, and 80% @ 20,000

http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_en/browseliterature/download/elite_design_guidev7.pdf

GE and/or Sylvania may have something similar. The initial system efficacy (line to lamp) is over 100Lm/W), which includes ballast loss. 



> In that regard, the LEDs make optical design way more practical.


How so? the 12mm/0.5" spherical near point source is much easier to control with optics than multiple sources scattered about. 



> The reduced maintenance aspect is where the LED pays back, and typically in the best of circumstances, HID is relamped twice during the LED life. When scheduled maintenance involves a bucket truck and two men, the energy savings is gravy.


Majority of lighting cost is energy and maintenance is not a huge portion. 

Hardware is a very small portion too, however if LED system is outrageously expensive, it wouldn't be so. 



> I am working with a college that will retrofit 400 globes with our LED product, for less than half the cost the OEM wants for their LED package. They are doing it purely for maintenance savings because staff has other things to do. The retrofit is a pretty sweet job for a contractor.


If they have a good group re-lamping program and a get a competitive bid on such maintenance, it shouldn't be too bad.

Do your LED products have a system efficacy starting at 100+ lm/W) maintaining 80 lm/W @ 20,000 hrs across all operating temperatures and competitive in cost?

They have 3,000K and 4,200K, so I suppose 3,000K is more appropriate where it was traditionally HPS and 4,200K where it was traditionally MH. The CRI rating on them is >90

While the relamp interval for ceramic MH maybe twice that of replacement interval of LED, what's the cost to REPLACE the LED labor + hardware? Is it less than labor+ceramic lamps to replace them twice?

I'm just looking at your offering:
http://www.streetlightingfla.com/LED-Globe.htm

4690 lumen @ 70W, and that it requires an external driver. So, 67lm/W doesn't even factor in ballast loss. You're looking at about 60 lm/W after driver loss. You're looking around 42lm/W at 50,000 hours after 30% depreciation. 

You can get 4300lm from a 57W amalgam PL-T CFL for applications where 210W MH is too big. The Amalgam CFLs are rated for near full output from 15F to 130F. It'll be 67 to 70 lm/W after ballast loss and lamp life is around 20,000 hours @ 12hrs /day. Lumen maintenance is in 85% range. Trade off is that, lamps need to be replaced every 15,000 hours or so, but it will never dip down to 70% output, so the power can be lower. 

4300 * 0.85 = 3655 57W/90% driver = 63W
4690 * 0.7 = 3300 70W/90% driver = 77.7W

With 400 fixtures, the CFL option provides same maintained output and uses 2500kWh/year less, which translates to $300/yr less in energy for CFL option at 12c/kWh. 

It appears the CFL solution provides similar maintained lumen at 20% less power, albeit more relamp cycle where most of cost is labor. As for LED, when it comes for replacement, I'm expecting hardware cost is substantial, so I'm not sure what is ultimately cheaper when you consider 12 year aggregate maintenance cost inclusive of LED module [email protected] 12 year mark. 

The light distribution is 360deg cylindrical in this application, so the CFL sticking base down and your LED thing should be equally suitable. The CFL system offers higher efficacy.

CFLs require ballasts, your LEDs require drivers, so we can assume that these components can fail in either setup


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

*Re: My impression of LED street light from field visit*



Electric_Light said:


> My figures were for HPS. Standard MH depreciate much worse. They lose as much as 40%.
> 
> Have you seen the newer ceramic tube metal halide system? The arc is in a small sphere with a 1/2" arc length and the bulb itself is substantially smaller than the common HPS or MH you see today. These are rated 20-30K hours, and 80% @ 20,000
> The initial system efficacy (line to lamp) is over 100Lm/W), which includes ballast loss.
> ...


I don't know how much the MH depreciated, but the customer is quite pleased with the comparable lighting for the majority of the life with no relamping required for so many years.

I will pass the CMH info along to my HID counterpart at factory. Thanks.

LEDs are hemispherical emitters, so optical control can be quite specific and very accurate. With the LED, clever reflector design can utilize its Lambertian output very effectively, but that is getting off topic. 

