Fluorescent Area Lighting Savings

[MikeV]

New lights

I have been changing out my Scottsdale lights with high output flourescents with motion sensors from Grainger. Just as much light at far less the operating expense.

 

[MEP001]

I've noticed recently too that there are fluorescents out there now that produce the same light per watt as the pulse-start metal halides, and don't degrade so fast over time. This one:

http://www.1000bulbs.com/High-Bay-Elite-Fluorescent-Fixtures/31078/

would seem ideal if it were enclosed - I've been working on building a vaccu-form mold table to make enclosures out of APET plastic sheeting, which is as tough as a plastic soda bottle and completely resistant to UV yellowing, problem is I can't find the sheeting in the US at all. I've found a few places that claim they can import it from China, but they all seem dubious at best. I also ran across this site:

http://www.naeg.com/products/led_can_37_50.htm

It looks interesting, but I can't find any info on the lumen output. For $800 per fixture, if you could replace one Scottsdale with one of these they would have a (roughly) five year payoff in energy savings. The one thing that bugs me most about them is that they're 110-277V AC. It would be ideal to have them 12V DC to power them directly from wind or solar generated power/batteries.

 

[Waxman]

My friend had ALL of her carwash lighting replaced at NO COST to her recently.

She found out about an area-specific grant in her city to replace all lighting with new, energy efficient stuff.

Cool! Maybe something for us all to check out locally.

 

[MEP001]

Any idea what type of lighting was used, or how well it lights up the wash?

If I thought I could get good light output at a reasonable payoff from an alternate source, I'd switch from the pulse-start metal halides.

 

[Waxman]

CPFL's I think. Have not seen it yet, but heard it's fantastic!

 

[MEP001]

There are some compact lights that advertise great light output, for example I saw some advertising 700W incandescent equivalent, for 85 watts. Sounded great, so I bought a couple and tried them. The light output sucked - I have a two D-cell LED flashlight that does better. Turns out they're not fluorescent but Fluorex, which are intended for growing plants and not for normal lighting. They're 6500K, which is as nasty looking as regular mercury vapor and the color rendering is terrible, so you need three times as many of them, negating almost all of the energy savings. A lot of the fixtures I see advertised as a direct replacement for metal halide are also Fluorex.

 

[MikeV]

Mep, The lights I got from Grainger state that the voltage is 120/277...After talking with their tech department, I found out that these will operate on 120/220/240/277. Have 4 of these units up now and they light is as good as the scottsdales.

 

[MEP001]

It's actually 120/208/240/277, also known as "multi-tap."

What's the model number?

 

[MikeV]

Grainger part no's are
Fixture 1THK8, lamps 1PDD4

 

[MEP001]

That's a lot of money for a fixture that's not even enclosed.

 

[Randy]

We use a Lithonia DMW Wet Location 8? Fluorescent Fixture Grainer #2MZH7 with a F96T12HO, Bulb #5V631. We?ve used these fixtures since 1982 with great success. We change the bulbs every 18 months to get the maximum amount of light from the bulb. You can definitely tell the difference when you change out bulbs. My power bill last month was $158.20 and Oct to April I keep the bay lights on 24/7 because it's so dark up here it's like trying to wash your car in a cave.

 

[MEP001]

The T5HO bulbs produce more light per watt than the T12HO bulbs, last much longer (as much as 30,000 hours vs. 8-10,000) and lose much less light output throughout their life. Some manufacturers report 94% light outout at projected end-of-life.

 

[Shorco1]

It has been almost a year since I changed to Fluorescent Lighting for the Vac Islands and buildings lights at my carwashes. This enabled me to have Progress Energy eliminate the huge area lights at a savings of $275 per month rental fee. My electric bill for one wash is averaging about $123 less in consumption per month and the other is $114 less per month than the comparable time period. For 11 months I've saved $5632. I have my bay lights on a timer and half of the lights go off at 11 PM. I've been comparing the brightness of the Fluorescent Vac Island light to the Metal Halide. The Fluorescent Lights are maintaining their brightness and the Halides are showing their age. I've replace one Fluorescent bulb out of the 38 that I installed

 

[Kevin James]

Thank you for the update. This is a very timely post. I have two 175 watt metal halide lights over my vacuums that have died, both need new ballasts and bulbs. I believe that by the time I replace both the ballast and bulb I might as well replace the fixture so I have been contemplating putting up the 65 watt Fluorescent lights so this update is great help. I?m concerned with the operating costs as I do very little night business, the lights are mostly for security

 

[MEP001]

Fluorescents have improved quite a bit even in the last few years, but compact fluorescents are still nowhere near the same light output per watt as metal halide. That said, I am myself getting fed up with the huge amount of degradation of the metal halides, and eating up so much time and money replacing bulbs at half their rated life just to maintain decent light. Since your last thread on this same subject, I have replaced all the capacitors and bulbs. Already the first ones I did are noticeably dimmer than the ones I finally got to a couple months ago. I've also found some charts that show that despite the manufacturers' claims, the pulse-start metal halides may lose a third of their light output at 50% of their projected life expectancy. That's 20 bulbs at $30 apiece about every 18 months, average about $400 a year not counting my time.

There are some fluorescent tube fixtures now that produce the same light per watt as the pulse-start metal halides and lose very little light output over their life. I plan to retrofit a bay soon with 4 fluorescents in place of 2 Scottsdales and turn half of them off at 11 PM. I should get much more light during the busier hours, and with half turned off late at night there should still be a significant energy savings. On top of that, their life expectancy is 24,000 hours and they retain almost all of their light output throughout their life, so maintenance should be significantly reduced.

 

[Shorco1]

Mepp, analyze less, take some time out of your busy schedule of 1800 posts and put up a couple of lights. You'll be happy with the results and you can make your own graphs and charts plus save money and be happy.

 

[PaulLovesJamie]

Mepp, analyze less,

I disagree. MEP, analyze more.

MEP, my analysis comes to exactly the same conclusion as yours. Only problem is I dont have the cash to do it right now.

 

[Mel(NC)]

I have done very little research on this but I am still going to add my two cents worth.

I see a lot of the large industrial plants I visit switching from metal halide to flourescent so there has to be a substantial savings. Maybe the savings is generated by conparing average light output over the life of the bulbs and not the initial output.

 

[MEP001]

I see a lot of the large industrial plants I visit switching from metal halide to flourescent

That's sort of what got me looking into fluorescent again - I've noticed all the big stores (Home Depot, Lowe's, Sam's, etc) are going back to fluorescents from metal halide, and the stores are equally well lit.

 

[MEP001]

Mepp, analyze less, take some time out of your busy schedule of 1800 posts

Since we seem to be free to tell one another what to do, don't worry about how much I post.

I like analyzing stuff. My mind likes working on problems, and I do a lot of driving. It's something to keep from getting bored on the road.