T12 LED Tube White Paper on replacing inefficient fluorescent tubes with more efficient LED technology
See the T12 LED Tube White Paper. USA Made LED Tubes come with promotions from one of the leading American LED Light Manufacturers.
Independence LED is a leading U.S. Manufacturer of High Performance LED Tubes and Multi-Tube Fixtures.
2013 UPDATE: See the CASH for CLUNKERS Lighting program that helps U.S. property owners reduce the LED Tube retrofit costs, given the Department of Energy’s July 14, 2012 Ban on inefficient “T12” Fluorescent Tubes.
T12 LED Tube White Paper Title: The T12 Fluorescent to LED Tube Retrofit Advantage
Release Date: March 12th 2011 updated February 2013 with CASH for CLUNKERS extension.
Company: Independence LED Lighting, LLC
Author: Chairman – Charlie Szoradi
The T12 Fluorescent to LED Tube Retrofit Advantage
A Business Case for using LED Tubes to leapfrog T8 and T5 Fluorescent using Tubes when retrofitting existing T12 Fluorescent Tubes.
Starting in July 2012, many T12 Fluorescent lamps will be phased out of commercial production. Overall, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is phasing out T12 lighting technology. Magnetic ballasts most commonly used for the operation of T12 lamps are no longer being produced for commercial and industrial applications. For more information on the DOE’s energy efficient lighting initiatives, see Appendix #1 of this LED Tube White Paper: U.S. Department of Energy New Light Standards.
The summer of 2012 may well serve in the history books as one of the most significant “Tipping Points” in American Commercial Lighting History. Since T12 Fluorescent Tubes are the least efficient of their T8 and T5 siblings, the tipping point is most logically going to come when it is cost-effective to replace the oldest fluorescent technology with the newest form of lighting technology. Before the phase out of the T12 Tube and accompanying ballast, it was faster and cheaper just to accept the level of Fluorescent inefficiency and switch out the tube with another T12. Now that property owners and managers have to change the ballast to go from a T12 to a T8 or T5, the game has changed in favor of the LED tube options. The cost of labor is typically the same for changing out a T12 Fluorescent ballast as it is for switching the ballast to an external driver that powers an LED Tube. Once an electrician or facility manager has opened the fixture to remove the ballast cover, the sunk cost is in the time on the ladder regardless of the technology. The cost of the LED Tube itself is more expensive that the T12, so this LED Tube White Paper identifies areas such as the Ballast Offset Cost (BOC) and also provides in the CONCLUSION a detailed breakdown of the various Energy Reduction and other various conditions that are most conducive to a retrofit with LED Tubes.
The delta of energy savings is significant given that ballasts have also historically added cost to Fluorescent lighting. A 4’ 45 Watt T12 Fluorescent can now be replaced with a 4’ 15 Watt LED Tube. Going all of the way from 45W to 15W makes solid business sense over switching to a 4’ 29 Watt T8 Fluorescent or a 4’ 28 Watt T5 Fluorescent. There are a range of “Eco” Fluorescent Tubes with energy reduction ballasts that can bring in the wattage on a 4’ tube to 25 Watts, but 25 Watts is still 10 Watts more than the LED Tube equivalent. The 40% reduction in electricity consumption with LED Tubes over the best that Fluorescent Tubes have to offer…puts the LED Tubes ahead of the race. In addition to the energy saving factor of the LED Tubes, this LED Tube White Paper addresses the legacy of Fluorescent Lighting, Key Data Points for perspective on the 2012 LED Tipping Point, National Impact Calculations, sample Tube Length Scenarios, U.S. and International applications for LEDs, and factors beyond Energy Savings that may be appropriate for certain Business Owners and Managers.
Legacy of Fluorescent Lighting:
For perspective, the history of Fluorescent Lighting is a story of incremental improvements over the past several decades that has reached its logical conclusion at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century. Just as the typewriter manufacturers improved the hardware to its limits, they eventually lost the race to the word processor, personal computer, laptop, and now tablet. The Fluorescent Tube manufactures now face the end of their era that dates back to the 1950s when Fluorescent Tubes surpassed incandescent lighting in corporate America. On the environmental front, the toxic mercury vapor in Fluorescent Tubes will also lose out to the more efficient and non-toxic semi-conductors of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). Simply, the Fluorescent Tube has reached the logic apex of its capabilities, and it falls short of the longer life and more efficient LEDs. See LED Tube White Paper Appendix #2: Historical Highlights on the Fluorescent Tube
T12 LED Tube White Paper: Key Data Points for perspective on the 2012 LED Tipping Point:
(Sources include the US Department of Energy, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Census, and a range of University Studies and Research Consulting Firms)
- American uses 25% of the Worlds Power with only 5% of the population.