Energy for lighting is a large expense, but here we are comparing savings which is a delta, and the LEDs can practically save only about 50% if giving comparable light. But as I said before, sometimes their output isn't suitable.

LEDs can be selected for CRI, and 90 easily accomplished, but seems it's overkill for outdoor lighting. This is one of those options that can push cost of either technology over the mark. Even 70 or 80 is better than today's norm. 

The maintenance issue of equipment and time remains the real benefit, *if *the LED can light the job. Replacement labor figures for our globe retrofit are equivalent to changing a light bulb. Payback is less than 3 years for a 6-12 year product, after which, you replace the whole kit (for a lower price at that time).


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

For that acorn street light application, you just basically need a lamp that radiates in 360 degrees on horizontal axis. 

Also, shorter arc HID is a single point high intensity source. It is a lot easier to make optics to distribute light from such a source than a whole bunch of small emitters. 

57W PL-T shouldn't be more than $10 wholesale and ballasts are readily available. For the acorn application, CFL provides superior efficacy, better color consistency from lamp to lamp, and much lower cost upfront. I don't think ballast + lamp + socket would cost much more than $75 or so in a kit even if you spec shall be "OSI/GE/Philips only for ballast and lamp". Of course, depending on volume. CFL setup I presented above uses 20% less energy while providing the same maintained output as your LED. 

It's costly to bring out equipment for service many times. If it's a college campus, you setup for group relamping (replace every lamp, or in sections) on say, Sunday morning. 

Now, how much does your LED thing cost, module alone? 

Just like CFLs, LEDs will suffer from ballast failure too.

CFLs only lose 15% during lifetime. For the LED system, you need to design the system so that 70% of initial output is considered adequate (which you can test by using a dimming driver to dim to 70% using new components) Consequently, despite more frequent maintenance, you can specify lower wattage lamp for CFL.

Add that triple tube lamp and associated ballasts are industry standard, so you are not tied to one supplier.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

*Re: My impression of LED street light from field visit*



Electric_Light said:


> For that acorn street light application, you just basically need a lamp that radiates in 360 degrees on horizontal axis.
> 
> Also, shorter arc HID is a single point high intensity source. It is a lot easier to make optics to distribute light from such a source than a whole bunch of small emitters.
> 
> ...


Even globe lights require cutoff these days, and need various IES distributions (2, 3. 5. etc.). We handle these requirements. 

The payback period is as close as I will get to the price. It's not retail, it's in our distribution network and bids in process. I expect you understand.

The drivers we use are rated for 100,000 hours, and frankly, in a lot of years I don't remember one failing. 

It sounds like you could approach the colleges and other Facility Management operations and sell them new lighting with a maintenance contract.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> Energy for lighting is a large expense, but here we are comparing savings which is a delta, and the LEDs can practically save only about 50% if giving comparable light. But as I said before, sometimes their output isn't suitable.


How is the output not suitable if it is giving comparable light? It isn't suitable because it isn't putting out comparable output. 

If reduced output is acceptable, there's no reason to plunk the expense of LED. You can simply reduce the number of lamps or reduce wattage using the existing technology, or as I said, using advanced CFLs and HIDs, which are cheaper than LED. 

LEDs performance is disappointing for the cost. That LED module you offer is no better than screw in CFL you buy at Home Depot after you add in the driver loss, at much much much higher cost.

Even though they're generally less efficacious than best available discharge technologies, there's a false impression that LEDs are more green because they contain no mercury. Some places use LEDs, as someone else already mentioned, perception of being treehugger friendly institution/business, just like cities using hybrid for meter readers, parking enforcement, etc even if the ROI is unacceptably weak.


----------



## Skipp (May 23, 2010)

I put a few of those LED's that replace 48" T8's. Some salesman talked the city into buying a few to try out first. They run on line voltage of 277 volts. Basically you remove the ballast (or just bypass it), and wire the bi pin sockets direct. 

They have already failed (all of them) in 2 months. At $90 a tube, that is not acceptable. I didn't like the light quality either, but my opinion on the light quality does not matter. The lights failing so quickly does matter.

