IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Led floodlights recommendations
Topic Summary: Commercial type
Created On: 19 November 2012 07:59 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 19 November 2012 07:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jamieblatant

Posts: 513
Joined: 11 January 2006

A customer has asked me to fit some outdoor lighting in a car park were I would normally use a 400 son t or some other big light that would kick out some white light

We have used led extensively in the building but I would like to use some led lifts for this

I have looked at the cooper ones as I have seen them on demo and there pretty good but was after any recommendations any one may have

There gonna be high up and hard to get to so I don't want them failing after a week so good brands please

Thanks
Jamie

-------------------------
Keep up with the antics of the UK,s most humoured electrical company
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RtIndustriaLtd
Twitter: @rtindustria
 19 November 2012 08:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19747
Joined: 23 March 2004

What sort of illuminance do you need over what sort of area - the last time I tried anything of a reasonable size with LED's we couldn't get the installed power density down low enough for the BREEAM requirements - ended up with cosmopolis instead as the best balance of Cr and power density

I've also some direct experience of using some brands who have put LED into street lighting lanterns - they have not lived up to claims of low maintenance that's for sure.

Some are better however, try Holophane, DW Windsor or We-eF - not cheap but have much better thermal control than others

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 19 November 2012 08:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jamieblatant

Posts: 513
Joined: 11 January 2006

I am trying to light a car park from a wall running adjacent to it with 4 evenly spaced lights it's around 30 m x20 meters long and I want the light to be white

I am not after a retrofit lamp I would like a bespoke led fitting alike this type of thing

http://www.cooper-ls.com/sites...atasheet-led-flood.pdf

-------------------------
Keep up with the antics of the UK,s most humoured electrical company
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RtIndustriaLtd
Twitter: @rtindustria
 19 November 2012 08:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19747
Joined: 23 March 2004

OK - you'll need 3 of those then at an installed power of 600W with a colour rendering index of 65

You could achieve a better result with 3 cosmopolis 140W lamps - and they would have a good lamp life and better colour rendering of 80.

If you want LED, then personally I wouldn't go with Cooper Lighting

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 19 November 2012 08:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for slittle.
slittle

Posts: 3559
Joined: 22 November 2007

Depends what your budget is, we've had some good results with the bigger Loxa ones out in the rural parts.


Stu
 19 November 2012 10:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jamieblatant

Posts: 513
Joined: 11 January 2006

Who would you go with OMS ????

Budget not really a problem due to Eco customer

-------------------------
Keep up with the antics of the UK,s most humoured electrical company
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RtIndustriaLtd
Twitter: @rtindustria
 20 November 2012 10:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19747
Joined: 23 March 2004

OK - I'd go first with an energy assessment of comparable schemes designed to a given illuminance and uniformity.

Decide what you want (say 20 lux average with 5 lux minimum), look for near zero upward light, and then compare LED with say ceramic metal halide to ge comparable colour rendering.

From there contrast the fittings for whole life cost

Essentially you are looking at multiple criteria design to find the best balance of capital cost, performance (including energy) and maintenance cost. Keep in mind such things that from an "eco" point of view it's greener to change a lamp twice if it outperforms energy wise a longer life lamp by more.

As a starting point, the last area flood scheme I looked at was based on a comparison of Holophane Aeris luminaires which have SON, MH CMH and LED lumen packages - having selected those options we conrasted with Urbis - Neos range and one other.

Eventually (for that particular scheme) we settled on the Holophane fitting with cosmopolis ceramic metal halide lamps as being the best overall performing lamp - although lamp access was easy with a site cherry picker so clearly relamping was ranked lower and thus comparable with the long life claims of the LED version.

If you knock up a simple ranking and weighting table for say cost, energy in use, lamping cycle, colour rendering and recycling at end of life you should be easily able to compare a variety of manufacturers and models

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 20 November 2012 10:24 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for zeeper.
zeeper

Posts: 1411
Joined: 11 July 2008

If you were truely looking at eco benefit and not just a cost reduction over a number of years. You would also look at the energy invested in the product before it reaches the customers site.And the damage to the enviroment where they are produced
 20 November 2012 12:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19747
Joined: 23 March 2004

Cost would be a reasonable metric by which to measure "energy invested" and ability to recycle would capture "environmental impact".

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 20 November 2012 12:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for zeeper.
zeeper

Posts: 1411
Joined: 11 July 2008

Cost would be a reasonable metric by which to measure "energy invested"


NO thats not right, I dont know the numbers I sure others do.

