Posting in Cities
Is it worth installing LED systems in urban areas?
Light-emitting diode (LED) lighting systems are used in a variety of ways -- from energy-saving in the average home of the consumer to street lights in major urban cities.
But how much energy does implementing this kind of technology actually save? The Climate Group has recently released the findings of a two-and-a-half-year study which examined the use of LEDs in major cities, and how consumers view these lighting systems.
Titled "Lighting the Clean Revolution: The Rise of LED Street Lighting and What it Means for Cities", the report (.pdf) is aimed at policymakers and city lighting managers who want to further explore the potential of LED technology in urban areas.
Piloting 15 separate schemes in 12 cities across the globe -- including New York, London and Kolkata -- the company found that in some cases, LED technology accounted for an 85 percent reduction in energy costs.
The LED lighting systems under trial indicated that those with a lifespan range of 50,000 – 100,000 hours provided the best return on investment for lighting urban areas and cutting costs. Furthermore, the rate of failure after providing 6,000 hours of lighting was far lower than traditional lights -- at only one percent.
The programme also indicates that citizens of pilot cities prefer LED lighting, citing social and environmental benefits. In Kolkata, London, Sydney and Toronto, between 68 and 90 percent of respondents indicated that they approved of city-wide LED rollouts.
Generally, these opinions manifested from the low failure rate, improved safety and high visibility.
Mark Kenber, CEO, The Climate Group said:
"This report clearly highlights that LEDs are ready to be scaled-up in towns and cities across the globe. We are now calling on Governments to remove policy obstacles and enable a rapid transition to low carbon lighting.
All new public lighting -- both street lighting and in public buildings -- should be LED by 2015, with the aim of all public lighting being LED by 2020. We will be working to recruit a leadership group of city, state and national governments to adopt this and report on progress on an annual basis over the next three years."
The pilot projects were launched as part of the Clean Revolution campaign at the Rio+20 UN Global Compact Corporate Sustainability Forum. It has been produced by The Climate Group in partnership with Philips.
Image credit: Stefano Mortellaro
- Customizing car interiors with LED lighting
- Floating, smartphone-equipped robots track water flow
- 100,000 firefly LEDs swarm into Tokyo
- Advanced LED lights attempt to break into city markets
Jun 18, 2012
LED lights save a huge amount of electricity as they consume very less watts as compared to other light bulbs.
Very interesting blog it is and worth sharing.
Payback time for LED Street Lights depends on several factors, but most importantly these are the energy consumption of old street lamps and the price of electricity. These factors can vary from country to country, from city to city and from street to street (usually within one street same kind of street lights are used). If you need details about some street light projects, please contact us with details and we will calculate for you also the ROI or payback time (http://www.luxtella.com).
I think LED Street Lights can save much more than normal lights. LED lighting will eventually sell itself. The biggest problem is the cost, as costs continue to come down, they will eventually overtake every other form of lighting. This is the best way to conserve electricity.
I think [b][url=http://www.ledlightshub.com/led-street-light][*] Â·LED Street Lights[/url][/b] can save much more than normal lights. LED lighting will eventually sell itself. The biggest problem is the cost, as costs continue to come down, they will eventually overtake every other form of lighting.
It is always good to use LED lights instead of the normal lights that is being offered in the market.For which it has great attributes that is good for the environment and it saves a lot. It is very efficient that should be use for normal consumption. But with this, we should bear in mind that we can get good quality LED lamps and lights from reliable manufacturers such as [url=http://www.bailedlights.com/led-tunnel-mining-lamps/]BAI LED Lights[/url] that we can have transaction online. With their great devotion for giving world class products, they can give you excellent results.
LED Lights has a low power consumption and long and predictable lifetime.The lifetime of LED street lights is usually 10 to 15 years, three times the life of current technologies adopted. LEDs also have low maintenance cost.
You have made a good research on the actual saving of the government with led lights Led lights are best found alternative source for the old energy consuming lights, they last long as they have a better working life about 50000 hrs much better than old forms also they do not harm environment and are available in many colors as Red, Green, Blue, White etc. Though led lights posses the good number of positive qualities, the most efficient lighting suffer a big set back with respect to prices, prices of these lights are quite high which makes it set back, though the prices are on fallling range (i.e, gradually falling) yet they are more expensive. [url=http://www.rulac.com/]Led Tube Light[/url] are also expensive for installing and this is the main reason why led lights are not popular yet.