- America has historically increased its power consumption year over year for Buildings and is now on track to consume $450 Billion a year in 2012 with over $550 Billion projected annually in 2022.
- 48% of the power consumed in America is for buildings
- 30% of the current total electricity used in buildings on average is Lighting
- 20% of the current total energy used in building on average is Lighting
- For context, by the post war boom of the 1950s more light was produced in the United States by fluorescent lamps than by incandescent lamps, and the trend has increased ever since.
- 80% of commercial lighting is now “linear” Fluorescent Tubes and multi-tube fixtures
- America discards over 600 Million Fluorescent Tubes annually.
- LED Tubes have the ability to reduce the consumption of electricity for lighting by 50% or more.
National Impact Calculations:
The goal of the following calculation sequence is to identify the impact on aggregate U.S. energy consumption given the prediction of the tipping point of Fluorescent Tubes to LED Tubes over Q3 2012.
16% of current Commercial Energy Consumption is from Fluorescent Tubes
(Calculation: 20 % of energy is lighting of which 80% is Fluorescent) The logic of this holds given that the office lobbies and elevators often have socket lamps, many industrial facilities and warehouses have high bays that are often metal Halide fixtures. Plus, exterior security and landscape lighting is non-fluorescent.)
7.68% of Total U.S. Energy Consumption is from Fluorescent Tubes.
(Calculation: 16% of Building Energy is Fluorescent Tubes of the 48% total share of the energy consumption that is by buildings.)
In 2012 7.68% of $450 Billion equals $34.56 Billion spent on powering Fluorescent Tubes.
With the LED Tube retrofits, the savings would exceed $17 Billion annually. At a 60,000 hour life, LED Tubes in offices run over 23 years. (This is based on a 10 hour per day work week with 2,600 hours of illumination in a year. Naturally some lights run longer like in 24/7 exit stairs, parking garages, hospitals, etc, which account for less than 10% of the total lighting footprint.) $17B Saved over 20 years = $340 Billion.
T12 LED Tube White Paper: Calculation Cross-Checks:
With over 600 Million Fluorescent Tubes discarded each year, the cross-check against the annual $34 B in energy consumption is as follows:
The average existing 4’ T8 Fluorescent Tube uses 32 Watts, the average office run time is 2,600 hours per year, and the average cost of electricity is $.11 / kWh in America.
(Watts/1,000 x Annual Hours of Operation) = Annual kWh
Annual kWh x Cost per Kwh = Annual Cost of Operations
(32W/1,000 x 2,600) = 83.2 Annual kWh per tube
83.2 Annual kWh x $.11 = $9.15 to operate each tube on average per year.
With 600 Million tubes discarded, the cost to operate just the ones that are replaced is $5.47 Billion. Given that in an office they may last for 6 years, the discarded ones reflect closer to 15% of the total Fluorescent tubes in current use. $5.47 Billion x 6 = $32.82 Billion in annual energy consumption for Fluorescent Tubes. This cross check is within a reasonable margin of error of the previous calculation method yielding $34.56 Billion.
As a third cross-check for the purposes of this LED White Paper, the US Census sq. ft reporting on property types across America has served as the foundation for an analysis to determine the number of Fluorescent Tubes and their annual cost of energy in America. The ASHRAE reports on Lighting Watts per sq. ft. by property type serves as the counter point to the study as well as the US Census supplemental information on average run time per property type. The results of analyzing over 15 different macro property types and many more sub-sets yielded finding of over 1,372,776,042 Fluorescent Tubes in American ceilings. This 1.37 Billion Tube count relied on the US Census categories and did not include categories such as does Multi-Family Apartment Buildings, Condominiums, CoOps or Military Bases and Military housing. The square footage reports also did not include Industrial Manufacturing Buildings such as Factory and Assembly facilities across the US. This third calculation method yields a lower total number of fluorescent tube replacement opportunities for LED tubes, but given that there are over 600 Million Tubes discarded each year and over twice that on a per square foot calculation, these very large numbers may give business owners and operators some perspective in seeing the LED Tube retrofit opportunity as a Tipping Point in 2012. To put this third cross-check into perspective, The U.S. Department of Energy has identified Fluorescent Tubes in these sectors:
All Sectors: 2,385,399,000
Note that the 1.65 Billion Commercial sector Fluorescent Tubes in the DOE Report approximately matches up with the 1.37 Billion Commercial sector Fluorescent Tube calculation from this LED White Paper Report as outlined above.
