Our friends in CELMA and the ELC representing the industry have been dealing with the effects of the legislation on their member companies. This means that we are largely free from concerns if we specify good quality equipment from European manufacturers. Legally any product that carries the CE mark must comply with these rules. It is possible that non complaint equipment and lamps will remain in the market as the methods of policing the lighting market are not very good! It does give us another argument when it comes to specification substitution by contractors particularly when they present unrecognised brands of equipment.

ELC and CELMA have prepared a document that you can download CELMA EcoDesign (SM)258_CELMA ELC Tertiary Lighting Guide_2nd Edition_FINAL2_Sept2010 which summarises the effects of the legislation that runs to 45 pages!

Unlike the domestic lighting regulations this one does make sense and will deliver improvements in quality and efficiency in commercial lighting.

Kevan Shaw September 7, 2010

Thanks

Kevan Shaw, Director of Sustainability

EcoDesign (SM)267_COM WD Possible measures energy efficiency of lighting_CF_05072010

PLDA Comments

Thanks

Kevan Shaw

The Power of Darkness

Interiors of all descriptions are routinely overlit. There is no need for these absurdly high levels of light and we would all benefit from darker spaces. In this article we will examine the rise of too much light, and how darkness rather than light can be used as a positive design tool, together with the benefits of doing so.

It is important to note in this context that bright and dark are relative terms. They need each other to exist. The contrast theory of meaning (Ernest Gellner, Words and things, 1959) states that objects can only be understood with reference to their opposite; for example if everyone was tall, no-one would think of themselves as tall, just normal. You need a reference point, a short person to look down on. Similarly, there can be no light without dark. It should also be noted that darkness is relative in magnitude as well. What we mean by dark depends on how bright the light is and the relative light levels. A dull grey day could still register 2,000 lux in absolute terms, very high for an indoor space but very low compared to the 100,000 of a sunny day.

Historically, spaces were much darker than they are now. Shops for example were lit by candles or gas lanterns. In recent years there has been an inflation of light levels – an arms race of illumination. We only need look a few years back in time to see how high and how arbitrary the current recommended light levels actually are.

Almost without exception, there was a steady increase in recommended lux levels from the 1930s to the early 1970s.

Among the more dramatic cases, the UK’s retail lighting level recommendations increased from ~100 lux in 1936 to ~500 lux in 1972.

In the former Soviet Union, the recommendation for general office lighting was ~25 lux in 1930, but had risen to 300 lux by 1979.

In North America, recommendations for chalkboard lighting rose from ~150 lux in 1938 to 1,400 lux in 1972.

Limited evidence indicates that levels were even lower prior to 1930, e.g. 35 lux for detailed drafting in 1915.
(American Energy Efficiency lighting association figures)

Our eyes, it should not be forgotten, happily work at levels between 0.1 to 100,000 lux, and they will compensate for any increase. If 1 lux is ok for safe movement in an emergency, why do we need 100 lux in corridors normally? Part of the reason for this increase is the risk – averse culture. If in doubt, ‘overlight it’ seems to be the motto, and we are terrified of being sued if someone trips up.

The benefits of less lighting are immediately apparent. Firstly, spaces will look better – more interesting and more evocative. Uniformly bright spaces are uniformly bland spaces. They present a washed-out appearance, lacking in focal points and the high light levels remove any drama. Leaving whole areas dark but lighting specific points creates more dramatic spaces (the “play of brilliants” as Richard Kelly would have called it). In addition, there are many effects you can only do in the dark, such as image projection. Simple things such as mood are more easily created with a blank canvas – a candlelit restaurant will only work in the evening; in lunchtime it is only a restaurant with candles, a significant difference.

Secondly, less light means less energy required to produce this light. If we stop lighting retail areas to 1000 lux and instead light them to 100 lux, we have achieved an immediate 90 % saving in energy use, with equivalent savings in CO2 emissions, starting us down the road towards a more sustainable future.

It can be seen therefore that we could and should light our buildings a lot less than they are lit. But what are the possibilities and what are the effects of the various types of darkness? In this next section we discuss the possibilities.

Dark ceilings lower the apparent height of the space. This in turn creates greater intimacy and allows focus to tables, or verticals – creating a more luxurious feel if you have expensive wall coverings. There are of course night-time parallels – at night the outdoor “ceiling” is dark, and our evolutionary history has adapted us to this environment.

Alternatively, the walls can be left dark. Keeping a lit ceiling and a lit floor is the default hotel lighting design with downlights and coffers. This solution allows you to add colour to ceilings and drama to floors or objects and to create an intimate space that is also quite bright.
A dark floor makes a space light and airy space but without being overlit. If the floor here was lit as well, it would be too bright but as it is left darker, the space works.

A dark floor and ceiling creates a bright lit space with a relatively low light level. It paradoxically makes space seem bright whilst not being lit brightly. I have used this effect at more than one project where practical considerations prevented lighting to or from the ceiling; we simply washed the walls brightly to compensate, and the space appeared bright whilst having a lux level on the floor of around 10 lux – greatly below guidelines.

Dark sections are a more dramatic example of darkness. One area is left entirely dark, others are bright. The light at the end of the tunnel is the best example of this, the sense of adventure and discovery created is palpable.

How then, to best achieve a lower-luminance world? Asking companies to adopt lower light levels might work, but would be too slow. Legislation is the only answer. In the UK it would only take a small tweak to Building Regulations to achieve this, and a lower carbon future is ours. For example, we could limit energy use for lighting to a maximum wattage per square metre, such as 10 watts/m2. for retail areas, with no exceptions. This could easily allow for drama, interest and accenting – as long as you adopt maximum light levels of around 50 lux for ambient lighting. This would save around 80-90 % of retail lighting energy costs immediately.