It was mentioned that a flaw of LED lighting was that it was so cool when running that it would allow snow to build up. Well, that may be true but I really like the LED light I used to replaced my mini fluorescent that was supposed to save the world. The fluorescent really did not like cold weather, it would start after a protracted period and then run dimly. The Phillips LED light I put in ($19.95 on special) goes on immediately. No cold weather problems here any more. Something else to realize is that LED lighting is great stuff but is still in its infancy, there are some fantastic upgrades to that coming along and prices are expected to drop. Looking forward to all of that.
LED traffic lights had a fatal flaw when first installed in cold weather states. Traditional incandescent bulbs did not ice up in snow storms. LED lights run cooler and froze over with ice and snow. Thousands of accidents happened nation wide before the problem was identified. LED traffic lights now have thermostat controlled heaters installed when used in cold weather climates. LED streetlights have the same problem with snow and ice buildup. When people quote the power savings of LED lights for traffic and streetlights they neglect to include the power used by the heaters. Best case, the savings are minimal when the heaters are installed. In some cases the net power used is actually higher than an incandescent bulb. The installation is also more complex and more prone to failure making the traffic lights less reliable.
The report talked about (and also linked) in the article above examined pilot projects, and makes the case for the economic sense of converting to LEDs. Among important points it considers is that LED lights will increase in efficiency, and decrease in price, at least over the next several years. Most large and medium sized cities run pilot projects to test how such a change would work for them - what real energy savings there are, relative ease of conversion, cost of maintenance and disposal. Most responsible managers of cities, especially now in times of budget cutbacks, phase-in such installations only after a pilot study, and usually as part of standard equipment replacement. Even so, you might take the report itself with a grain of salt: it was sponsored by Phillips and HSBC. One aspect of upgrading lighting seldom considered is to reduce light spill both into the sky above, into adjacent housing, and into the urban habitats of birds and other animals. I don't think, however (as a previous commenter suggested) that LED street lighting would cause additional negative health effects. We're exposed to street lighting only briefly, and usually indirectly, and in nowhere near the intensity of daylight.
If batteries in the pole and integrated solar panels are added, you will have a winner. Installation would be faster and the recovered copper from the old AC feeds would help offset the costs.
How much time and money is needed, if any, to convert the equipment? This is one of the biggest factors right here. There is a far different cost if it is a matter of plugging in a new bulb vs rewiring and the like. Cost of new bulb vs cost of changing the old bulbs. It takes a certain amount of time to have an employee change the bulbs. If you are able to do the same job with far less people, this adds up fast. This is assuming, of course, that new bulbs do at least as good a job as the old ones. There are problems that will have to be addressed later on regarding disposal and recycling. The old bulbs are just glass and wire. The new bulbs contain elements that are potentially toxic, like mercury.
The relatively low failure rate was reassuring but what was the ROI? Moreover, before we widely adopt LED lighting it would be helpful to address the potential biological effects: http://www.greenprophet.com/2011/09/led-light-pollution/#
For consumers, failure rates don't matter as much when the cost of labor is the price paid for getting off the couch and replacing lamps. For commercial and government, labor is a huge cost, and most of the lights that require replacing also require a ladder or a power lift. It's a no-brainer.
Fluorescent and Energy saving CF (compact fluorescent) bulbs do. You're a little confused. Please try and keep up.
What are the results of a CBA? How much does a city have to pay to install each LED. The energy savings and the replacement lamp savings should be significant. Unless this is balanced against the cost of installing the LED in the first place, and scrapping the old lamps, the savings data is useless. I paid $5,000 for a new HE central A/C, new ducts, and new attic insulation in my home. Then I paid $18,000 for new radiant barrier, siding, doors, and windows. My peak electric usage in the summer dropped by about 45%, saving me about $90 a month for four months a year, and much less than that during sub 90 degree months. All in all I reduced my electical usage by about 6,000 KwH a year, or about $600 or so. I spent $23,000 and save $600 a year in energy costs. The ROI? Never. However, the benefits of a much more comforable home are incalculable. And, since the costs have been paid, I do reap a benefit of $600 a year lower cost of living. I'm just out the twenty-four G's. I sure don't want my city to operate that way, unless they follow the same plan... I raised the $24,000 by spending less in other places, not by confiscating money from other people.