Whats the best way to compare these three within a similar fixture, say a wall pack. I have a customer who basically says I am a idiot for choosing anything other than cfl for any application and that basically hps or metal halide are totally obsolete. I look at lumens per watt, but I guess it must be more complicated than that. Bulb life, fixture spacing, etc. Are there any good websites or resources that will compare these? He loves those dreadful Lights of America fixtures they sell at Home Depot. I figure that if CFL was the way to go in all applications, we'd all be putting them in mall parking lots. I like seperately ballasted cfl in some situations, but don't see where they can totally take the place of the other two. I have looked at some of the higher end LED parking lot fixtures and at 2 grand a pop and long lead times to get them its a tough sell.
I say the ultimate wall pack. 85 lumens per watt with a five year warranty. Around $350.00. HPS is good for roadway lighting. Pulse start metal halide is a fine light, but in the first five years of this LED flood, the MH will go through at least two lamps and depending on usage/location maybe a ballast or two. http://www.electraled.com/pdfs/el_OHtechspecs.pdf
Metal halide decays significantly more than CFL or HPS
HPS has mediocre color rendition.
For a warehouse high bay fixture, you have enough space to use a larger fluorescent fixture, but for a small source lighting like parking lot light that must endure wind gust, I don't know if there is a CFL drop in that is satisfactory.
Some local transit light terminals did a screw-in daylight CFL retrofit for what looks like fixtures that originally housed HID and not surprisingly light level is way low.
LEDs and CFLs are both temperature sensitive. HIDs are not.
I guess I am probably more concerned with security and parking lot lighting in this case. I guess it comes down to light output per watt. I think for small areas where low cost is the primary issue, cfl is good. I think though you need more cfl fixtures to light the same area as fewer hid. In the end, I'm not so sure they are more efficient. I just don't know how to prove it. I don't think they win on bulb life.
You will have a tough time finding CFL's that will last as long as the HID's. The CRI is higher and looks nicer though, and of course uses less juice. I recently replaced a 100W MH security light with a 59W CFL that was bowl shaped, and surprisingly the light looked much better via CFL. I'm sure the 100W HID had depreciated greatly over time.
Fluorescent technology is best used in applications where they are on for 12+ hours, so wall packs qualify. However, you do want to buy a fixture built for CFL's with a warranty. I see wall packs with (2) 42 W CFL's that work well for most applications up to 250W. If one lamp fails, you still have some light, but I do think you will be replacing lamps more often.
is it a better deal? You really have to figure out your savings on electricity compared to the additional cost of labor for lamp change outs to truly know.
You will have a tough time finding CFL's that will last as long as the HID's. The CRI is higher and looks nicer though, and of course uses less juice. I recently replaced a 100W MH security light with a 59W CFL that was bowl shaped, and surprisingly the light looked much better via CFL. I'm sure the 100W HID had depreciated greatly over time.
System efficacy is not great with CFLs. Usually in 60-70 lm/W range. Of all those, HPS offers the best maintained lm/W. Watt for watt, HPS has the best output, and CFLs and MHs are similar, depending on their actual wattage. HPS offers the best light maintenance over life and temperature.
MH loses output considerably with age, but not with temperature.
CFL significantly loses output if they get too hot, which is not unlikely in an enclosed fixture.
I see wall packs with (2) 42 W CFL's that work well for most applications up to 250W. If one lamp fails, you still have some light.
Not necessarily. You need to include parallel independent operation into luminaire specifications if that is required. ICF-2S42 from Advance is a fairly common brand name ballast for 42W CFLs, but it's series wired, so if one goes out both goes out.
If you're in Vancouver, BC, its true CFLs have higher lifetime mercury emissions than incandescent because the power is sourced from hydroelectric, but if you're in Cleveland OH where majority of power is from coal fired plants, most of mercury comes from smokestacks at the power plants.
Overall, mercury emissions is reduced even if we assume fluorescent lamp mercury is totally released into the environment when we consider the reduction in smokestack mercury emission from not having to generate the kWh difference between incandescent and fluorescent. The reduction from mercury emissions over the life of lamps from energy saved is many times that of the mercury in the lamps.
It does have a lot of good info. They are making their IES files available on the site, and those have ITL test numbers as well.
