Transfering mercury allocation to LED retrofits. Does LEED consider it?

[Electric-Light]

A typical 841 fluorescent lamp containing 4mg of mercury Hg rated at 36,000 hours and relamped at 70% life, operated on a 0.88BF ballast provides 2464 lumen and relamped at 25,000 hours comes out to 65 picogram/lu-hr

If these lamps were not original to the installation and they were relamped, you would obviously assign half the cost of last relamp, because the lamps and labor depreciate at twice the intended rate due to early intentional destruction. If 1,000 lamps were made to end their life prematurely and removed at 12,000 hours because the facility chose not to coordinate until the existing lamps become due for group replacement, is there something that allows the allocation of prorated mercury content to the LED retrofit?


Since the lamps were intentionally retired early to make room for LEDs, it seems to make sense to allocate mercury content of fluorescent lamps proportional to their remaining life so the purchase would appear as something that contains half the mercury of the 1,000 lamps that were forced to retire early.

 

[LEO2854]

A typical 841 fluorescent lamp containing 4mg of mercury Hg rated at 36,000 hours and relamped at 70% life, operated on a 0.88BF ballast provides 2464 lumen and relamped at 25,000 hours comes out to 65 picogram/lu-hr

If these lamps were not original to the installation and they were relamped, you would obviously assign half the cost of last relamp, because the lamps and labor depreciate at twice the intended rate due to early intentional destruction. If 1,000 lamps were made to end their life prematurely and removed at 12,000 hours because the facility chose not to coordinate until the existing lamps become due for group replacement, is there something that allows the allocation of prorated mercury content to the LED retrofit?


Since the lamps were intentionally retired early to make room for LEDs, it seems to make sense to allocate mercury content of fluorescent lamps proportional to their remaining life so the purchase would appear as something that contains half the mercury of the 1,000 lamps that were forced to retire early.

Yes, so I would charge full price, no need to discount..

 

[Fulthrotl]

Transfering mercury allocation to LED retrofits. Does LEED consider it?

no. and unless you submit your remodeling plans to LEED *BEFORE* you proceed
with the work, AND GET AN APPROVAL IN WRITING, nothing you do will be given
any credit towards LEED classification.

and if you are looking for a way to discredit tube=LED replacement strategies,
LED's are the exact flavor of kool-aid that LEED drinks. that dog won't hunt.

hope this clears it up for you.


Randy Allen
LEED AP

 

[Electric-Light]

no. and unless you submit your remodeling plans to LEED *BEFORE* you proceed
with the work, AND GET AN APPROVAL IN WRITING, nothing you do will be given
any credit towards LEED classification.

and if you are looking for a way to discredit tube=LED replacement strategies,
LED's are the exact flavor of kool-aid that LEED drinks. that dog won't hunt.

hope this clears it up for you.


Randy Allen
LEED AP

It's no secret that lamps broken/disposed prematurely have the highest pg/lumen-hr rating. I wonder if anyone else evaluated the implications of discretionary retrofits such as tearing down already high efficacy HPT8 or HPT5 systems that do not produce any increase in lumen-hours/kWh. If you buy a 30mpg car and send it into have it crushed after you only put 20,000 miles and go buy a 32 mpg car that drops to 28 mg after 40,000 miles of use, there's a serious objectionable issue. This isn't a concern if you keep the existing fleet of 30mpg until they've been used for expected useful life.

I give them the benefit of doubt and assume that they haven't really thought about it.

 

[Smart $]

Sounds to me like a tax assessor trying to get blood out of a turnip...


Yes, its tax season. :happyyes:

 

[mgookin]

Sounds to me like a tax assessor trying to get blood out of a turnip...


Yes, its tax season. :happyyes:

Thank you for a good Monday morning read. :thumbsup:

 

[iwire]

It's no secret that lamps broken/disposed prematurely have the highest pg/lumen-hr rating. I wonder if anyone else evaluated the implications of discretionary retrofits such as tearing down already high efficacy HPT8 or HPT5 systems that do not produce any increase in lumen-hours/kWh. If you buy a 30mpg car and send it into have it crushed after you only put 20,000 miles and go buy a 32 mpg car that drops to 28 mg after 40,000 miles of use, there's a serious objectionable issue. This isn't a concern if you keep the existing fleet of 30mpg until they've been used for expected useful life.

I give them the benefit of doubt and assume that they haven't really thought about it.

Hmm, I am confused, when I brought up Mercury issues in another thread you told me it was not a concern. Now it is a concern. Make up your mind.

Its no secret that when building personal change lamps a lot of those lamps go into the standard waste stream.

On the other hand when an EC does a retrofit they carefully collect lamps and ballasts for proper disposal.

 

[Electric-Light]

Hmm, I am confused, when I brought up Mercury issues in another thread you told me it was not a concern. Now it is a concern. Make up your mind.

It's a small concern since a bunch more mercury is emitted to produce the same amount of energy needed to produce same output with incandescent lamps. The assumption here is that lamps are kept in service for their useful life and the lamps are thrown out as universal waste in places where it is permitted.

If the lamps are thrown out with 75% of the life remaining, the mercury emission factor is quadrupled for the life that was used. If they were recycled, the recycling cost per hour of useful life quadrupled. I believe you know what I mean. Whatever it is, the expenses/environmental burden associated with the early removal ought to be allocated to the cause of early removal when the early removal do not provide an energy advantage that outweighs it, which LEDs usually do not going if you're going from T5 or T8.

Its no secret that when building personal change lamps a lot of those lamps go into the standard waste stream.

