Updates from Pure Lighting LLC. http://www.purellc.com Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:30:27 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.purellc.com/index.php/General/Can-t-afford-LED-s-Lease-them.html Brand Neue Corp. to Launch Innovative LED Leasing and Rebate Program; 'Lease on Light' Program to Offer Financial Incentives to Commercial Power Consumers for Switching to LED Lighting BENTONVILLE, ARKANSAS, Jul 29, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Brand Neue Corp, /quotes/comstock/11k!brnz (BRNZ (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/BRNZ) 0.90, +0.04, +4.49%) ( Brand Neue or the Company ), as the exclusive North American sales agent and distributor for Luma Vue LED Lighting products and systems ( Luma Vue ), is pleased to announce the launch of an innovative leasing and financial rebate program. Brand Neue's 'Lease on Light' program ( Lease on Light ) is designed to offer commercial and industrial electric power users financial incentives for switching to LED lighting. The Lease on Light program will provide North American small and medium sized businesses with an easy to calculate and implement program for leasing an LED lighting package and securing financial rebates directly from utilities companies. The program could offer a return on investment in as few as eight months and ongoing annual energy savings as high as 80%. Brand Neue's Lease on Light is the first program of its kind in the industry aimed at small and medium sized businesses that may not otherwise consider near-term conversion to LED lighting. These businesses will now have access to a leasing rebate program that allows them to install LED lighting with the cost savings that the technology provides, says Kevin LaBranche, Manager of Marketing and Distribution for Brand Neue. Brand Neue has engaged a global utilities corporation to conduct a month-long energy audit which will determine energy cost savings. This audit is currently underway at an established grocery retailer. Traditionally, commercial, retail, agricultural and grocery industry power consumers utilize a range of light sources and solutions ranging from fluorescent tubes to halogen - many of them highly energy inefficient and in some cases even counter-intuitive. Lease on Light offers clients immediate relief as they prepare for a government legislated transition away, beginning in 2012, from energy-inefficient incandescent bulbs, and toward energy-efficient alternative lighting solutions like LED (light emitting diode). The US Department of Energy has a goal of reducing energy used for electric lighting, by 50%, or $27.5B over the next three years. Utilities companies advocate energy savings solutions that help regulate power consumption during peak hours, when the companies themselves have to purchase extra kilowatt hours of power from other utilities companies at a rate in excess of that which they are contracted or regulated to sell that same kilowatt hour for. Cost-benefit analysis indicate that a stepped or wholesale conversion from traditional lighting to so-called 'green' energy-efficient lighting solutions like LED, have significant near and long-term capital benefits to utility companies. Brand Neue's energy audit will cover all categories of traditional and LED lighting (tubes, floods, bulbs, warehouse, freezer and refrigeration, showcase, display, office) as they affect direct power consumption or savings, in-direct power consumption or savings (ie: the ambient heat generated by halogens, incandescents, fluorescent tubes and CFLs, pressure high-energy-consumption air conditioning systems); the quality, temperature and colour of light as it affects store finishes and merchandise; and the quality, temperature and colour of light as it impacts perishables like produce, meat and seafood. Our new Lease on Light program levels the playing field for potential clients, so they can make informed, intelligent decisions, adds LaBranche. Details of the energy audit and the Lease on Light program will be released as they become available. To be placed on a wait-list re program details, or to speak with a Company representative re the Lease on Light program, please contact Brand Neue Sales. For more information regarding Brand Neue, please contact Brand Neue Investor Relations at 1.866.922.7972 or visit www.brandneue.com (http://www.brandneue.com/). Blog - General Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:33:50 +0100 http://www.purellc.com/index.php/General/The-G-List.html The G-List: Choosing the Best Green Buildings Of The Last 30 Years (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/the-g-list-greenest-buildings.php) by Lloyd Alter, Toronto (http://www.treehugger.com/author/lloyd-alter-toronto-1/) Design Architecture (http://www.treehugger.com/design_architecture/) #social-media-widgets { float: right; height: 20px; margin-top: -20px; } #social-media-widgets ul { margin: 0px; padding: 0px; } #social-media-widgets ul li { display: inline; height: 20px; list-style-type: none; } #fb-like { margin-top: 3px; } Vanity Fair's World Architecture Survey (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/vanity-fair-architecture-survey.php) I asked Where's The Green? and wrote that there was a profound disconnect between the architecture shown and the problems that architects have to solve today. Lance Hosey, formerly a partner at William McDonough+ Partners and now a writer at Architect magazine, thought the same but didn't just whine, he organized his own