You mentioned that the city bypassed potential electricity savings when they upgraded 25 years ago by upping the wattage to the same wattage that the previous lights used (same wattage, but more light), and then you mention that the city is on track to make the same mistake. Could you tell me what the wattage is for the lights pictures in the article? It's really hard for me to believe that the new LED lights use anywhere near as much electricity as the old lights, no matter how bright they are.
Also you touch on induction lighting, and note that the city hasn't given reasons why LED was chosing over induction. You don't need the city to comment on the why, because induction lighting flaws are widely known. Induction lights contain mercury (complicating disposal), and generally reach 65% brightness after 60,000 hours (most LED's used in street lighting reach 70% brightness after 100,000 hours). This is the reason they are so bright to start, because they will dim. If induction lighting was used it would also be really bright in the begining.
Early on induction lighting was much cheaper, but there have been faily dramatic advances in LED tech over the past 3 years which can give them the edge. I'm not saying LED wins over induction every time, but they're so close it's kind of a wash now.
Last edited by echinatl; Jul 16, 2014 at 2:28 PM.
|