They say the outdoor lighting has an integrated heat sink system, which I can confirm is essential with the post-top acorn fixtures. An Induction retrofit kit is not possible without addressing the heat, so that's something for all to be aware of.
The lumen maintenance is stated as 70% at 100,000 hours. That may be a stretch because it's unlikely they have real data that goes back that far. But they're all doing that.
I don't sell anything particular. I like alot of things. I like Arlington Stuff, Raco, Dottie, Flir thermometers, Scotchkote, lenox, Stabiloy, RAB, Ruud, etc...
Your not one of those paranoid, delusional, old codgers who thinks everyone is out to get them or sell them something are you?
Cletis
I do have some nice KVAR products I can recommend if you wish.
4 years ago I put up a 65W CFL d-to-d light at our farm to replace a 175W merc-vap. I was impressed with the light out-put and color but was skeptical of how long it would last. It has been 4 years now and I haven't touched it. It still works fine. I put up another one 2 months ago on the other side of the barn lot and expected a noticeable difference in brightness between the two. You can see them both at the same time and they look equal in brightness and color. They are both cheap $35.00 fixtures.
LPS provides the most lumens for the dollar which is why cities are converting over to it for street lighting. It is a very unattractive light source - OK for parking lots unless you need to find your car by its color. It is also not as good a light source in terms of night vision so more lumens are needed than when using metal halide lighting which negates a lot of the benefits. Our eyes work better with blue lighting.
Problem with CFL for exterior use is the problems with getting them to provide full illumination when it is cold.
We work with a lighting designer whenever possible as most people try to light up the entire area when all they really need are wall wash lights and accent or LV boundary lights (along a driveway, etc.). Most communities where we work also have strict codes that limit exterior lights to ones that cannot be seen by a neighbor and that do not shine up into the sky.
In my opinion the CFL's are great for lower wattage applications for outdoor lighting. If you are replacing any kind of HID, HPS, etc. 100W or below, you can find inexpensive CFL wallpacks or fixtures. Typically we use a standard where any CFL or fluorescent lamp will give you the same light with 50% less energy use compared to whatever old technology is in there now. Sometimes you can go higher due to the better quality of light also.
If you have a little more money to spend and have some fixtures with 100W+ in them now, induction lighting typically lasts 80,000-100,000 hours. Induction is more expensive than CFL, but less expensive than LED's, which put out much less light output and don't last as long anyway. We use a lot of induction retrofit kits on projects that are about half the price of new induction fixtures because you just replace the old lamp and ballasts with the new ones and keep your existing fixture. It proves to be a great cost effective solution when you already have wallpacks or parking lot pole lights installed.
The energy savings are obviously there as well as maintenance costs for that induction lighting you sell. I would like to know, though, that if I swap out, say, a 250w metal halide ballast and bulb, for say one of those 150w kits in a flood, that I would still get the same amount of light from the fixture.
The answer is yes and no. On paper the lumen outputs of HID's are higher. For instance - 250W HID's mean lumen output ranges from about 14,000 to 17,000 lumens typically. 150W induction bulbs put out in the range of 11,000 lumens and depreciate very slowly over the life of the bulb, so it's safe to say you'll keep at least 9-10,000 lumens over the first 8-10 years or so. Some will debate the exact figures but this is a close ballpark figure. So technically you get more maintained lumens with the HID/HPS's but that is not the whole story -
The other side of this is the light quality increase that dramatically increases the perception of brightness, even though the technical lumen figures are lower. There are a lot of technical factors that go into things like scotopic lighting, higher kelvin temperatures (induction is 5000K - appearing more pure or white), and other things. Due to these factors, you can really get big energy savings with induction lighting and it looks impressively bright compared to the old HIDs, even though the lumen figures are lower.
Most people in my experience will shoot for well over 50% energy savings. Generally I see people with 175W HID's go with 40W or 70W induction, 250W HID's typically use the 100W, and 400W HID's will use the 150W. The last project we worked on had 400W HID pole lights at 30ft and they went with 150W Induction. We looked at the HID and Induction poles right next to each other and I could not tell the difference between the two in terms of brightness. That solution was about a 63% energy savings so they were really pleased.
Others may chime in with more technical details but I hope this helps.
Are there brackets included with these induction kits to allow for easy retrofit in HID fixtures? The prices don't seem too bad considering the cost of a new HID bulb and ballast. My property management customer has some 250w metal halide floods and a few 400w HPS poles that might be candidates for this if I knew it would be feasible.