For example: If you had to burn 10 trees to make and deliver a LED lamp and only had to burn 4 trees to make and deliver an incandescent lamp which is more eco. Thats not even taking into account the damage to environment in the countries the products are produced. which you seemed to ignore in your reply.

I have in the passed wondered whether a solar panel ever produces more energy than was used to create it.
 20 November 2012 01:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19747
Joined: 23 March 2004

NO thats not right, I dont know the numbers I sure others do.


Really ? - cost is a good indicator of energy invested actually

For example: If you had to burn 10 trees to make and deliver a LED lamp and only had to burn 4 trees to make and deliver an incandescent lamp which is more eco.


Are incandescent lamps cheaper than LED's - if so does that reflect the overall energy burden in making them - cost at the factory gate as it were. Something to think about - slavery ended because a ton of coal produced more energy per £ spent than it took to feed 100 men and get them working ?

Thats not even taking into account the damage to environment in the countries the products are produced. which you seemed to ignore in your reply.


I didn't actually - cost and ability to recycle stack up very well against very detailed assessments of whole life costs of products. If you want to check with manufacturers with thier compliance with EMAS/ISO14001 certification nd the extent that has chain of custody back to extraction of raw materials then that's fine - but for a simple predominantly aluminium bodied floodlight, we know the aluminium is 100% recyclable so the overall envioronmental impact of materials is going to be low - last week the fitting was a few coke cans - all that's added is energy which is captured in the cost.

I have in the passed wondered whether a solar panel ever produces more energy than was used to create it.


Depends on how you measure it and where you install it - but generally, yes it does

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 20 November 2012 01:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11553
Joined: 13 August 2003

NO thats not right, I dont know the numbers I sure others do.

I tend to agree with OMS on this one.

Precise calculations are all but impossible (how far do you measure - just production line? workers car emissions (getting to and from work) - their domestic emissions? likewise for the suppliers of each and every component... then end-of-life decommissioning/recycling impact) - but a very rough 'rule of thumb', if something has twice as much material in it, takes twice as much energy to produce, etc, it'll tend to cost twice as much. Whether they use the like of solvented paint or VOC-free stuff would make only a small difference to the overall environmental calculation. Cheap foreign labour costs are mostly offset by higher transport costs (which broadly matches the lower impact living of most 3rd world workers and the environmental costs of shipping).

The thing with money is that it already takes into account the cost of every little input into the process (if it didn't the manufacturer would go bust), so as long as there's a general relationship between money and environmental impact, it does provide a reasonable metric.

- Andy.
 20 November 2012 02:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for zeeper.
zeeper

Posts: 1411
Joined: 11 July 2008

Ok so my point is this for those ECO persons out there. Just because an item uses less energy doesnt always make it more eco frienndly.

if something has twice as much material in it, takes twice as much energy to produce, etc, it'll tend to cost twice as much.


60W incandescent lamp 50p (if you could still buy em), led £20. It just dont add up, or maybe it does and I'm right again.

Depends on how you measure it and where you install it - but generally, yes it does


Would have been more ECO to use the energy to create it, at the consumers site directly which would have removed all the loses along the way..
 20 November 2012 03:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11553
Joined: 13 August 2003

60W incandescent lamp 50p (if you could still buy em), led £20. It just dont add up, or maybe it does and I'm right again.

Adds up for me - we're talking cost to produce here, not to run.

LEDs probably do have significantly higher environmental costs to produce than GLS - but that's more than paid for by reduced energy usage in use - overall monetary cost follows the same pattern.

I have in the passed wondered whether a solar panel ever produces more energy than was used to create it.

Carbon footprint for Navitron Solar Panel
- Andy.
 20 November 2012 04:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19747
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: zeeper

Ok so my point is this for those ECO persons out there. Just because an item uses less energy doesnt always make it more eco frienndly.

Exactly - wasn't that why I suggested a ranking and weighting assessment of 5 criteria that would give you an approximation of whole life performance

if something has twice as much material in it, takes twice as much energy to produce, etc, it'll tend to cost twice as much.




60W incandescent lamp 50p (if you could still buy em), led £20. It just dont add up, or maybe it does and I'm right again.

we are talking about cost to manufacture and thus the probable embodied energy - the energy assessment would give you the cost to operate wouldn't it ?

I don't understamd you comment about being "right again"



Depends on how you measure it and where you install it - but generally, yes it does


Would have been more ECO to use the energy to create it, at the consumers site directly which would have removed all the loses along the way..


