faces of the future - Illuminating Engineering Society

ENERGY ADVISOR
FSP Group
1/3
Vertical Ad
achieved by re-ballasting and relamping
the existing luminaires
to a lower power level, but these
cases are not examined for energy
and economic effects.
• One Gateway report did not
compare LED luminaires against
HPS sources, which are the most
commonly installed outdoor
area luminaires and which NLPIP
found most cost effective for collector
roads from the models
tested.
• The studies fail to separately
measure or adjust for ambient
light levels.
• For collector roads, the LED luminaires
studied required a narrower
pole spacing to meet (IES/
ANSI) RP-8 (Roadway Lighting)
than did other lighting technologies,
and this significantly affected
their cost effectivness.
• One report on maintenance presumably
includes re-ballasting
and cleaning for the previously
installed system, but assumes
no maintenance costs for an LED
luminaire, even though there is
no evidence LED drivers will outlast
HID ballasts.
• One LED installation with vacancy
sensors is compared to an
HID system without a motion
sensor even though it is possible
to dim HID sources.
• In some cases the selected
luminaires overlighted or underlighted
the sites relative to the
performance criteria.
• One report showed a max-tomin
illuminance ratio for the LED
luminaire that is not consistent
with the data presented and the
price of the LED unit in the text
is different from the price in the
payback analysis, leading to a
different economic result for the
non-LED system.
NLPIP has faith that LED systems
will play an important role in the
future of lighting, but strives to
help “prevent backlash and permanent
barriers for new technologies.”
NLPIP also identifies “shortcomings
of products, which has led to an
industry response resulting in new
and better products, and debunks
non-performing products like power
reducers, polarizing panels and
specular reflectors, which resulted
in their decreased market share.”
THE VIRTUE OF PEER REVIEW
The DOE is now being challenged
by the independent LRC as to whether
their Gateway reports are unbiased
engineering studies or are only
being used to “accelerate SSL technology.”
This is the virtue of “peer
review.” In order for the IES, or any
technical organization to be considered
relevant, it must engage in peer
review. The IES is very careful to have
every Recommended Practice (RPs),
Measurement, Testing, Calculations
(LMs) the IES Lighting Handbook,
and its published reports, thoroughly
vetted by experts to maintain its
guarded reputation for relevance
and accuracy. And LD+A continues
to print “Letters to the Editor,” even
when they criticize this columnist.
Willard L. Warren, PE, Fellow
IES, is principal of Willard L.
Warren Associates, a consulting
firm serving industry, government
and utility clients in lighting
and energy conservation.
20 www.ies.org