I also posted a while back about LED street light problems in Long Beach, Ca. I won't re post it again, search this forum you can find it. Posted around April or May.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Skipp said:


> I put a few of those LED's that replace 48" T8's. Some salesman talked the city into buying a few to try out first. They run on line voltage of 277 volts. Basically you remove the ballast (or just bypass it), and wire the bi pin sockets direct.
> 
> They have already failed (all of them) in 2 months. At $90 a tube, that is not acceptable. I didn't like the light quality either, but my opinion on the light quality does not matter. The lights failing so quickly does matter.
> 
> I also posted a while back about LED street light problems in Long Beach, Ca. I won't re post it again, search this forum you can find it. Posted around April or May.


Department of Energy reviewed LED T8's twice in the last 2 years and concluded they cannot come close to replacing real fluorescent T8's. I have their report here somewhere, but any of you that have tried them already know this.

It's a pretty simple Physics problem. In a round about way, DOE says that fluorescent replacements require the LEDs to be packaged with an integrated heat exchanger as the whole package; the T8 half-round aluminum cannot adequately handle the heat.

I looked for your post on LED streetlights but didn't find it yet. Will keep looking. Thanks in advance for that.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

*Re: My impression of LED street light from field visit*



Electric_Light said:


> If reduced output is acceptable, there's no reason to plunk the expense of LED. You can simply reduce the number of lamps or reduce wattage using the existing technology, or as I said, using advanced CFLs and HIDs, which are cheaper than LED.
> 
> Even though they're generally less efficacious than best available discharge technologies, there's a false impression that LEDs are more green because they contain no mercury. Some places use LEDs, as someone else already mentioned, perception of being treehugger friendly institution/business, just like cities using hybrid for meter readers, parking enforcement, etc even if the ROI is unacceptably weak.


That is exactly my point - if less light is acceptable, use smaller bulbs. But LEDs should give the same light for that money. 

There are two modes used these days to justify LEDs: 1) the point you cited, they are overwhelmed with LED hype, green, RoHS, all that stuff, and will pay almost any price just to say they have LED lighting; 2) long life, theoretically zero maintenance for a decade+.

#1 is nonsense and we can't make that business model work.
#2 has demonstrated value; it does sell product to the owner, to the bean counter and also even to the environmentalist.


----------



## Skipp (May 23, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> Department of Energy reviewed LED T8's twice in the last 2 years and concluded they cannot come close to replacing real fluorescent T8's. I have their report here somewhere, but any of you that have tried them already know this.
> 
> It's a pretty simple Physics problem. In a round about way, DOE says that fluorescent replacements require the LEDs to be packaged with an integrated heat exchanger as the whole package; the T8 half-round aluminum cannot adequately handle the heat.
> 
> I looked for your post on LED streetlights but didn't find it yet. Will keep looking. Thanks in advance for that.


 I'm sorry my post was in response to a thread called "Induction lighting to replace HID" started by someone else. It maybe hard to find without that information.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> That is exactly my point - if less light is acceptable, use smaller bulbs. But LEDs should give the same light for that money.
> 
> There are two modes used these days to justify LEDs: 1) the point you cited, they are overwhelmed with LED hype, green, RoHS, all that stuff, and will pay almost any price just to say they have LED lighting; 2) long life, theoretically zero maintenance for a decade+.
> 
> ...


#2, "long life" is not true. LEDs tend to not "burn out" or stop working, but they continue to depreciate in performance, at a faster rate than top end discharge lighting products. 30% depreciation is abysmal. T8 fluorescent loses 6-8% over 40,000 hours. LEDs lose 30% over 50,000. Remaining lit doesn't mean they're still fit for use. I don't see why LED drivers are any more/less reliable than fluorescent ballasts, because they're practically the same thing. Switching power supply. Maintenance free isn't same as energy free, and higher efficacy product that can produce the same maintained light for less energy, but requires some maintenance can be cheaper. Just because it sells doesn't mean its a good product btw


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

*Re: My impression of LED street light from field visit*



Electric_Light said:


> #2, "long life" is not true. LEDs tend to not "burn out" or stop working, but they continue to depreciate in performance, at a faster rate than top end discharge lighting products. 30% depreciation is abysmal. T8 fluorescent loses 6-8% over 40,000 hours. LEDs lose 30% over 50,000. Remaining lit doesn't mean they're still fit for use. I don't see why LED drivers are any more/less reliable than fluorescent ballasts, because they're practically the same thing. Switching power supply. Maintenance free isn't same as energy free, and higher efficacy product that can produce the same maintained light for less energy, but requires some maintenance can be cheaper. Just because it sells doesn't mean its a good product btw


I am not clear what you are trying to say in that post.