Offices should be limited to 50 Lux maximum, with supplementary lighting on desks allowed if you actually want to read a paper document – in this world of internally lit screens with documents, emails and CAD drawings, you don’t actually need much light on the desk at all.
In conclusion, I would like to say that by their contribution to global warming, high light levels do much damage to the environment. It is time we stopped overlighting buildings, time we used less light, and time we stopped being afraid of the dark.

www.elektralighting.co.uk

Why would that need some standardisation, I hear you ask? Well, if two salespeople came to see you and presented their latest LED products, how would you compare them? Light intensity? Light distribution? Colour? Life time? While these are all useful characteristics that you can use to compare LED products, it’s actually incredibly hard to compare them fairly because performance claims aren’t often made in a consistent way.

There are two main problems:

1. The data provided isn’t always available and hasn’t necessarily been produced in a standardised way.
2. Most LED data you can get your hands on is for the naked LED, tested under lab conditions.

You don’t get lab conditions once you put the LED into a luminaire, stick on a heatsink, shine it through a lens, connect it up to a driver and install it somewhere. In fact, with all these combined, you’re probably going to get something much worse than lab performance, perhaps two-thirds as much. It sounds obvious, but when you stop and think about it, it’s quite staggering.

Deputising for PLDA Director of Sustainability and Greenpages editor, Kevan Shaw, I was at a recent meeting of a cross-industry body of lighting people who have fortunately for all of us, been hard at work producing a short document entitled “Guidelines for Specification of LED Lighting Products” [link]. The document sets out a template, “…for the specification of LED luminaires performance criteria,” and as such is approved for use by HEMSA, ILE, PLDA, LIF, SLL and IALD. This document was first published in August 2009 and is being updated now for republication in August 2010.

It’s brilliantly concise, extremely readable and you can download the current version here:

If you have any comments on the document, please post them below and we’ll send them on to the review board directly.

Jonathon Hodges PLDA
Senior Lighting Designer, Jason Bruges Studio

I think we all believe these to be a really stupid product, those nice people at the U.S. DoE have now done the hard work to prove it! Jim Brodrick and his team have done a great job of analyzing the realities of these pernicious products and prove how useless they are. As expected they just do not have anything resembling the light output of the fluorescent tubes they are supposed to replace. The paper also analyzes the way these products work (or don’t!) in typical light fittings. It is a good if depressing read and you can download a pdf version here

The meeting was aimed at showing the study of the Bio Intelligence Service consultant in charge to define the strategy. The final report is expected in Autumn and the final review of the Commission at the end of this year. The strategy will thus be developed to obtain a treaty in 2013. The next stage will be to obtain the agreement of all countries and start implementation in early 2018.

What appeared in that meeting is that lighting is a “small” issue, as it represents only 3% of the global use of Mercury. Even if the quantity of lamps using mercury will rise (due to the ban of the incandescent bulb replaced by the CFL, containing Mercury), there is a strong will to reduce mercury used inside the lamps as much as possible. The admitted quantity of Mercury is today of max 5mg. However, 2 manufacturers have managed to reduced this to 1,23mg. So the overall balance should be kept. Lighting is however one of the only sector where the use of mercury cannot be reduced in the coming years.

As Mercury will still be used in lighting in the future, there is a strong need to develop recycling, by imposing for instance producers to take their products back, and also develop communication to avoid these lamps ending in common disposal. Recycled mercury could then be sold for any accepted product using Mercury in the EU, whether it is new lamps or dental amalgam products.

I felt somewhat isolated in the meeting as it was pretty clear I was the only person actually engaged in the business of lighting at he level of actually using lights and pointing them at things! I became very vocal when lamp manufacturers or researchers started coming up with convenient stories that had no relation to the reality of light!

There were more than a few Freudian slips that indicated that they want to get rid of everything but LEDs for directional lighting and are quite happy to set this in motion despite one of the speakers pointing out that LEDs cannot produce the required light output in the form factor of existing TH lamps and that the absolute efficiency of producing white light (212Lm/W) is getting very close to what is being achieved in the lab.

Formal comments are due in tomorrow and doubtless we will get some draft legislation and another stakeholder meeting and we will as usual get ignored in favour of the Lighting Industry’s lobby

After meetings in Leipzig and
Ghent, LUCI cities held a third
meeting in Frankfurt on April 15th to
finalise the LUCI Charter on Urban
Lighting.This document marks the
commitment of network members
to sustainable development. It will
be signed during the next Annual
General Meeting in Chartres.

• What are the goals of the
Charter?

The Charter aims at giving cities a clear
vision of the elements at consider
when developing sustainable lighting
strategies. In addition, it provides LUCI
cities with a shared vision of lighting
by reinforcing the network’s identity.
The idea is also to affirm LUCI support
for work undertaken at the local,
national and international levels in
favour of sustainable development.

• What is the content of the
Charter?

There are no standards to be met or
goals to be reached, rather, the Charter
provides a reference framework for
cities to develop their own strategy.
The first section concerns the way in
which light can contribute to urban
development by promoting economic,
social and cultural activities. The
second section is dedicated to
sustainable lighting: how energy
consumption can be optimised,
negative impact minimised, light
pollution reduced…

• When will the Charter be signed?

An important press conference is
planned for next September 15th in
Paris to launch the Charter and
announce the names of signatory
cities. The official signature will
take place the next day during the
LUCI General Assembly Meeting in
Chartres. The main commitment for
each signing city will be to regularly
evaluate the results of its efforts in
following the principles of the
Charter.