See the LED Tube White Paper Appendix #3: U.S. Census Data on Property Sq. Ft and Average Run Times
See the LED Tube White Paper Appendix #4: ASHREA Report on Lighting Watts per Sq. Ft. by Property Type.
See the LED Tube White Paper Appendix #5: U.S. Department of Energy Number and Length of Linear Fluorescent Tubes across major U.S. Property Sectors
Does your facility currently use inefficient T12 technology? Now is the time to upgrade to more energy-efficient lighting:
T12 LED Tube White Paper: Energy Reduction Strategy:
If you have T12s leapfrog the T8 and T5 options and go straight to LEDs. You save on the operations given the significant reduction in energy costs.
|Average Wattage Table by Tube Lengths|
|Tube Type||T12: 2’: 20W to 22W||4’: 40 to 45W||8’: 60W to 110W|
|T8: 2’: 14W||4’: 29W||8’: 59W|
|T5: 2’: 14W||4’: 28W||8’: 56W|
|LED: 2’: 9W||4’: 15W||8’: 30W|
You also have an offset cost factor if you were to switch from T12 to another Fluorescent Tube, you would have to change out the ballasts. When converting the T12s to other fluorescents, think of this as a Ballast Deduction Factor (BDF), which serves as a Rebate in the decision to retrofit with LEDs.
Ballast Offset Cost (BOC) for T12 to T8
2’ Length: Per Tube Cost of Ballast $3+ Tube $1.75 for T8 = $4.75
4’ Length: Per Tube Cost of Ballast $3 + Tube $2.25 for T8 = $5.25
8’ Length: Per Tube Cost of Ballast $6 + Tube $10.00 for T8 =$16
(Note T8 ballasts cost between $12 and $24 so this per tube breakdown assumes three to four tubes per fixture, so the BDF will be higher with single or double tube fixtures.)
Ballast Offset Cost (BOC) for T12 to T5
2’ Length: Per Tube Cost of Ballast $5 + Tube $6 for T5 =$11
4’ Length: Per Tube Cost of Ballast $5 + Tube $8 for T5 = $13
8’ Length: Per Tube Cost of Ballast $12.50 + Tube $20 for T5 =$32.50
(Note T5 ballasts cost between $20 and $50 so this per tube breakdown assumes three to four tubes per fixture, so the BDF will be higher with single or double tube fixtures.)
In addition to the Ballast Offset Cost (BOC) property owners and managers should assess the sunk cost of the labor to change out a failed T12 Fluorescent Tube or Ballast. Simply, throwing good money after old technology often does not make as much sense as doing the right thing from the beginning.
5 Star Criteria for LED Tubes:
All LED Tubes are not created equal, so look for High Performance Products with criteria such as:
- External Driver to avoid Internal Driver burn out
- Thermal Management with Deep Fin Heat sinks
- Surface Mounted Diodes vs Thru Hole Diodes
- Quality Assurance and Service Support: Made in America
- 5 Year Warranty
For a top Products line see: High Performance LED Tubes
For a detailed breakdown of the Challenges and Solutions for LED Tube manufacturing, also see: Technology Differentiation
3 Sample length scenarios for T12 to LED Tube retrofits:
2’ T12’ Fluorescent to 2’ LED Tube Retrofit:
(Please note that this also applies to the T12 “U Tube” which can be replaced by a pair of 2’ LED Tubes.) This section covers 2’ LED Tube retrofits for T12 2’ Fluorescent bulbs while the other segments cover 4’ LED tubes for 4’ T12 Fluorescent and 8’ LED tubes for 8’ T12 Fluorescent replacements.
This section highlights the performance of the LED Tubes over the T12 Fluorescent bulbs by using an example: For buildings with an Electricity Cost of $.10 per kWh the property areas that would benefit most would be the areas with a weekly illumination run time of 24/7. This would mean that Parking Garage LED tubes, Exit Stair LED tubes, Hallway LED tubes, or Warehouse LED tubes, could each save $9.64 per year over a T12. This savings comes from taking the Annual $17.52 Cost to Operate a Single 2’ T12 20 Watt Tube and subtracting the 2’ LED 9 Watt tube which only uses $7.88 of electricity per year.