Despite my agreeing with many of these matters, the facts of LED long life seem to get all twisted up. Some of the figures you've stated aren't correct, and seem to change as required for some anti-LED position.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Electric_Light said:


> To leave or remove street lights is a whole different topic...
> 
> This topic is dedicated to point out that, LEDs can not perform comparably to existing discharge lamps or have high enough efficacy gain to offset its outrageous initial cost.


Although this conversation has continued - and in a very good and informative direction. I agree LED's are not ready yet for most applications, but if the argument is cost - 'removal' is and should be a consideration. 

Sure I know we're all in the biz of selling wire and things wire goes to. But from the 'environmental' and 'consumer' point of view - sticking with HID sources of illumination is an option that makes little sense. If the point of the comparison was reducing costs and improving efficiency. It's a desperate grab to say _'we'll get better'_ when it _'can't really'_. All of the LED manufacturers out there are driving technology just to secure patents that will eventually make them money - money that people are WILLING to spend to step forward into the future. 

Unless HID technology really makes some huge steps forward - it won't be even be considered in the market (Because it is what you're trying to replace) - where compromises in light quality mean nothing when compared with the 'Greener' it is counts for more points - regardless of cost.

Some day soon - you may be showing up to compare the HID's, LED's and HO floro's with the light of the moon.... :thumbsup: Or another alternative - who knows? ~ night vision technology...



jrannis said:


> Who really gets to see this anymore:
> 
> http://vimeo.com/14352658
> 
> ...


Very very Koyaanisqatsi - big art film of the 80's? But in one way kind of reverse.... Big sky... then Baja 500 cars.... Beautiful sky though...


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

Here is the induction thread referenced:

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f8/induction-lighting-replace-hid-8276/

Also curious to find out how the maintenance and failure rate has been on the LED install done in the 10 story building mentioned.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> I am not clear what you are trying to say in that post.
> 
> Despite my agreeing with many of these matters, the facts of LED long life seem to get all twisted up. Some of the figures you've stated aren't correct, and seem to change as required for some anti-LED position.


If the LED used for your "power on" indicator on your TV consumes 15mW and 15 years later, it stays on, but decayed to 1/3 of original luminous output while continuing to consume 15mW, it is irrelevant as long as it doesn't "burn out". 

For LEDs used in lighting, it is relevant. Even if it's not "burned" out, the output has dropped enough while consuming the same energy that efficacy becomes unacceptably low. 

So, if 1.0 unit of light is required and you're propsing LEDs with 50,000 hour maintenance interval and 30% depreciation, you'll have to calculate design with 43% more output than needed to ensure proper output is maintained until maintenance interval is reached. 1.0/0.7 =1.43. You could have the system running at full power, or use a light-output feedback dimming control, so that its powered on at partial output in the beginning and ramp up to compensate for chip decay... Think more $$$$ for control circuitry. Not only would you need a dimming driver, you'll need a sensor based feedback system. 


If it only decays to 85%, how much does it have to be overlit by at the beginning? By using CFLs or ceramic metal halides that only depreciate to 85% of original output by the time they reach their useful life/burn out, the initial output would only need to be 1.0/0.85 = 1.17, or only 17% over spec'ing of initial lumens is required. On top of this, top end discharge technology actually have higher SYSTEM efficacy, so the actual electrical energy needed to provide the required output is less. If you were to design group re-lamping for LEDs when chips have degraded to 85% output, you'll need them replaced before 50,000 hours. 

Read up on LED IESNA LED life guideline. Unlike conventional lamps, they don't "burn out" so, they're rated to hours at which they reach 70% or 50% output, which is discussed in LM-79 and LM-80. Traditional metal halide lamps do decay to these points during their lifetime, but HPS, CFL, fluorescent and high-end ceramic tube MHs do not. 

