[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DSLF] Digest Number 884
_________________________________________________
To subscribe to the DarkSky List Forum send email
to: DarkSky-list-subscribe@yahoogroups... or visit:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DarkSky-list/join
Help save your town from obtrusive lighting --
Invite your Planning and Zoning department and
local officials to join us! Please visit the IDA
website at http://www.darksky.org frequently, too!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 8 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. roadway lighting
From: Dale Reid <reid@eau...>
2. Re: roadway lighting
From: patric@ghostriders...
3. Re: roadway lighting
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
4. Re: roadway lighting
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
5. Re: NH takes on outdoor advertising (billboards)
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
6. Re: NH takes on outdoor advertising (billboards)
From: "ctstarwchr <ctstarwchr@aol...>" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
7. Re: PC world news item for energy savings using Monitor shut down
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
8. Re: energy savings...
From: rairden <rairden@mail....com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 07:29:56 -0600
From: Dale Reid <reid@eau...>
Subject: roadway lighting
In 10 days I'm giving a talk to the local Sierra Club and they are expecting
some local govmt officials to attend.
I'd like to point out the cost of the obvious but overlooked.... that is, each
roadway lighting pole.
I've been told by a state official about 6 years ago that they figure about
$1500 per pole to install, and a flat per year rate of $125 for electricity and
bulb maintenance.
Does anyone have any more recent figures, or insight into this? Fortunately in
Wisconsin the state-installed fixtures are now full cutoff which helps. Yet a
recent installation, while full cutoff, is very bright. I wish I'd purchased
that meter some time ago, this would be an excellent opportunity to show the
differences.
Thanks for any help. I'd like to use this as a point (along with millions of
others that we all know about for light excess), since if indeed some of the
planning and zoning people do actually show up, it might be a great opportunity
to have as one of my last statements something like: "And on your way home
tonight, drive carefully, but remember each time you go by a pole, it was $1500
to install and it is costing you $150/year to operate. Add that up as you go
home and see what the taxpayers need to pay just to have that light on. Are
there any that can be eliminated? Can careful planning cut down on the
intensity?, etc. etc...."
Thanks for the help.
Dale
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:21:35 -0600
From: patric@ghostriders...
Subject: Re: roadway lighting
Dale Reid (reid@eau...) wrote:
> I've been told by a state official about 6 years ago that they figure
About
> $1500 per pole to install, and a flat per year rate of $125 for
electricity and
> bulb maintenance.
> Does anyone have any more recent figures, or insight into this?
Fortunately in
> Wisconsin the state-installed fixtures are now full cutoff which helps.
A recent story on Acorns in your state showed an installation cost of
about $1000 each, but I dont have numbers on wood pole installations
there. In Oklahoma, the "Municipal Street Light Rate," approved by the
state Corporation Commission is $100 per residential light and more than
$100 per arterial lights, per fixture per year.
Does Wisconsin also now have a state law requiring publicly funded
fixtures be energy efficient (or FCO/SCO) as Texas and Conn. do?
If so Id love to be able to cite the statute or directive that spells it
out.
Patric.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:16:24 EST
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
Subject: Re: roadway lighting
In a message dated 12/27/02 8:31:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, reid@eau...
writes:
> I've been told by a state official about 6 years ago that they figure about
> $1500 per pole to install, and a flat per year rate of $125 for electricity
> and
> bulb maintenance.
Dale:
The latest municipal rates in Connecticut for leased roadway lighting are
available for review in Rate 116 at the following URL. If a community owns
their roadway lighting they would pay according to the Rate 117 tariff and
maintain the lights themselves.
http://www.cl-p.com/online/residential/aboutbill/genratesinfo.asp
A 250-watt high pressure sodium cobrahead fixture, whether semi-cutoff or
full cutoff, will cost $204.72 annually, whereas the same wattage applied in
a decorative post-top fixture would cost up to $641.64 plus cost of the pole
and its foundation. No value for any community because the post tops always
create more visible contrast leading to higher glare and lower visibility for
drivers regardless of the cutoff type. The only exception is when wattage
and luminous output is kept to bare minimums and the fixtures are then only
used as fill lighting for a pedestrian streetscape.
You may be able to determine wattage of fixtures in your area by the NEMA
sticker attached to the bottom. It is around 2" square and has a number on
it. The sticker is color coded to indicate both wattage and lamp type. The
sticker background and text color represents the lamp type and the number
represents the wattage / 10, so you usually need to add a zero.
Color code:
High Pressure Sodium (HPS) = Yellow background with black numbers
Metal Halide (MH) = Silver background with black numbers
Mercury Vapor (HgV) = Silver background with blue numbers
Number code
3 = 35 watt lamp
5 = 50 watt lamp
7 = 70 watt lamp
10 = 100 watt lamp
15 = 150 watt lamp
20 = 200 watt lamp
25 = 250 watt lamp
1M = 1000 watt lamp
etc.