This section also highlights the same property types and 24/7 run time but changes the Cost per kW to $.20 for comparison. At $.20 / kWh, the annual Cost to Operate a Single 2’ T12 20 Watt Tube is $35.04, while the 9 Watts LED Tube only costs $15.77 to operate per year. This yields a savings of Savings of $19.27 per LED Tube retrofit. The video includes data on T12 Fluorescent Tubes that are less than 4ft long. Residential: 7,025,000; Commercial: 7,294,000; Industrial: 14,000; All Sectors: 14,333,000 (Source: U.S. Department of Energy)
Sample New York City NYC Rebates: Rebate on Annual kWh Saved: $.13 for 24/7 operations: Rebate Calculation: T12 20 Watts to LED 9 Watts = 11 Watts Saved x 8,760 Annual Hours /1,000 = 96.36 Annual kWh Saved. 96.36 Annual kWh x $.13 = REBATE: $12.53. T12 LED Rebates are an excellent way for New York City Property Owners and Managers to make the retrofit of LED Lighting more affordable.
4’ T12’ Fluorescent to 4’ LED Tube Retrofit:
This section covers 4’ LED tube retrofits for T12 4’ Fluorescent bulbs while the other segments cover 2’ LED tubes for 2’ T12 Fluorescent and 8’ LED tubes for 8’ T12 Fluorescent replacements.
This section highlights the performance of the LED Tubes over the T12 Fluorescent bulbs by using an example: For buildings with an Electricity Cost of $.10 per kWh the property areas that would benefit most would be the areas with a weekly illumination run time of 24/7. This would mean that Parking Garage LED tubes, Exit Stair LED tubes, Hallway LED tubes, or Warehouse LED tubes, could each save $26.28 per year over a T12. This savings comes from taking the Annual $39.42 Cost to Operate a Single 4’ T12 45 Watt Tube and subtracting the 4’ LED 15 Watt tube which only uses $13.41 of electricity per year.
This section also highlights the same property types and 24/7 run time but changes the Cost per kW to $.20 for comparison. At $.20 / kWh, the annual Cost to Operate a Single 4’ T12 45 Watt Tube is $78.84, while the 15 Watts LED Tube only costs $26.28 to operate per year. This yields a savings of Savings of $52.56 per LED Tube retrofit. The video includes data on T12 Fluorescent Tubes that are less than 4ft long. Residential: 331,790,000; Commercial: 410,460,000; Industrial: 24,006,000; All Sectors: 766,256,000 (Source: U.S. Department of Energy)
Sample NYC Rebates: Rebate on Annual kWh Saved: $.13 for 24/7 operations: Rebate Calculation: T12 45 Watts to LED 15 Watts = 30 Watts Saved x 8,760 Annual Hours /1,000 = 262.8 Annual kWh Saved. 262.8 Annual kWh x $.13 = REBATE: $34.16. T12 LED Rebates are an excellent way for New York City Property Owners and Managers to make the retrofit of LED Lighting more affordable.
8’ T12’ Fluorescent to 8’ LED Tube Retrofit:
This section covers 8’ LED tube retrofits for T12 8’ Fluorescent bulbs while the other segments cover 2’ LED tubes for 2’ T12 Fluorescent and 4’ LED tubes for 4’ T12 Fluorescent replacements.
This section covers 60 Watt T12 Fluorescent tubes and references T12 75 Watt and T12 90 Watt tubes, but the most impressive energy savings comes from retrofitting T12 110 Watt tubes to the 30 Watt LED Tubes.
This section highlights the performance of the LED Tubes over the T12 Fluorescent bulbs by using an example: For buildings with an Electricity Cost of $.10 per kWh the property areas that would benefit most would be the areas with a weekly illumination run time of 24/7. This would mean that Parking Garage LED tubes, Exit Stair LED tubes, Hallway LED tubes, or Warehouse LED tubes, could each save $70.08 per year over a T12. This savings comes from taking the Annual $96.36 Cost to Operate a Single 8’ T12 110 Watt Tube and subtracting the 8’ LED 30 Watt tube which only uses $26.28 of electricity per year.