LEDs do decay when they're used at economically practical power density and temperatures seen in real world installs.

Even your own website fully admits to "50,000 hours to *70%"* 
It's true a good percentage of CFLs and HIDs actually "burn out" before 50,000 hours, but, if the percent of initial output maintained was around 85% at time of failure, and you raise the expectations on required lumen maintenance to 85%, do you find that LEDs to still hold the 50,000 hour claim? 

Am i wrong here?



Lighting Retro said:


> Here is the induction thread referenced:
> 
> http://www.electriciantalk.com/f8/induction-lighting-replace-hid-8276/
> 
> Also curious to find out how the maintenance and failure rate has been on the LED install done in the 10 story building mentioned.


As for induction, if you read the Sylvania technical paper on it, you'll find that they're comparable to CFLs when it comes to phosphor degradation. They don't have electrodes to wear out and burn out, but the phosphors do degrade and depreciate.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Skipp said:


> I put a few of those LED's that replace 48" T8's. Some salesman talked the city into buying a few to try out first. They run on line voltage of 277 volts. Basically you remove the ballast (or just bypass it), and wire the bi pin sockets direct.
> 
> They have already failed (all of them) in 2 months. At $90 a tube, that is not acceptable. I didn't like the light quality either, but my opinion on the light quality does not matter. The lights failing so quickly does matter.
> 
> I also posted a while back about LED street light problems in Long Beach, Ca. I won't re post it again, search this forum you can find it.  Posted around April or May.


An interesting test before committing to a project would be to order a dozen or so, send them to a testing lab and record the data. Use them in the restroom or something. Send the same lamps back to the same testing lab and see how bad they've depreciated in two years are so. Some LEDs depreciate BADLY


----------



## Kirker (Sep 28, 2010)

*Led*

I prefer the glow of LED over that of LPS street lights, but think the infrastructure doesn't need to change till it's broke... we invested in one system for the long haul, now lets use it till we've got our monies worth (not negating other factors).


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Kirker said:


> I prefer the glow of LED over that of LPS street lights, but think the infrastructure doesn't need to change till it's broke... we invested in one system for the long haul, now lets use it till we've got our monies worth (not negating other factors).


LPS is perhaps the highest real life efficacy available with efficacy hovering around 180Lm/W and they have exceptional lumen maintenance with close to zero depreciation over useful life of 18,000 hours or so. I have only seen it a few times and it is very rare. It is a monochromatic light and everything appears in shades of orange with zero color rendition ability.

The orange lights on streets are HPS, which still looks orange, but have some color rendering ability, good lumen maintenance and high efficacy.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

*All LED gas station lighting*

Here is a brand new ARCO am/pm gas station all pimped out in LED lights, yet too cheap to accept credit cards. 

Is it bright enough? Let me tell you that photos don't tell you jack, because you can play with exposure settings to make the "LED technology" look as good as you want, or tone down the competing technology as much as you want. Even using automatic exposure, the light meter will average differently.

We can create this before and after like effect with just a bit of difference. 

ISO 50 F/5.2 at 0.6 seconds if we were to call this "before"









Same settings, but exposed for a whole second. It now suddenly looks "brighter" If the photo was composed in such a way to conceal the neon, the MH in background and the lighting inside the store, this would make a great deceptive "after" or "our brand" vs "their brand" . 









ISO 50 F/3.0 0.2 seconds
You can make it "look just as bright" as "MH" technology playing photographic magic. 









Visually, and subjectively, I'd say the place was lit up adequately for the intended purpose. I don't know the actual power consumption of the LED setup compared to the cutting edge MH like Philips CMH or F54T5/HO fluorescent system though.

Perhaps the Energy Trust or something alike paid a subsidy for this project whether or not there's real merit.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

That is some great info about the shutter speed.

Is there a paper anywhere that explains this in detail?


I am putting together a "proof in the pudding" type presentation and would love to hear more about how photo's don't really tell the whole story about lighting.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> That is some great info about the shutter speed.
> 
> Is there a paper anywhere that explains this in detail?
> 
> I am putting together a "proof in the pudding" type presentation and would love to hear more about how photo's don't really tell the whole story about lighting.