Chris Walker published an excellent resource on outdoor lighting showing many
good examples you might find helpful for your presentation, too.
http://www.qualityoutdoorlighting.com
Good luck and let us know how it goes.
Clear skies,
Cliff Haas
http://members/aol/com/ctstarwchr
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 11:25:35 -0800
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
Subject: Re: roadway lighting
Costs of poles depend on many things.
First costs: cost of luminaire, pole, foundation, trenching, conduit and
wire, grounding and related costs. Pole costs vary with steel being
cheapest, but basic choices include aluminum (light weight and somewhat
resistant to oxidation), wood (difficult to work with and potentially high
maintenance), fiberglass (low maintenance) and composition (very low
maintenance). Poles can be direct buried or attached to foundations, with
the former being cheaper and the latter permitting better maintenance. Many
cities opt for expensive ornamental poles in downtown areas, usually cast
steel. The first costs of a roadway luminaire installed are around $1500,
of which about 50% is pole and luminaire and 50% is everything else
including labor. The first cost of a downtown ornamental can be $3500 or
more depending on how many heads. The cost to retire the bonds used to pay
for the pole should be around $200 each per year.
Operating Costs: Electricity, cleaning and relamping, repainting, minor
repair, major damage repair, period replacement. Cities and utilities tend
to prefer exchangable head poles to limit time "in the air" by the bucket
truck. HPS lamps are preferred because of long relamping cycles relative to
metal halide and other lamps. Induction lamps are becoming very popular due
to extremely long life. Poles that don't rust, rot, or need repainting are
preferred. Electric energy is the highest line item for operating cost,
with relamping second and repainting third. Obviously costs will vary with
local electric tariffs. The average cost per pole per year is roughly in
the range of $30 to $100 or more per pole depending on all of the above
factors. Remember that a portion of these costs are wages paid to workers to
maintain the lighting.
Summary: using $125 per year for operating costs and $1500 each for first
costs are valid as far as I know.
James R. Benya, PE, FIES, IALD, LC
Benya Lighting Design
1880 Willamette Falls Drive
Suite 220
West Linn, OR 97068
(503) 657-9157 cell (503) 519-9631
Fax (503) 657-9153
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 11:45:17 -0800
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
Subject: Re: NH takes on outdoor advertising (billboards)
Full cut off is the wrong language for sign lights. To do this justice, you
need a technically correct definition of downward-facing sign lights, which
are technically not FCO but achieve the same purpose. A good one is
asymmetric with a unique distribution suitable only for lighting a vertical
surface.
James R. Benya, PE, FIES, IALD, LC
Benya Lighting Design
1880 Willamette Falls Drive
Suite 220
West Linn, OR 97068
(503) 657-9157 cell (503) 519-9631
Fax (503) 657-9153
----- Original Message -----
From: "mike pelletier" <mikpel@hotmail...>
<- snip ->
> I am a member of the New Hampshire Citizens for Responsible Lighting
> (NHCRL). One of our members (me) has put this bill in for the 2003-4
> session:
>
> proposed amendment to RSA 236:74, Outdoor Advertising (billboards)
>
> Paragraph I. a. 3
> Add:
> After 2006, no new lighting defined in Chapter 236, Outdoor Advertising,
> will be permitted that glares upward, all new lighting will be Full Cut
> Off (FCO) lighting with the lights glaring downward, toward the ground.
> After 2017, all old and new lighting will be required to be FCO.
>
<- snip ->
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 20:36:18 -0000
From: "ctstarwchr <ctstarwchr@aol...>" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
Subject: Re: NH takes on outdoor advertising (billboards)
--- In DarkSky-list@yahoogroups..., "James Benya" <jbenya@b.....>
wrote:
> Full cut off is the wrong language for sign lights. To do this
> justice, you need a technically correct definition of downward-
> facing sign lights, which are technically not FCO but achieve the
> same purpose. A good one is asymmetric with a unique distribution
> suitable only for lighting a vertical surface.
I fully support Jim's position on this also. The reason why FCO
would not be appropriate for application to sign lighting may not be
apparent to, or perhaps proprerly understood, by dark sky advocates.
Some of the fundamental reasons are:
1. Full cutoff, by definition, reduces *intensity* (brightness) to
allow no more than 10% of the lamp's output at and above 80° as
measured up from the vertical. For signage applications one would
require that zonal area to provide more light intensity for it to
be considered an energy efficient source. (the coefficient of
utilization as applied to the task, not just the light coming out)
2. A quasi-symmetric pattern typical of most full cutoff luminaires
will waste 50% or more of the light that gets distributed when it
is applied to a vertical sign face opposed to a horizontal surface
like the ground, therefore the assymetric pattern Jim suggests
is required to put more of the light where it belongs -- directly
onto the sign and not spilling above or beyond.