This section also highlights the same property types and 24/7 run time but changes the Cost per kW to $.20 for comparison. At $.20 / kWh, the annual Cost to Operate a Single 8’ T12 110 Watt Tube is $192.72, while the 30 Watts LED Tube only costs $52.56 to operate per year. This yields a savings of Savings of $140.16 per LED Tube retrofit. The video includes data on T12 Fluorescent Tubes that are less than 8ft long. Residential: 28,685,000; Commercial: 109,066,000; Industrial: 10,830,000; All Sectors: 148,581,000 (Source: U.S. Department of Energy)
Sample New York City (NYC) Rebates: Rebate on Annual kWh Saved: $.13 for 24/7 operations: Rebate Calculation: T12 110 Watts to LED 30 Watts = 80 Watts Saved x 8,760 Annual Hours /1,000 = 700.8 Annual kWh saved. 700.8 Annual kWh x $.13 = REBATE: $91.10. T12 LED Rebates are an excellent way for New York City Property Owners and Managers to make the retrofit of LED Lighting more affordable.
The Best Applications for T12 to LED Tube Retrofits
There are many scenarios where it makes sense to convert T12 Fluorescent Tubes into LED Tubes and by pass the T8 and T5 Fluorescent options. Review the multiple scenario “Conditions” below and make the change if one or more applies to you.
Pick the right LED Tube if you chose to leapfrog the T8 and T5 Fluorescent options. For a top Products line see: High Performance LED Tubes For a detailed breakdown of the Challenges and Solutions for LED Tube manufacturing, also see: Technology Differentiation
There are Seven (7) different relevant Energy Reduction conditions to retrofit with LED Tubes for property owners or managers that have existing T12 Fluorescent Tubes. There are also eight (8) different scenarios Beyond Energy Reduction that make sense to retrofit with LED Tubes. The following breakdown highlights all twelve (15) scenarios that create a favorable condition to retrofit with LED Tubes, plus one Enterprise Value BONUS.
Energy Reduction Conditions:
#1 – T12 Tubes Die: Across America and the Global Market, if a T12 Fluorescent Tube goes out, property owners and managers should retrofit with LED Tubes, because the sunk cost of the labor to change out the T12 Tube and the T12 Tube itself can go toward the new more energy efficient LED Tube retrofit solution. This “LED Rolling Retrofit Advantage” is an on demand approach to upgrade to new technology as the old tech dies out.
#2 – T12 Tube Ballasts Die: Across America and the Global Market, if a T12 Fluorescent Tube Ballast goes out, property owners and managers should retrofit with LED Tubes, because the sunk cost of the labor to change out the T12 Tube and the T12 Tube itself can go toward the new more energy efficient LED Tube retrofit solution. This approach to upgrade to new technology as the old ballasts dies out is also an extension of the “LED Rolling Retrofit Advantage”
#3 – T12 Tubes in 24/7 Areas: Across America and the Global Market, if a T12 Fluorescent Tube is running 24/7, property owners and managers should retrofit with LED Tubes, because the energy savings is so much more dramatic than with a single shift office, class room, or retail environment. This “LED 24/7 Areas First Advantage” for upgrading is ideal for LED retrofits in areas like Parking Garages, Exit Stairs, Hallways for Hospitals, Dorms, Hotels, and Multi-Family buildings, as well as three shift Industrial factories, warehouses, and Distribution Centers. Note that if the Parking Garages and Industrial Facilities have existing Metal Halide fixtures the retrofit to Multi-Tube LED Fixtures is cost-effective given that Metal Halides are even less efficient than T12 Fluorescent Tubes.
#4 – T12 Tubes in high kWh Areas: Across America the Northeastern States, California, Alaska, and Hawaii have the high kWh rates that are above the national average. So, these areas yield the best payback on LED Tube retrofits. Naturally, if property owners and managers with facilities in these high kWh states also identify areas that run 24/7, the payback on the LEDs is even better than the lower run time areas within the same building. This “LED High kWh Advantage” is naturally compounded in high run time and high kWh facilities. See the kWh Rates by U.S. States
#5 – T12 Tubes in Metro New York City: LED Tube retrofits are ideal across New York City’s Five Boroughs: Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island. This “LED NYC Advantage” is due to the fact that the New York kWh cost is one of the highest in the US and the Con Edison Utility Company offers a very compelling Commercial and Industrial incentive program. The incentive rebates can dramatically increase the Return on Investment (ROI) for LED retrofits.
