We all take it somewhat for granted, however lighting can be as much as 40% of the power consumption of a building. There are significant changes in technology taking place and what will be available looming. For example did you know some types of flourescents are being totally retired? Did you know that incandescent lightbulbs that we have all grown up with are being phased out?

One of the big debates is should the consumer switch over to compact flourescents? After a lumpy start they are now available in different color temperatuires and dimmable, however they still contain mercury and represent a hazard for clean-up in the home, plus they have been technically and economically superceded already by the latest generations of LED's.

Another debate is over the right kind of flourescents to use. The T8 tube has been marketed in the USA since 1981. Still sold in huge quantities yet it is technically and efficiency-wise inferior to the smaller, less hazardous material containing T5.

Then in the field of lighting controls - "daylight harvesting" and integration of the lighting system with window shades and automatic controls can generate dramatic savings in large buildings.

Looking for a discussion on people's thoughts on the subject of lighting.

Thanks for your thoughts Kevin! When I meet with my clients and help them identify ways to save money through energy conservation, lighting is a HUGE issue. Updating lighting is a green practice that can earn points towards the Green Business Certification that I offer. With electricity prices going up at the end of the year, this is something every company and home should be evaluating. For some people, I think that the perception of the cost factor of updating lighting in buildings stalls them from looking into it further. However, with available rebates and cost savings that can be incurred, the return on investment is much quicker than many realize.

I think the push to switch to CFLs is somewhat overblown, due to the mercury (and the way mercury builds in the food chain is a more critical issue than the way the mercury from a CFL might directly effect a person).

I still switch some bulbs... but early efforts to switch over 100% were halted when a few CFLs were put in inappropriate locations. They're great for lighting that is always on ~ or, at least, on for a long time ~ whereas the ones that were in short-cycled locations wore out spectacularly fast. Even with the fast start on the newer CFLs, we were finding ones that would be turned off again before they reached full brightness...

There's one viable LED bulb that I know of that is bright enough to compete with a 60 w incandescent. It doesn't have the latency issues and mercury levels of the CFLs, but it's made by one company and is priced to make up for the research involved, so it runs for over $100 a bulb.

Solar tubes can help with the daylight harvesting ~ I've heard first hand from a friend that they can provide light to interior rooms and reduce, if not entirely remove, the need for electric lighting.

I'd like to see more development on solar shingles. When I first came up with the idea, someone else had, but, like that LED bulb, there was only one manufacturer. Now there are at least two or three (last I checked). The roofing and electrical generation industry would resist this, but I'd like to see nothing but solar shingles from here on out. If every new house and every replacement roof used them, that would take a serious bite out of the electrical bill. =)

Solar tubes are very cool. I have a relative that's had one for years and I still look for a switch to turn off the light in the room when I leave it before I realize it's the natural light shining in. I plan to install two in our upstairs hallway.

Everett, take a look at our website: www.sitkaenterprises.com, for a very viable range of LED's, now available in all fitting types, color tones and mostly dimmable if needed. With the need to replace halogen/CFL several times during the lifetime of an LED, the disposal costs and the present value of the significant electric savings over its life, it can be a very effective and simple retrofit that reduces overall energy consumption. There's another benefit too in that the light from LED's has a different visual quality from halogens, CFL or incandescent: "The Clear Future of Lighting"

You should list the lumens and incandescent equivalence on there ~ expected lifetime would be nice, too!

If the B60 can compete with that ~ and the other product I was referring to has 8 LEDs @ 7.5 watts, with the cool color bulb matching the 60 watt incandescent and measured at 446 lumens ~ it would be a great deal. Based on the wattage and the number of LEDs, I'm guessing the B60 would compete against a lower wattage bulb?

If it only replaces a lower wattage bulb, that would still be great for many commercial applications, and for some smaller lights around the house.

Thanks for mentioning that the LEDs are dimmable ~ that's another case where CFLs are troubled at best and flat out don't work most of the time.

Everett, thanks for the great feedback.
That info is in the catalog which can be downloaded; but on reflection that's not obvious, so I'll put a reference to that on the table at the bottom of the page and on each item in the store.

Here's the details on the B60:

Light Source 3 x 2.5W / LED chip (3 Units)
Input Voltage AC: 85V – 240V (50/60Hz)
Input Current 180mA ± 10%
Input Power 7.5W ± 10%
LED Chips from CREE
Lamp Base E27/E26
Light Dimmer SCR Model
Dimmable Range 0 ~ 100%
Beam Angle 15˚ / 30˚ / 60˚ / 45˚(Default)
Ambient Temperature -20~40℃
Aluminum Casing IP20
Installation Direct Retrofit
Driver Operation Life 35,000 hours
LED Operation Life 50,000 hours

One of the issues with LED's is to really understand the lighting situation vefore homing in on a definite solution, a like for like replacement for incandescent may not be the right answer in every situation where incandescents were used.