Visit both the Elliptipar Lighting and Magnaray Internation web sites
to get some ideas of what type of assymetric distribution is required
and appropriate to illuminate signage. Both are driven by low
wattage fluorescents, too.
http://www.elliptipar.com
http://www.magnaray.com
Mike, the results you are seeking for this billboard legislation can
be achieved simply by requiring top mounted luminaires that are
*fully shielded* rather than requiring full cutoff fixtures. The two
types of luminaires are technically not even remotely close to being
the same thing.
Shielded fluorescent fixtures offer significantly lower operating
costs opposed to metal halide. They have excellent color rendering
capability (though not as high as MH) without giving a cold and
washed out looking appearance, and they also have proven reliable
performance track records in application outdoors.
There are some excellent examples in my area that have never shown
cold starting problems in winter with temperatures sometimes dropping
to -5° F. I have observed them in operation for over 45 years and
have never seen them fail once yet! Of course in NH temperature will
drop well below that level in the middle of the night, but most sane
people will be snuggled under heaps of blankets sleeping anyhow.
Hope this helps!
Clear skies,
Cliff Haas
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:00:50 -0800
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
Subject: Re: PC world news item for energy savings using Monitor shut down
The Pitney Bowes story is a good example of how much true wasted energy use
there is - and how the energy waste in computers in offices now exceeds the
energy waste in lighting systems. By code, office lighting systems now must
have automatic shut off systems - not true for computers!
Unfortunately, installing controls for lighting energy in older buildings is
still not happening as fast as it could. It is easy and inexpensive to do.
It is not a question of doubting Thomases as much as it is a lack of
priority in our society. Just like light pollution - not a priority either.
James R. Benya, PE, FIES, IALD, LC
Benya Lighting Design
1880 Willamette Falls Drive
Suite 220
West Linn, OR 97068
(503) 657-9157 cell (503) 519-9631
Fax (503) 657-9153
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Reid" <reid@eau...>
To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 7:46 PM
Subject: [DSLF] PC world news item for energy savings using Monitor shut
down
> Here are two links that people may find interesting to help convince
people that
> a little goes a long way. Both aren't overly technical, but one makes the
point
> that Pitney Bowes saved $160,000 one year in energy costs by making their
> monitors (and maybe the computers) go to sleep when not needed. Powerful
> arguments in this day of tighter economic times. How wonderful to save
some
> bucks and electricity, even if not to shut off light. If the doubting
Thomases
> will buy into saving through computer monitors, maybe a few will pick up
on
> shutting down unneeded lights.
Trimmed
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:17:55 -0800
From: rairden <rairden@mail....com>
Subject: Re: energy savings...
James Benya wrote <excerpted>:
> By code, office lighting systems now must
> have automatic shut off systems.
> It is easy and inexpensive to do.
> ...it is a lack of priority in our society.
Yup, we lost our light switches when our old building
here got retrofitted with motion sensors. Maybe you've
all seen the Dilbert cartoon where they put the new intern
to work flapping his arms to keep the lights on.
First thing most of us did was turn up the local sensor
sensitivity so the lights NEVER shut off. (For my own office
I jumpered in a toggle switch to override it.) It's very
sad to walk around here at night or over Christmas vacation
and see all those California watts going down the drain.
But in the company's defense, they do have the statistics
to show some energy savings -- which indicates that far too
many employees left all their lights on when they did have
switches. Or maybe other conservation measures are contributing.
At one point the company sent around a crew after-hours to
go through the offices and indiscriminately shut off all the
computers. That met with some protest when 24/7 servers and
systems running overnight data processing routines were hit.
Hopefully the sleep modes built in to our desktop computers
and monitors are sufficient to conserve most of that energy.
Our parking lot got redone with semi-cutoff fixtures that
I hate but have learned to live with because they are so
much better than the old sodium perimeter lights. Problem is
the old lights are still there burning along with the new ones.
My efforts to point this out have fallen on deaf ears. The
price of electricity will have to go much higher before any
attention and costly man-hours will be expended to remedy
these situations. You are correct -- society's priorities are
elsewhere. I can't raise too much fuss or they'll solve the
problem by getting rid of me. We do definately need more
energy awareness among the the rank and file. I don't know
what happened to all the youthful environmentalism and idealism
that seemed so pervasive when I was in high school. My old
classmates are all driving SUVs now. Are we all hypocrites?
On a more positive note, someone in Palo Alto has cared enough
to use full cut-off for most of our residential street lighting.
And I've seen some new buildings with great lighting design,
even in their parking lots. But there are so many absolutely
ghastly installations that I don't know where to begin. How does
one go about cold-calling on a company's facilities engineer to
suggest better lighting practices? They are usually too busy
keeping the heating and ventilation systems running. And I am
totally unqualified to make any concrete proposals.
In my spare time I'll try to build up a photo album of good
and bad lighting around here, and then maybe I'll have something
to start discussions with. (All I need is another hobby...)
-- Rick Rairden
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/