survey, the G-list. Architect Magazine: (http://www.architectmagazine.com/green-building/web-exclusive-the-g-list-survey-of-architecture.aspx) I asked 150 green building experts and advocates--including architects, engineers, educators, and critics from the U.S., the UK, Europe, and Asia--to name the five most-important green buildings since 1980, using whatever criteria they liked. The first 52 responses (to mirror the VF survey) produced 121 projects, and the 18 that received more than a few votes each offer a glimpse at the canon of sustainable design. If Vanity Fair documented architecture's A-List, consider this the G-List. The top green building since 1980, that got the most votes, was the Adam Joseph Lewis Center (Oberlin, Ohio), William McDonough + Partners, 2001. In second place, and also the top green building since 2000 was the California Academy of Sciences, Renzo Piano Workshop. (See Jaymi's tour of it here (http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2009/02/a-trip-to-the-california-academy-of-sciences-slideshow.php)) See the whole list here (http://www.architectmagazine.com/green-building/web-exclusive-the-g-list-survey-of-architecture.aspx); not a Frank Gehry building in the bunch. In fact, there are buildings that are on both lists. Lance concludes: Sustainability, it seems, is not much on the minds of the architectural elite. While green building has become increasingly popular over the past three decades, the gap between standards of design excellence and of environmental performance could be getting wider. Blog - General Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:31:35 +0100 http://www.purellc.com/index.php/General/Lighting-Facts.html Light Bulbs To Get Nutrition-Style Labels Next Year (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/light-bulbs-to-get-nutrition-style-labels-next-year.php) by Jaymi Heimbuch, San Francisco, California (http://www.treehugger.com/author/jaymi-heimbuch-san-francisco-c-1/) Science Technology (http://www.treehugger.com/science_technology/) #social-media-widgets { float: right; height: 20px; margin-top: -20px; } #social-media-widgets ul { margin: 0px; padding: 0px; } #social-media-widgets ul li { display: inline; height: 20px; list-style-type: none; } #fb-like { margin-top: 3px; } FTC (http://ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/lightbulbs.shtm) Late last year we reported that the US Federal Trade Commission proposed a new label for compact fluorescent lightbulbs (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/us-federal-trade-commission-proposes-cfl-labels-light-output-color-mercury.php) that would show vital statistics like mercury content and the light output in terms of lumens rather than watts, which would make the brightness of CFLs, LEDs and other lighting technology more comparable among consumers. Well word has just hit that the new system has been approved and we'll soon see nutrition-facts-style labels on our lights. EarthTechling (http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/06/light-bulbs-to-get-nutrition-style-efficiency-labeling/) gave us a heads up about the new label, pointing us to the announcement from the FTC (http://ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/lightbulbs.shtm). The FTC states, Under direction from Congress to re-examine the current labels, the FTC is announcing a final rule that will require the new labels on light bulb packages. For the first time, the label on the front of the package will emphasize the bulbs' brightness as measured in lumens, rather than a measurement of watts. The new front-of-package labels also will include the estimated yearly energy cost for the particular type of bulb. Watts is the old standard for lighting, but we've come to associate the term with brightness, rather than energy consumed. We know a 60 watt bulb is brighter than a 40 watt bulb, so we buy what suits our brightness needs. However, new energy efficient bulbs can use as little as 13 watts for the same brightness as a 60 watt incandescent or a 9 watt bulb can replace a 70 watt incandescent (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/led_bulb_replac.php), so we need an apples to apples way of comparing bulbs in terms of both brightness and energy consumption. That solution is held within this new labeling system. The FTC announcement shows what will be included on the label, including: * brightness; * energy cost; * the bulb's life expectancy; * light appearance (for example, if the bulb provides warm or cool light); * wattage (the amount of energy the bulb uses); and * whether the bulb contains mercury. The new information will come to be handy as we start to navigate the new lighting options, which are sure to shift even more in the coming years as LED and even OLED lighting technology hits mainstream retailers. The new labeling will start mid-2011, according to the FTC. Follow Jaymi on Twitter for more stories like this (http://twitter.com/jaymiheimbuch) More on Lighting Technology Fast Funny Video Comparing the Latest Lightbulb Technologies (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/12/hilarious-video-comparing-latest-lighting-technologies.php) Breakthrough: Regular Light Bulb Made Super-Efficient with Laser (!) (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/regular-incandescent-lightbulb-super-efficient-laser-rochester.php) LED vs. CFL: Life-Cycle Study Shows a Close Race, but LED Likely to Take the Lead (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/led-lights-vs-cfl-life-cycle-study-energy-efficiency.php) Blog - General Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:33:13 +0100 http://www.purellc.com/index.php/General/LED-postings-on-LEDs-for-Interior-Office-Applications.html Postings: from the desk of Jim Brodrick In a LEDs for Interior Office Applications (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/interior-office_webinar.html), ended up drawing nearly 800 attendees and prompting nearly a hundred questions from the audience – far more than could be answered in the allotted time. The questions that weren't addressed during the webcast will be answered soon on the website – something we only do when the topic is an especially hot one. Why is this such a hot topic? Because of the tremendous popularity of recessed troffer fixtures with 4' fluorescent T8 lamps in commercial and institutional lighting applications. There are tens of millions of these fixtures in use in this country alone. That – and the claims of many manufacturers – has a lot of people wondering whether LED linear replacement lamps truly are a drop-in equivalent to fluorescent T8s that can be substituted right off the shelf for big-time energy savings. As I made clear last month, the short answer is a resounding no! DOE's CALiPER program (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/caliper.html) has tested a dozen different LED T8 replacement lamps to date, and the bottom line is that they simply don't perform as well as their fluorescent counterparts – which, in addition, are much less expensive and have fairly long lifetimes. The LED T8s we've tested have fallen short by a significant margin in terms of light output, system efficacy, fixture output, luminaire efficacy, and CRI. And although they scored higher than fluorescent T8s in terms of average fixture efficiency – thanks to the directionality of LEDs, which results in less light lost inside the fixture – this wasn't enough to compensate for their much lower light output. What this means is that, amidst all the heated market activity, buyers and specifiers need to be very careful when it comes to LED T8s. That's why DOE has just published a fact sheet on the topic (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/t8_replacement-lamps.pdf), which serves as a useful tool to help buyers cut through the hype and get to the heart of the matter. The fact sheet lists what they should be asking from manufacturers (e.g., at least 6,000 hours of lumen maintenance testing on the full lamp), as well as what level of product performance should be specified for replacement applications (e.g., initial minimum lamp light output of 2,700 lumens). The bottom line is that to provide equivalent light to fluorescent T8s while keeping power input for these products at their current range (15-20 watts), LED T8s will have to become two to three times more efficacious than they currently are. Those of us in DOE's SSL program have a thin line to tread in nurturing the technology so that it can fulfill its energy-saving potential. We're neither cheerleaders nor policemen. Rather, we're more like baseball umpires, in that we observe what's going on, take an objective point of view, and simply call 'em as we see 'em. And when it comes to LED linear replacement tubes, the pitchers have been missing the plate by a wide margin (forgive me for having baseball on my mind – it's April!). The new DOE fact sheet is intended not only to keep all those batters out there from swinging at a bad pitch, but to encourage the pitchers to improve their aim and start throwing strikes – so that we can all play ball! and save energy. As always, if you have questions or comments, you can reach me at postings@lightingfacts.com (mailto:postings@lightingfacts.com). Blog - General Tue, 25 May 2010 11:31:20 +0100 http://www.purellc.com/index.php/General/postings-on-LED-Linear.html Postings: from the desk of Jim Brodrick In last week's Posting I answered some questions about solid-state lighting standards, but this week I'd like to address another question that gets asked often enough to warrant not only a Posting of its own, but an upcoming webcast as well. More about that webcast at the end of this Posting, but first here's the question: People say they've been hearing a lot of hype about LED linear replacement tubes, and they wonder whether those products are legitimate. The question is a good one, because along with all the hype, there's a great deal of confusion out there on the subject. That's why DOE has been tracking LED linear replacement lamps very closely through the CALiPER testing program (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/caliper.html) for quite some time now – and the picture that emerges isn't a pretty one. A CALiPER Benchmark Report (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/troffer_benchmark_01-09.pdf) published early last year compared the performance of T12 and T8 fluorescent lamps and troffers with LED linear replacement lamps, and concluded that LED technology is not yet ready to displace linear fluorescent lamps as replacement light sources in recessed troffers for general interior lighting. Strong wording, but it's based on a number of key CALiPER benchmark observations. One of these observations involved light output. Although LED linear replacement lamps are marketed as one-for-one drop-in retrofits for general fluorescent applications, CALiPER found that their light output was only one-third to one-half that of the fluorescent lamps they were designed to replace. Even though