Under the new voluntary commitment, effective October 4, 2010, NEMA members will cap the total mercury content in CFLs of less than 25 watts at 4mg (milligrams) per lamp. The total mercury content of CFLs that use 25 to 40 watts of electricity will be capped at 5mg per lamp.

This agreement builds upon the companies’ March 2007 voluntary commitment and is consistent with NEMA’s initiative to reduce use of hazardous substances whenever feasible.

“NEMA lamp companies acknowledge the importance of reducing mercury content of fluorescent lamps while continuing to achieve the high performance and quality consumers expect,” said NEMA Lamp Section Chair Pam Horner. “NEMA’s update of the voluntary commitment today is made possible by research and engineering innovation in the lamp industry.”

While these lighting innovation initiatives are just reaching the residential market, trace mercury fluorescent lamps have been available for some time now for use in commercial applications.  Previously in commercial applications we saw the use of metal halides, HID fixtures, and T12 lamps, but we are seeing a phase out of these fixtures as they are both inefficiency and contain higher mercury levels, with levels as high as 10mg per lamp. While metal halides may be suitable in some commercial applications, such as outdoor lighting, there are certainly more energy efficient alternatives available for indoor commercial and warehouse settings that are designed specifically for use in retail, property management, commercial, and industrial segments.

The most commonly used lamps in lighting retrofits are T8 & T5 linear fluorescent lamps, which are highly efficiency, TCLP-compliant, and at the highest have 5mg of mercury and at the lowest 1.4mg.   Many manufacturers offer low mercury T8 lamps that contain approximately 3.5 mg per lamp, and some even offer an extra low mercury T8 lamps with less than 1.7 mg of mercury per lamp.  Newly designed T5 lamps are also more versatile, offering increased lighting flexibility, especially in tight spaces and low profile applications.

All the more reason to retrofit your existing lighting system: energy efficiency, better lighting, safer, and more environmentally friendly

TCLP stands for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. Fluorescent bulbs that are TCLP compliant reduce the amount of pollutants released into the environment. Mercury’s greatest threat comes when it is vaporized and can be inhaled, like when a bulb containing mercury is broken, shatters or ruptures in your place of business. Lamps with reduced mercury content pass the EPA’s TCLP tests, and pose less danger to the environment, your employees and your patrons in the event of breakage.

(Sources: NEMA & http://www.zeromercury.org/)

While solar power makes sense for some obvious reasons, what are the implications from what we do not see on the surface of this technology?  Since solar plants rely a large water supply, how will it affect our water sources in the years to come?  Robert Glennon, a law professor at the University of Arizona who has written two books on water use says it well, “This technology uses gobs of water.” He adds, “We are not paying enough attention to energy and its water needs, and solar energy needs a lot of water.” (Source)

So, will water recycling become a part of everyday life in US living, as areas such as the Netherlands have embraced such energy efficient practices?

Are there easier ways to reduce energy usage and cost while avoiding a vicious circle of destruction on our planet?  Perhaps an easier way already exists and we can forget about reinventing the wheel.  Maybe it is as simple as all warehouses in the US receiving a lighting retrofit.

This year the International Energy Agency classified onshore wind as “potentially cost-competitive” with fossil fuels for the first time.” (Source) Yet, we must consider local factors.

Will investing in turbine energy pay-off? Furthermore, could we avoid having giant windmills outside our front door if each one of us was to be more energy conscious? Maybe it can start with changing current lighting systems, rearranging lights where we need them most, and using them only when we need them. Cost-benefit analysis…the simplicity of a lighting retrofit could save companies hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

This year, LFI debuted a new pavilion on the trade show floor, the Building Integration Pavilion, which featured companies with enterprise system technologies used to maximize and create energy efficient buildings and showcased many of these successful projects. In addition, nearly 100 industry experts presented 72 sessions, addressing topics that covered lighting fundamentals, software, applications, controls and solutions, as well as design innovation, sustainability, energy-efficiency, product updates and case studies.

Aelux’s technical team spent several days reviewing the latest new technologies being offered by hundreds of new and established manufacturers. LEDs were the hot product line with dozens of new companies competing for what they billed as the future of lighting.

There is no doubt that within the next 5 to 10 years there will be LED solutions for every lighting environment; but we are just not there yet. LEDs are excellent for decorative and retail applications and even a few very high-end commercial uses. However, for the conventional industrial/commercial/institutional marketplaces, the efficiency delivered by the LEDs when combined with their high cost simply does not provide the high ROIs our customers have come to expect. There is one notable exception. We found some very interesting LED solutions for outdoor/garage lighting, and we are working closely with a couple of potential suppliers to see if we can offer outdoor solutions that will insure both quality and real value.

We were impressed with the developments of a couple notable manufacturers of induction lighting, and see a place in the high bay and outdoor space for this technology now. To be sure, the first cost is still higher than fluorescents, but the benefits of producing the same light output from a single lamp (as opposed to 3,4,6 or 8 lamps for linear T8/T5HO fluorescents) has caught the attention of several of our clients. Coupled with up to 100,000-hour lamp life, the ROI on these systems can rival fluorescents when accounting for total cost of ownership.

In the meantime, the fluorescent manufactures have not been idle. There are new higher efficiency lower wattage T-8s and T-5s that will make our fluorescent retrofits even more efficient and produce even higher returns.

It is without a doubt that “LIGHTFAIR International continues to evolve as the premier event for the lighting industry and as the world’s largest architectural and commercial lighting trade show and conference,” says Rochelle Burt, managing director of LIGHTFAIR International.