I'm not aware of any paper on "photographic magic" in exhibit of this trade, but if search about photography, it will tell you about exposure. Camera settings are things photographers manipulate all the time to get the artistic appearance they want.

pocket cameras automatically adjusts all settings (ISO, F stop, and speed) to try to make sure that each photo looks acceptably good. If the light level is halved, exposure is usually the same, because the camera compensates it by adjusting these parameters.

Camera sensors and films have the ability "integrate", but our eyes don't in the same way. They "accumulate" by "staring" at the object longer. With our eyes, staring at the target doesn't make them become progressively brighter. 

ISO is the sensitivity. Higher ISO degrades quality while increasing sensitivity. The quality loss isn't nearly as bad with DSLRs. The amount of exposure is inversely proportional. ISO 100 requires half the exposure time as ISO 50 to get the same level of exposure. These photos are fairly decent, because I forced my compact camera down to ISO 50, at the expense of having to exposure the photo for a really long time. (normal photos are taken at 1/30 seconds to 1/250 seconds or so, not one whole second) 

F numbers are aperture and they're literally like our pupils. 
This one is a little tricky to calculate. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
Between F3.0 and F5.2 

You can use the calculator here to figure out just how much amount of light was changed. Read the field that says "exposure ratio" 
Everything being the same, F3.0 is three times brighter than F5.2. The reason they're different? In far wide mode, it can get F3.0, but in close up telephoto, it won't go below F5.2 

So, at same ISO, 0.2sec at F3.0 is really the same as 0.6sec at F5.6

http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/stops.htm

Too further complicate issues, if the image was saved in RAW format, the appearance can be changed quite well in Photoshop in the office later on.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

We have a couple towns out here switching to LED and CFL street lighting .The lighting output is far less than the conventional 150 HPS and 70 HPS. I don't care for it.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

I don't think we need street lights. Maybe the street rats would stay home if they were getting ran over. You have headlights on your car, use them.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

nitro71 said:


> I don't think we need street lights. Maybe the street rats would stay home if they were getting ran over. You have headlights on your car, use them.



Think of all the money you can't make if there are no street lights


----------



## Norcal (Mar 22, 2007)

Electric_Light said:


> LPS is perhaps the highest real life efficacy available with efficacy hovering around 180Lm/W and they have exceptional lumen maintenance with close to zero depreciation over useful life of 18,000 hours or so. I have only seen it a few times and it is very rare. It is a monochromatic light and everything appears in shades of orange with zero color rendition ability.
> 
> The orange lights on streets are HPS, which still looks orange, but have some color rendering ability, good lumen maintenance and high efficacy.


 
If my memory serves me correctly, as LPS lamps age they begin draw more current so there is a price to pay for no lumen depreciation.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

nitro71 said:


> I don't think we need street lights. Maybe the street rats would stay home if they were getting ran over. You have headlights on your car, use them.


The lights are not there just for drivers. I walk and run after dark. It sucks when you go into an area that is unlit.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> The lights are not there just for drivers. I walk and run after dark. It sucks when you go into an area that is unlit.



Get a flash light and stop expecting us fatties to subsidize your running course lighting. :whistling2::thumbup:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Get a flash light and stop expecting us fatties to subsidize your running course lighting. :whistling2::thumbup:


I got's to get miiiinee! :laughing:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm not saying LEDs are useless. They work great on my cell phone back light, in my car dashboard and such. 

I'm not expecting a Hybrid Synergy Boeing 787, but that doesn't mean I dismiss batteries as useless. Rechargeable batteries are a blessing in power tools, cell phones.

As for turning off street lights, I noticed A LOT of turned off lights along Hwy 101 in S. Cal between Hollywood and Los Angeles.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

so far this is an LED ass whooping.
I am of the get rid of street light group. Let private parties buy light


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

nitro71 said:


> I don't think we need street lights. Maybe the street rats would stay home if they were getting ran over. You have headlights on your car, use them.