luminaire efficiencies (fraction of light escaping the luminaires) were higher with LED linear replacements (because the inherent directionality of LEDs reduces the amount of light trapped in the luminaires), low lumen output and low lamp efficacy limited overall performance to levels that were significantly below fluorescent systems. This meant that to maintain existing light levels (not just directly beneath the luminaires), additional LED replacement lamps would have to be installed – which would not only decrease potential energy savings but would require additional luminaires or modifications. What's more, the CALiPER benchmark testing found that troffers fitted with LED replacement lamps had narrower light distribution, which could compromise illumination uniformity and vertical illumination in existing installations. And several other potential problems with LED linear replacement lamps were also noted. Three of the four LED products tested required bypassing the fluorescent ballast, which would require additional labor when retrofitting luminaires. On the other hand, efficacy was lower and ballast input wattage can be uncertain for replacement lamps that utilize the existing fluorescent ballast. And two of the four products had a very cool color appearance, with CCT values exceeding ANSI tolerances (>7000 K), which means they wouldn't integrate well with existing lighting systems. The latest round of CALiPER testing, Round 9, reinforced the benchmark findings. Round 9 results, which were published in November, showed that the linear replacement LED lamps tested fell far short of T8 fluorescent lamps in terms of both light output and efficacy, even when tested in troffers for overall luminaire performance. While the LED replacement products had roughly 10%-15% less luminaire loss than their fluorescent counterparts when installed in troffers, this difference didn't compensate for the lower light output of the LED replacement lamps. And none of the replacement products tested in any CALiPER round to date has matched the T8 fluorescent benchmark troffers for luminaire efficacy. What's more, Round 9 results showed once again that the LED products had poorer color quality and often required rewiring of the troffer to bypass the ballast (which could jeopardize the luminaire's UL/CSA/ETL listing). Two additional issues must be considered. First, LED T8 replacement lamps cost much more than fluorescent lamps. Prices vary, but most LED T8 replacement lamps cost between $50 and $150 each, compared to about $3 for a fluorescent T8 lamp. Second, long-term performance data for LED T8 replacements is not available, so there is very little evidence to support the life claims for these products. Many LED T8 replacements claim 35,000- to 50,000-hour life based on 70% lumen maintenance. Fluorescent T8 lamps have typical rated lives of 24,000 to 36,000 hours, depending on the switching frequency and type of ballast used. Considering that end-of-life lumen maintenance for fluorescent T8s is roughly 92%, is there any life advantage to LED T8s? As the CALiPER Benchmark Report points out, fluorescent systems have their own performance issues – including diminished performance at low temperatures, as well as disposal issues due to their mercury content. So there may be some niche applications where LED linear replacements make sense. But in general, as the CALiPER Round 9 Summary Report (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/caliper_round-9_summary.pdf) concludes, they do not represent wise use of SSL technology at this time. The problem is compounded by inaccurate performance claims on the part of manufacturers. Most of the manufacturers of SSL linear replacement lamps tested in Round 9 provided incorrect data, with some promising as much as 50% more lumens than their products actually delivered. In the same vein, claims for lm/W ran 30%-50% higher than what CALiPER testing measured, and CRIs in general were found to be lower than what was claimed. By contrast, a number of 2'x2' LED fixtures tested in Round 9 roughly matched their fluorescent equivalents for light output and efficacy, and one even surpassed the efficacy of a 2'x4' fluorescent parabolic luminaire. Why the big performance difference between these 2'x2' LED fixtures and the LED 4' linear replacement lamps? The answer is that SSL technology works most efficiently when luminaires are designed for LED light sources, as was the case with the 2'x2' LED fixtures. Fluorescent luminaires simply weren't designed to dissipate heat or to distribute light from LED 4' linear replacement lamps. As you can see, making the right decisions about LED linear replacement lamps and integral LED fixtures can be a tricky matter, which is why DOE is offering a webcast this week on the subject. Entitled LEDs for Interior Office Applications, the webcast will run from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time this Thursday (March 18). It's a great opportunity to take a guided tour of this complex topic by experts from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, as well as to ask questions. To register for the webcast, or for more information, visit www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/events_detail.html?event_id=4163 (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/events_detail.html?event_id=4163). As always, if you have questions or comments, you can reach me at postings@lightingfacts.com (mailto:postings@lightingfacts.com). Blog - General Tue, 25 May 2010 11:23:28 +0100