Are there brackets included with these induction kits to allow for easy retrofit in HID fixtures? The prices don't seem too bad considering the cost of a new HID bulb and ballast. My property management customer has some 250w metal halide floods and a few 400w HPS poles that might be candidates for this if I knew it would be feasible.
You would do yourself justice by retrofitting the reflectors in the fixture, if you switch to Induction bulbs. Using the reflectors designed for HPS and MH would not enchance the light very effectively and you won't get the same patern of light from it.
Also here is another one I found online that compares all the current technologies in a nice graph. The induction curve is a bit higher on this one for some reason but in general this is a good ballpark comparison -
80% @ 90,000 hours? They must be from another planet.
CFLs and induction are basically the same. The phosphor is highly loaded, meaning that they phosphor operates at high UV intensity in mW/cm^2. They also degrade at about the same rate.
The only difference is that normal CFLs fail due to electrode failure. With induction, the lumen depreciation is about the same at the same usage, but continue to function, because there is no electrode to fail, but phosphor will continue to decay.
Some CFLs, like PL-L 55W (which is basically F54T5/HO folded in half and it uses the same ballast) maintains lumen a lot longer than common CFLs, because the arc power density is much lower.
If you look at 26W "spring lamp" CFL and a 32W T8, then divide the wattage by inner surface area, you'll see that CFLs are loaded much heavier. They use the same RE80 phosphors. The power density of CFLs is often comparable to that of VHO lamps.
Also, please be aware that retrofitting with induction comes with the inherent danger of an insufficient heat sink. New induction fixtures are designed to dissipate the heat, but not older fixtures that have components that are less sensitive to heat. Putting Induction or LED in fixtures not designed for them will likely cause premature product failure, and induction manufacturers won't warranty the application unless it's been tested in the lab first in our experience.
Yes, we've discussed the thermal issues with Induction in this thread.
Yes, one must be cautious with self-ballasted induction lamps in fixtures without adequate airflow. The manufacturer should bless that before you go too far.
I've had a kit designed with a 120W induction solution in an enclosed fixture. The kit failed the first round of testing, and it was NOT a self ballasted product. They had to specially design a heat sink and ballast/generator cover to keep the ballast from failing. I was looking to install about 500 of them, so you can imagine how tragic that would have been to have had massive kit failures that were not properly tested.
How would one retrofit a different reflector into an existing fixture? I can understand that the reflector is important, especially with these or maybe led and not getting the light output you expect. The bulb shape shown is different than most of the HID lamps i've seen. I'd still like to try one out though especially where I could see one next to an existing fixture.
Ok, but what does that mean? In looking at replacements for HID outdoor fixtures in the 250w MH or 400w HPS, is there a cfl fixture that I could use? All the large wattage self ballasted cfls that I've seen aren't good for outdoor use.
CFL is not a good choice for outdoor HID replacement. There are lumen maintenance graphs presented earlier in this thread showing comparisons.
There is another thread http://www.electriciantalk.com/f8/induction-lighting-replace-hid-8276/index2/ discussing Induction to replace HID. There is a graph shown, and link to the Sylvania Icetron data sheet. Look carefully at the temperature limits regarding the type of fixture.
There are some climates too cold for Induction (or CFL) and there are some sealed fixtures that will allow Induction (and CFL) to cook themselves to early death.
In the apts I do a lot of work for, they've had me or others replace all the mercury post line lighting with screw in cfl replacement and the light level seems to be fine. Bulb life seems to be hit or miss. They just seem to think that cfl can replace anything and it comes back to how many fixtures are you trying to replace and can you get enough light out of what you are installing to do the job. We just took out most of those poles I mentioned at one property and installed several cfl floods on the building wall. Fortunately, we installed enough to keep the light levels up. I have to argue with them, though, that if you trying to replace the higher wattage HID one for one, I don't think its realistic yet.
If you mean Mercury Vapor, then anything is an improvement, in both light output and maintenance.
You can use some of the lifespan graphics to show the management a relamping schedule.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Electrician Talk
2.3M posts
93K members
Since 2007
A forum community dedicated to professional electricians, contractors, and apprentices for residential and commercial work. Come join the discussion about trade knowledge, tools, certifications, wiring, builds, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!