Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page A B E F M aG S _______________________________________ _______________________ Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page A B E F M aG S
Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page A B E F M aG S Lighting | REPLACEMENT LAMPS LED retrofits offer clear and effective benefits LED replacements for fl uorescent tubes provide energy savings without costly infrastructure changes, writes DAVE SIMON. In the long term, the ultimately proper and successful implementation of LEDs as the predominant technology in general illumination will be through the use of fixtures and infrastructure specifically designed to take advantage of the unique properties of LEDs. Many elements of LED optical, thermal, and electrical characteristics are at odds with today’s lighting infrastructure. In the short to medium term, however, there are very good reasons to pursue a strategy to retrofit structures with LED products. Although using existing fixtures for LED products is an imperfect solution, it is nonetheless the solution offering the quickest path to the greatest energy savings over the shortest period of time. As the payback period for retrofit lamps falls steadily below five years, even for fluorescent replacements, the pure dollar impact of a lamp-to-lamp replacement will be attractive enough to entice facility owners toward energy-efficient LED solutions, given that they do not have to incur additional infrastructure changes. One argument against a lamp replacement is that the added efficiency and lightquality benefits of infrastructure changes can also be quantified on short timelines. This may be true, but the additional outlay of capital may be onerous enough to prevent that from happening, even if additional savings are on the table. Moreover, there is a sense of comfort among facility managers that, if LEDs somehow cause a problem, they can swap backwards to current products or upgrade to newer LEDs in the same form factor. Custom installations don’t allow this lamp source flexibility. DAVE SIMON is president of ilumisys (www. ___ ilumisys.com), located in Troy, Michigan, USA. ________ Another argument against infrastructure changes is the overall inconvenience and environmental footprint inherent to demolition and disposal, as well as manufacturing and installation of new fixtures. ilumisys offers two versions of its T8 and T12 replacement tubes. The MK1 runs with standard T8 fluorescent ballasts, while the ilumisys installation of fi rst-generation MK1 tubes in the Escanaba, Michigan, State Offi ce Building. MK2 is powered by 120V and 277V building current, bypassing the ballast. The MK2 approach provides a clear advantage in terms of eliminating the ballast from the circuit as a failure and power-draw point. Yet, the MK1 remains a popular option because the task of simply swapping out tubes is quicker and easier than digging in behind fixtures to wire around modern T8 electronic ballasts, which may in fact be very efficient and long lived. The gains from an easy implementation today are deemed “good enough” by many users to offset the incremental advantages from a more labor-intensive swap. On the other hand, when presented with inefficient T12 ballasts, the equation shifts quickly to bypassing the old ballast as a preferred option. As part of its public/private partnership with the State of Michigan, ilumisys installed firstgeneration MK1 tubes in the Escanaba State Office Building, with an agreement to perform two subsequent upgrades. (It should be noted that the LED lights have been so well accepted that the Escanaba staff have decided to keep them, and to simply use later generations to fit out more of the building.) The swap-out of 200 tubes was accomplished in a couple of hours by a small team of people. Had the conversion to LED lighting required a significant tear-up of ceilings and disruption to the working environment, it is unlikely that this project would have moved as rapidly or with such immediate acceptance as a low-risk way of going forward. The definition of short, medium, and longterm is of course of paramount interest. Given the long life-cycles for buildings, it seems reasonable to expect the need for retrofit technologies in significant numbers for at least the next 20 years, after which the lighting infrastructure can be expected to have cycled through to new, LED-specific designs. For the reasons listed, a case can be made that retrofitting existing lighting fixtures provides a clear and effective benefit to the enduser, while reducing extensive capital costs at the budding stages of the LED development movement. LEDsmagazine.com JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009 35 Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page A B E F M aG S
Change language