Street lights aren't there just to help you see. It's also to help others be seen. The lack of light makes it easier for criminals to hide out of view. It'll make mugging, assault, drug dealing, etc. Have you heard of (253)Tacoma? :laughing:


----------



## derfsaint (Mar 23, 2011)

*LED street lighting*

Take a look at this project in Lansing Mi. http://www.sylvanialedshowcase.com/CaseStudies/LansingMichiganThe LEDs are beautiful. At the very top of the photo you can see where the LEDs end and the HPS begin. The problem is that there is so much crap out there with guys making LED Retofits out of their garages using LED from China. Sylvania makes the D-6 retrofit used in these photos. These units are 55 watts and can be step dimmed down to 35 watts. They make the LEDs (2nd largest LED manufacturer in the world behind CREE). They guarantee there LEDs for 7 years and 5 years on their drivers (universal wattage). They are dark sky compliant and put the light only where you need it. The LEDs are LM-79 rated (meaning they will still be putting out more than 70% of the original light at 50,000 hours. Don't buy a LED without seeing the LM-79 testing. Energy was cut by over 70%, great reduced relamping maintenance, greater color rendering, no mercury, no lead...

Those of you who say LEDs are worthless, are the same guys who asked, "Who needs a cell phone?" The right retrofit in the right application is unbeatable...


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

I grew up in the sticks without street lights. People can live fien without them. If you go outside at night, simply carry one of these:


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

derfsaint said:


> Take a look at this project in Lansing Mi. http://www.sylvanialedshowcase.com/CaseStudies/LansingMichiganThe LEDs are beautiful. At the very top of the photo you can see where the LEDs end and the HPS begin. The problem is that there is so much crap out there with guys making LED Retofits out of their garages using LED from China. Sylvania makes the D-6 retrofit used in these photos. These units are 55 watts and can be step dimmed down to 35 watts. They make the LEDs (2nd largest LED manufacturer in the world behind CREE). They guarantee there LEDs for 7 years and 5 years on their drivers (universal wattage). They are dark sky compliant and put the light only where you need it. The LEDs are LM-79 rated (meaning they will still be putting out more than 70% of the original light at 50,000 hours. Don't buy a LED without seeing the LM-79 testing. Energy was cut by over 70%, great reduced relamping maintenance, greater color rendering, no mercury, no lead...
> 
> Those of you who say LEDs are worthless, are the same guys who asked, "Who needs a cell phone?" The right retrofit in the right application is unbeatable...


 

Everyone has cellphones now because everyone else does. It is expected in business and personal life to be able to be reached. "Needs" change because of society's expectations.


----------



## derfsaint (Mar 23, 2011)

Great idea using a flashlight, Doubloh7. Can we compromise and at least use a LED flashlight. The light is brighter, the bulb won't burn out or break, and your batteries will last longer...


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

derfsaint said:


> Great idea using a flashlight, Doubloh7. Can we compromise and at least use a LED flashlight. The light is brighter, the bulb won't burn out or break, and your batteries will last longer...


I use a LED flashlight for a few years now no more burnt out bulbs while your in the middle of doing somthing...:thumbup:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> I use a LED flashlight for a few years now no more burnt out bulbs while your in the middle of doing somthing...:thumbup:


Well, LED is the way to go for a ~one watt battery powered flash light. There is nothing as far as I know that offers the efficacy in excess of that level in a such a low power device. 

However, discharge technology is more economical and efficacious at higher power.


----------



## EJPHI (May 7, 2008)

Another perspective on street lighting.

Where I lived, punks used to congegrate in areas with weak ligting and do the getting stupid high with my friends in a car routine at 3:00AM.

One favorite place was outside my bedroom window.

Called the police but they wouldn't roll without descriptions and license plate numbers.

Called the city and asked for more light. The answer was no because their engineering department didn't see the need.

So I put up some 400W or so of flood lights set to come on at dusk.

Cost of electricity at the time: About $5 a month.

Look on Doper Dudes face when the police stopped and found his stash under the car seat right where I said it was: PRICELESS!!:thumbup:

It only took a month to clean up the problem.

In urban areas it is good to have enough light to keep the roaches away.

Just sayin...

EJPHI


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

EJPHI said:


> Another perspective on street lighting.
> 
> Where I lived, punks used to congegrate in areas with weak ligting and do the getting stupid high with my friends in a car routine at 3:00AM.
> 
> ...


good work..:thumbup:


----------

