by greenyoda on 11/28/13, 3:54 AM
by BIair on 11/28/13, 5:35 AM
I wonder what percentage of street lights actually have activity below them? What about a motion sensing light that has dual-brightness levels? A lower level when no pedestrian or car activity is detected, and a brighter level when it is. Not only would this save energy, and look very cool when a car drives down a deserted street as lights brighten in advance of it, but it could enhance security as late night prowlers would have attention attracted to them by neighbors and police.
by abduhl on 11/28/13, 4:47 AM
An interesting con to this LED lighting movement is that I have heard from a few CDOT engineers that the new LED lights do not put out enough heat to melt through snow that accumulates during storms and this has caused issues for traffic lighting. This is all second hand, of course.
by sprokolopolis on 11/28/13, 7:50 AM
My neighborhood in Los Angeles recently switched over to LED. I am happy that they are trying to save money/energy, but having a bright white light outside my window has been quite obnoxious. The older lights were dimmer with a more natural light color.
by sudomal on 11/28/13, 9:56 AM
They have been installing LED street lights in the UK for a while now. The LED supplier approaches a council, the council agrees to pay the supplier the difference between their normal and new lighting bill for X years. The supplier gives them the relatively expensive LED lamps (which talk to each other wirelessly) and management system. The council installs them. Supplier makes money from the price difference.
by the_french on 11/28/13, 4:07 AM
I never realized the scale of energy consumption by streetlights, though when I give it some thought, it's not all that surprising. I wonder if there would be the possibility of using these lights to only illuminate the road and say 1-2m to each side, avoiding light pollution for people living near streetlights. As it stands currently, the nearby streetlights keep my room lit at night.
by ars on 11/28/13, 8:01 AM
This doesn't make any sense.
A high pressure sodium vapor lamp has an efficiency of around 150 lm/W. An LED has an efficiency of under 100 lm/W.
Where is the energy savings? If anything an LED uses more energy, not less.
by arsemouflon on 11/28/13, 8:49 AM
This is how you add redundant non-information to a sentence: "semiconductor-based, solid-state LED lighting".
Someone who doesn't know what a LED is surely won't understand that "clarification". Marketing mindset!
by stkni on 11/28/13, 9:37 AM
Apparently the predicted cost benefit of doing this in Manchester (UK) will take 17 years to recoup[1]. If that's representative it doesn't seem hugely compelling for municipalities to switch at current energy prices. In the UK at least.
However I can see that it might well be disruptive for utility companies if those municipalities should decide to switch anyway(as per the article).
[1] http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchest...
by tzs on 11/28/13, 4:14 AM
> and the fact that bugs are not attracted to LED lights as they are to the ultraviolet light cast from conventional street lights
Why is this listed as a benefit? A bug that is at the streetlight is a bug that is not at my house. Is there some problem with bugs congregating at streetlight that I'm selfishly ignorant of?
by danudey on 11/28/13, 9:10 PM
The Lion's Gate Bridge, which I believe is the busiest bridge in Vancouver, BC, relatively recently upgraded their lighting to LED. It reduced power consumption by 90%, and saves the city $30,000/yr in energy and maintenance.
In addition to the power savings, the old bulbs lasted an average of 72 hours between replacements, while the new ones have an estimated lifetime of 12 years, and replacing them is the 'hidden' cost that a lot of people wouldn't normally consider (and replacing bulbs mounted on a bridge is even worse than replacing street lights).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_Gate_Bridge#History
by abecedarius on 11/28/13, 1:05 PM
by smackfu on 11/28/13, 3:37 PM
Our town just voted to buy our street lights back from the utility. It's projected to save us millions even before we upgrade them to LEDs. It's notable that the utility is forced to offer to sell them back by a state law, otherwise they would have no interest in it.
by NZ_Matt on 11/28/13, 6:28 AM
The statement that Christchurch, New Zealand is leveraging 12 percent of the $30 billion reconstruction fund for this type of project is wildly inaccurate. The article referenced only discusses a potential $5m project.
by jmtthis on 11/28/13, 11:57 AM
by Eye_of_Mordor on 11/28/13, 10:46 AM
Here's my plan: use street lighting for a wireless mesh and stick camera's in each one so the NSA can keep us all safe.
by Aloha on 11/28/13, 5:04 AM
I call BS on this:
"But in most cities around the country, the local electric distribution company provides overhead street lighting as a basic service at a flat monthly rate per light, which includes the light itself, maintenance, and electricity. Therein lies the rub—regulated utilities often have little incentive to invest in more efficient streetlights, which offer a reliable, consistent, and often lucrative revenue stream that comes at a time of day (or night) when demand is low."
If their getting a fixed rate, LED's would be quite profitable for them due to lower servicing costs, and lower power consumption - meaning for that fixed rate, they take in more income.
Beyond that, in many cities - running and maintaining the streetlights is included in the franchise rights to sell power in a given city - meaning to sell power, the power company had to install and pays for the lights.