Would it - doesn't that depend on how the manufacturing energy is created and most importantly what the energy return on energy invested is at the installation point rather than the manufacturing point - if that PV panel displaces say coal fired generation and the manufacturing energy was hydro then how would that be more eco to use coal energy. As long as the panel in situe provides more energy that it took to manufacture and ship then how would not making and installing it be more eco

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 20 November 2012 10:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for zeeper.
zeeper

Posts: 1411
Joined: 11 July 2008

Would it - doesn't that depend on how the manufacturing energy is created and most importantly what the energy return on energy invested is at the installation point rather than the manufacturing point - if that PV panel displaces say coal fired generation and the manufacturing energy was hydro then how would that be more eco to use coal energy. As long as the panel in situe provides more energy that it took to manufacture and ship then how would not making and installing it be more eco


Well AJ's example is not a PV panel, but is probably better suited to his argument than a PV panel. The manufacture has left out a lot of data on invested energy which would I expect at least double thier quoted energy numbers.

Its unlikely that many solar panels are being manufacture using hydro energy, but it is interesting that you suggest manufacturing using hyro energy as it is ECO FRIENDLY

I don't understamd you comment about being "right again"


Numbers can be twisted and juggled but, sometimes you got to rely on common sense.
 21 November 2012 09:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19747
Joined: 23 March 2004

For sure Zeeps - if we want to use energy then there is always a cost, be that monetary, environmental or social - the so called triple bottom line. The assessments can be complex - and often impossible to resolve because once you factor in even second tier impacts then the model can only be approximate at best.

Take the three rivers dam you highlighted - no doubt fraught with problems I agree - but are those problems "less bad" than the equivalent capacity being generated by coal, gas, oil or nuclear - can you imagine the assessment that would need to capture all the variables over say a 25 year or 50 year time cycle.

Numbers can be twisted and juggled but, sometimes you got to rely on common sense.


For sure they can be twisted and juggled - the same data presented by two competing factions results in totally different outcomes. The problem though, is that what you or I may call common sense when it comes to assesssing environmetal or "ECO" aspects of a job is that it is often fundamentally flawed due to lack of data or inability to collate real "whole life impacts".

A question for you - is a mass concrete building less or more "eco" than say a similar building constructed from renewable timber sources ? - the answer should be common sense I guess

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 21 November 2012 10:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11553
Joined: 13 August 2003

Well AJ's example is not a PV panel, but is probably better suited to his argument than a PV panel.

Sorry - no subterfuge intended - you didn't specify PV and my head just remembered something I'd seen about solar panel production cost... (oops).

Some specifically PV studies are referred to here:
http://info.cat.org.uk/questio...ack-time-pv-panels-uk

The manufacture has left out a lot of data on invested energy which would I expect at least double thier quoted energy numbers.

But even if double (or even triple), the payback time time would still be less than the expected lifespan...

- Andy.
 21 November 2012 10:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for zeeper.
zeeper

Posts: 1411
Joined: 11 July 2008

A question for you - is a mass concrete building less or more "eco" than say a similar building constructed from renewable timber sources ? - the answer should be common sense I guess


Very disappointed with you OMS.

You couldn't make the question any more vague if you tried. Its all to do with the time scale, however short term the renewable project build would win. who knows maybe we will not have to worry about global warming in 250 years time when your concrete bunker finally falls down. Its more likely though that it would be knocked down to make way for the new and improved, way before it reached its natural end. Which would totally mess up your calculations.
 22 November 2012 12:08 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zs

Posts: 2976
Joined: 20 July 2006

Originally posted by: OMS

Numbers can be twisted and juggled but, sometimes you got to rely on common sense.




For sure they can be twisted and juggled


That's what Amtech and Relux are for isn't it?

In fairness, I use Relux a great deal even for private work and I've had a look through it for you tonight Jamie. Unfortunately there are few LED floodlights featured on there, but coopers feature. The photometrics for LED floods are very poor compared to other methods. In plain english; LED floods don't get enough light onto the ground of your car park as other methods. The difference is dramatic.

If you do go for LED, I (relux actually) suggest you go for the maximum amount and watch out for where the edges of the pools of light overlap each other because they lose lux rapidly at that point and there are requirements. (Relux and) I suggest keeping them closer together than you might instinctively think Jamie.

Have a look at Timeguard LED floods too. I'm not sure how big they make them but the domestic tennis court/parking area size ones aren't bad.

Zs

BTW Relux is free.
IET » Wiring and the regulations » Led floodlights recommendations

1 2 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.