advanced search

It's Not Easy Being Green

Jul 1, 2008 12:00 PM, By Carla Gallina, Lighting Designer

What it takes to achieve a truly green lighting design

There are many ways of evaluating “green” design. Green architecture includes specification of renewable, local, and nontoxic materials, enhanced envelope design, and daylight strategies. Green electrical and mechanical systems are evaluated on energy performance and rewarded for energy reduction. When it comes to lighting, there is much more to going green than simply reducing energy. In an effort to shave watts and evaluate efficacy, designers may overlook an obvious — or perhaps not so obvious — incandescent lamp choice; namely, the 37W/ MR16/ IR. This powerful and efficient halogen source has commercial and retail applications that may make it the lamp of choice for green designs, including those seeking Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum certification.

At minimum, energy code compliance and LEED certification require evaluating lighting system performance based on watts per square foot, a metric that is oblivious to light quality, system performance, embodied energy, and environmental waste. If a lighting system meets energy requirements as measured by a watt-hour-meter but is of poor light quality, introducing glare and providing inadequate light levels, is it truly green? What if it is difficult and expensive to operate and maintain, doesn't account for the actual power delivered to the lighting system, or contains toxic waste and throw-away electronics? Is it sustainable?

To help answer these questions, we'll make two comparisons. First, let's look at the system operation of 37W/MR16/IR/FL35 lamps and PL-T 42W compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) installed in commercial downlights. Then, let's weigh the advantages of the 35MRC/IRC/NFL24 halogen relative to the PAR38/CDMI/FL25 integrated ceramic metal-halide (M-H) lamp installed in an open lamp holder or mono-point. Conclusions are based on a macro analysis of sustainability, which includes trading energy performance for operational performance and re-examining the way we gauge energy efficiency relative to delivered light.

Performance metrics

Efficacy, as defined by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), New York, equals lumen per watt and is a preliminary measure used to compare the energy value of various light sources. However, lamp efficacy is not a constant. When a lamp is installed in a luminaire, the efficacy is reduced by the luminaire efficiency. As the lighting system ages, its efficacy degrades further. Discharge lamps — metal halides, in particular — suffer significant losses in lumen output as they age, yet the energy input remains constant. At 40% of rated lamp life, M-H lamps nominally provide 65% of initial lumen output, and fluorescent lamps nominally provide 85% of initial lumen output. The efficacy of a halogen lamp remains relatively constant, losing only about 5% of initial lumen output by end-of-life.

The candlepower distribution of a lamp or luminaire provides precise measures of light intensity and distribution, whereas efficacy provides little usable information regarding actual performance. To illustrate this simply, consider two 60W PAR38 halogen lamps from a single manufacturer: one 25° narrow flood (NFL25) and one 30° flood (FL30). The manufacturer's data rate both lamps at 850 lumens, and both lamps have the same efficacy. When calculated at 5° intervals, however, the NFL25 delivers 11,658 total candlepower with a center beam candlepower (CBCP) of 3,909, and the FL30 delivers 9,598 total candlepower with a CBCP of 2,643. If you consider candlepower per watt in place of lumen per watt, the NFL25 significantly outperforms the FL30 at a distribution range up to 40° vertical (Table 1). Light intensity measured in candela is the standard metric used in point-by-point lighting analyses and is used for evaluating lamp and luminaire performance in this article.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!

© 2012 Penton Business Media, Inc.

---

Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus

Browse Back Issues Select an Issue EC&M Magazine | April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 1, 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 1, 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 1, 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 2006 March 1, 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 1, 2004 January 1, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 September 1, 2003 August 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 June 1, 2003 May 1, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 1, 2003 December 1, 2002 November 1, 2002 October 1, 2002 September 1, 2002 August 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 April 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 February 1, 2002 January 1, 2002 December 1, 2001 November 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 June 1, 2001 May 1, 2001 April 1, 2001 March 1, 2001 February 1, 2001 February 1, 1995 January 1, 2001 December 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 October 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 August 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 1, 2000 May 1, 2000 April 1, 2000 March 1, 2000 February 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 December 1, 1999 November 1, 1999 October 1, 1999 September 1, 1999 August 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 June 1, 1999 May 1, 1999 April 1, 1999 March 1, 1999 February 1, 1999 January 1, 1999 December 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 October 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 August 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 June 1, 1998 May 1, 1998 April 1, 1998 March 1, 1998 February 1, 1998 January 1, 1998 December 1, 1997 November 1, 1997 December 1, 1996 November 1, 1996 October 1, 1996 September 1, 1996 August 1, 1996 July 1, 1996 June 1, 1996 May 1, 1996 April 1, 1996 March 1, 1996 February 1, 1996 January 1, 1996 December 1, 1995 November 30, 1995 November 1, 1995 October 1, 1995 September 1, 1995 August 1, 1995 July 1, 1995 June 1, 1995 May 1, 1995 April 1, 1995 March 1, 1995

browse e-newsletters