Aelux understands that the lighting industry is more dynamic than ever, and you can be certain that we will always be in the forefront of bringing our customers the best values possible. Contact an Aelux representative to learn how your business can achieve the highest ROI with a lighting retrofit project.

Source

These lamp types will no longer be manufactured:

• Most 4-ft. linear full-wattage and energy-saving T12 lamps
• All 2-ft. full-wattage and energy-saving U-shaped T12 lamps
• All 75W F96T12 and 110W F96T12HO lamps
• Most 60W F96T12/ES and 95W F96T12/ES/HO lamps
• All 4-ft. T8 basic-grade 700/SP series lamps rated at 2,800 lumens
• Some 8-ft. T8 Slimline single-pin 700/SP series and 8-ft. T8 HO RDC-base lamps

While Congress debates climate and energy legislation, Asian challengers are moving rapidly to win the clean energy race. China alone is reportedly investing $440-660 billion in its clean energy industries over 10 years. South Korea is investing a full two percent of its GDP in a “Green New Deal” to expand their share in cleantech markets. And Japan is redoubling direct incentives for solar power, aiming for a 20-fold expansion in installed solar energy by 2020.

In contrast, the United States would invest only about $1.2 billion annually in energy research and development and roughly $10 billion in the clean energy sector as a whole under the Waxman-Markey bill — less than 0.1 percent of U.S. GDP. This funding level is so low that a group of 34 Nobel Laureates recently submitted a letter to President Obama decrying the lack of investment and calling on the president to uphold his promise to invest $15 billion annually in clean energy R&D — fifteen times the current level in Waxman-Markey.

The U.S. is not only investing far less in our clean energy industries than Asian nations, but also falling behind in energy science and technology education. Only 15 percent of undergraduate degrees earned in the U.S. each year are in science, technology, math, and engineering (STEM) areas compared to 50 percent in China, according to the National Science Foundation — all at a time when nearly half of our current energy workforce is expected to retire over the next decade.

This spring, the Obama administration proposed an initiative designed to bridge this dangerous energy education gap by inspiring and educating thousands of young Americans to pursue careers in clean energy. The program, called RE-ENERGYSE (REgaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge), would fund new undergraduate and graduate energy curriculum and train up to 8,500 highly educated young scientists and engineers in the clean energy field by 2015 alone. Technical training and K-12 funding would support hundreds of programs nationwide to train thousands more technically skilled clean energy workers.

As President Obama announced in April, “The nation that leads the world in 21st century clean energy will be the nation that leads in the 21st century global economy… [RE-ENERGYSE] will prepare a generation of Americans to meet this generational challenge.”

Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate and House recently rejected the Obama administration’s energy education proposal, with the Senate cutting the program from $115 million to $0 and the House appropriating only $7 million.

If the U.S. had responded to the Soviet launch of Sputnik the way today’s Congress is responding to the Asian energy challenge, America would not only have lost the space race, we would have been left behind in the technologies and industries that fueled a half-century of economic progress.
Indeed, the U.S. simply could not have won the space race without major federal investments in targeted education programs. Spurred on by the Soviet launch of Sputnik, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act in 1958, committing billions of dollars to equip a generation to confront the Soviet challenge. These investments developed the human capital necessary to put a man on the moon and invent the technologies that catapulted our world into the Information Age, from microchips and telecommunications to personal computing and the Internet.

Last week, a group of over 100 universities, student groups, and professional associations submitted a letter to each member of the Senate urging full support of RE-ENERGYSE. “America is in danger of losing its global competitiveness and the clean energy race without substantial new investments in science, technology, math, and engineering education,” they wrote. “RE-ENERGYSE… will train America’s future energy workforce, accelerate our transition to a prosperous clean energy economy, and ensure that we lead the world’s burgeoning clean technology industries.”

To win today’s clean-energy race, the United States must respond with the same vigorous commitment to education and innovation that won the space race four decades ago. Congress should begin by strengthening RE-ENERGYSE to the full $115 million requested and pass energy legislation that invests $30 billion to $50 billion annually in low-carbon energy, including the $15 billion in energy R&D called for by our nation’s top scientists.

If America does not take immediate action to bridge its energy education gap — and if we fail to make substantially larger investments in our own clean energy economy — we will effectively cede the clean energy race to Asia. Forty years from today, we may still find the burgeoning clean energy economy promised by President Obama and Democratic leaders. It will simply be headquartered in China.

Notes from Aelux: We have both internal and external education programs in place including our newsletter, blog and presentations we provide.

Color Rendering Index (CRI) is an important consideration for task lighting. CRI refers to the ability of a light source to render colors reflected to a standard, such as daylight. Daylight is given a CRI of 100. Higher numbers indicate a light source that will reflect more colors of an object compared to how it would be reflected in daylight. For instance, new T8 lamps offer a CRI of 85 — more colors and better lighting than standard fluorescent and metal halide lamps. 33-60% energy savings coupled with available rebate and grant programs are prompting more and more companies to retrofit with T8 lamps.

Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) is also important in choosing lighting for the correct task. CCT is measured in Kelvin (K). Lower color temperatures (below 3200K) are usually considered warm, while those above 4,000K are considered cool. Daylight is 6500K. 5000K, a popular fluorescent CCT for a cool light, is gaining more prominence in the High Intensity Fluorescent segment for industrial lighting. 5000K is also being preferred in certain office applications. Employees should be considered when choosing to switch, and it is often a good idea to have a test area before switching to a different CCT.