This depends on the quantity. If a facility that do not qualify for exemption under limited quantity waste generator dump thousands of spent lamps from a group relamp, they're gonna be in trouble.

On the other hand when an EC does a retrofit they carefully collect lamps and ballasts for proper disposal.

Producing anything has an environmental foot print. When those products are disposed before the expected lifespan, the impact multiples. If your fleet of vans are planned for 80,000 miles, but you choose to send entire fleet of them to get crushed after 40,000 miles, for a newer model that gets 5% better mpg for supposed environmental merit or simply "just because", you have to double the "per mile" cost of asset both in $$ and environmental impact. It's obvious to everyone in lighting other than the sales people who's just pitching whatever's trendy at the time that using LED technology do not save energy when they are installed to match both the uniformity and FC level of the installation that the retrofit is replacing.

I believe LEDs have their strong points. As you're aware, they've been the leader in decorative lighting such as "OPEN" signs and dashboard back lights, and small, directional lights like battery powered flashlights.

 

[Fulthrotl]

Hmm, I am confused, when I brought up Mercury issues in another thread you told me it was not a concern. Now it is a concern. Make up your mind.

it's simple. Mercury is not an issue if all you care about is youranus (sp).

 

[iwire]

It's a small concern since a bunch more mercury is emitted to produce the same amount of energy needed to produce same output with incandescent lamps. The assumption here is that lamps are kept in service for their useful life and the lamps are thrown out as universal waste in places where it is permitted.

That is a hell of an assumption.

Is there any place in the US that allows someone with hundreds or thousands of fluorescent lamp to be tossed out as universal waste? Certainly not the case in my area.

This depends on the quantity. If a facility that do not qualify for exemption under limited quantity waste generator dump thousands of spent lamps from a group relamp, they're gonna be in trouble.

True if caught, but pull your head out of the books and live in the real world.

The fact is as maintenance personal change lamps as they expire in small numbers they often end up in the standard waste stream. This may happen dozens of times a year. The end result is the same thing you are against in this thread.

Producing anything has an environmental foot print. When those products are disposed before the expected lifespan, the impact multiples. If your fleet of vans are planned for 80,000 miles, but you choose to send entire fleet of them to get crushed after 40,000 miles, for a newer model that gets 5% better mpg for supposed environmental merit or simply "just because", you have to double the "per mile" cost of asset both in $$ and environmental impact.

You are cherry picking certain values.

If the new vans look better, are more reliable the old ones, make the operators happier there is more to consider than just one issue.

It's obvious to everyone in lighting other than the sales people who's just pitching whatever's trendy at the time that using LED technology do not save energy when they are installed to match both the uniformity and FC level of the installation that the retrofit is replacing.

No, that is not obvious to everyone and I would say it is simply untrue as a blanket statement. .

I believe LEDs have their strong points. As you're aware, they've been the leader in decorative lighting such as "OPEN" signs and dashboard back lights, and small, directional lights like battery powered flashlights.

People used to believe the telephone was a novelty.

 

[big john]

...I believe LEDs have their strong points. As you're aware, they've been the leader in decorative lighting such as "OPEN" signs and dashboard back lights, and small, directional lights like battery powered flashlights.

You're letting your bias cloud your judgement.

There are many millions of dollars of LED lighting in place in this country, I see more of it all the time from houses to low-bay lighting to high-mast fixtures on the highway. I'll be the first to admit that life-expectancy claims remain to be seen. But as far as being able to adequately substitute discharge-lighting, it's been clearly demonstrated that LEDs will perform the task.

 

[Electric-Light]

That is a hell of an assumption.

Is there any place in the US that allows someone with hundreds or thousands of fluorescent lamp to be tossed out as universal waste? Certainly not the case in my area.

Doubtful.

I was simply stating the assumption they use to calculate pg/lumen-hour. The ones that get thrown in the trash are small businesses exempted as universal waste or a small quantity spot-relamped. But, you framed it as if the school maintenance guy fill up the dumpsters behind school with cases of spent lamps after a group re-lamp.

The fact is as maintenance personal change lamps as they expire in small numbers they often end up in the standard waste stream. This may happen dozens of times a year. The end result is the same thing you are against in this thread.

So, a better group re-lamp plan should be used to avoid all those spot re-lamps.

If the new vans look better, are more reliable the old ones, make the operators happier there is more to consider than just one issue.

There better be a damn good reason to send them in to get them crushed and recycled when they're perfectly operational with plenty of life left. Lamp failure rates increase suddenly after about 70% of rated life, so you'd use this as the useful life. The same way as vehicles. Once the fleet of van hits the high failure rate point, the useful life of fleet is depleted, so you replace them all at once, or in staggered cycles. To take them out of service and scrap them after they've only seen 1/3 the expected service. If appearance and operation satisfaction are the primary reason, then do as you will, but not under the disguised motive of increased fuel efficiency to justify an unnecessary purchase when the new one realistically only gets about 5% higher average mpg, because the new vans only get 30% better mileage by limiting maximum driving speed to 45mph. If the old vans would've got a similarly better mileage by reducing the speed, you can't credit the entire 30% to the new van. This is the way many LED retrofits work. Much of savings are attributed to reduced light output or reduced uniformity.

No, that is not obvious to everyone and I would say it is simply untrue as a blanket statement. .

So, did that latest retrofit project match the mean vertical and horizontal FC(after derating LEDs for their expected lumen loss or wattage increase for active compensation type) and uniformity in light distribution?