#6 – Almost Anywhere in Europe: LED Tube retrofits are ideal across most of Europe. This “LED European Advantage” is due to the fact that the kWh costs are some of the highest in the world. In many European countries the kWh is over $.20 which is about twice the US average. This cuts the payback time on LED Lights in half relative to US performance. For European property owners and managers, the need to look for long run time areas is less critical in determining the financial viability of an LED Tube conversion, because the Return on Investment (ROI) for LED retrofits works in so many different applications.
#7 – All of the Islands: LED Tube retrofits are ideal for the Caribbean and other Islands. This “LED Island Advantage” is due to the fact that the kWh costs are some of the highest in the world. On many the kWh is over $.30 which is about triple the US average. This cuts the payback time on LED Lights to a third relative to US performance. For Island property owners and managers, the need to look for long run time areas is less critical in determining the financial viability of an LED Tube conversion, because the Return on Investment (ROI) for LED retrofits works in so many different applications.
Advantages Beyond Energy Reduction Conditions:
#1 – High Labor Replacement Costs: Across America and the Global Market, if a T12 Fluorescent Tube is located in a fixture that is either difficult to access or high enough off of the floor to require the use of more than a step ladder or a scissor lift, the T12 is often a great target for an LED Tube retrofit. Given the long life of LED Tubes, in these cases the reduced maintenance labor is sometimes as much of an advantage as the reduced kWh consumption. For heavy vehicle transit areas, such as tunnels, the reduced inconvenience factor of LED Tubes over fluorescents is also a key advantage. This “LED Hassle Reduction Advantage” is naturally compounded in high run time and high kWh facilities with the added advantage of energy savings.
#2 – Refrigeration or Freezer Conditions: Across America and the Global Market, if T12 Fluorescent Tube is in a refrigerator case, walk-in refrigerator, walk-in freezer, refrigerated warehouse or freezer warehouse, property owners and managers should retrofit with LED Tubes. Simply, the LED Tubes run cooler than Fluorescent equivalents so the energy savings is accompanied by the reduced demand on the electricity for climate control. The “LED Cooler Advantage” is naturally compounded in high run time and high kWh facilities with the added advantage of energy savings.
#3 – Horticulture Lights: Across America and the Global Market, if a T12 Fluorescent Tubes is used for any form of indoor aqua farming or plant growth, property owners and managers should retrofit with LED Tubes. A diverse range of independent studies and field tests have demonstrated that plants grow faster under LED Lights than under Fluorescent lights. Research is rapidly advancing in the horticulture industry that indicates LED-based solid-state lighting (SSL) might boost productivity in greenhouse and plant-factory operations. The results of studies confirm that plant growth can be modulated by employing tailored spectrum provided by emission of different LEDs. Even illumination with spectrum, consisting of two components (one in red region and another in short-wavelength region), when properly selected, can be beneficial in respect to illumination using conventional lamps. Learn more about the LED impact on plant growth from the Lighting Lab Study. This “LED Horticulture Advantage” is naturally compounded in high run time and high kWh facilities with the added advantage of energy savings.
#4 – Food Processing: Across America and the Global Market, if a T12 Fluorescent Tube is used in a food processing plant, property owners and managers should retrofit with LED Tubes. Food processing facilities are typically required to cover their Fluorescent Tubes with a plastic sleeve to protect against broken glass contaminating the food. The safety x-ray machines do not have the ability to identify the glass if it were to contaminate the food. The LED Tubes typically have a plastic lens instead of glass. This “LED Food Processing Advantage” is naturally compounded in high run time and high kWh facilities with the added advantage of energy savings.
#5– Insect Conditions: Across America and the Global Market, if a T12 Fluorescent Tube is used in an area that is heavily populated by insects or attracts insects, property owners and managers should retrofit with LED Tubes. Studies have shown that LED Tubes attract fewer insects than Fluorescent Tubes. Most LEDs emit light in a very narrow spectrum. They are not attractive to bugs, because they do not emit UV light. The reduction in attraction of insects is particularly appealing to facility operators that have to change filters frequently for air bourn insects. This “LED Insect Reduction Advantage” is naturally compounded in high run time and high kWh facilities with the added advantage of energy savings.
#6 – Migraine Relief: Across America and the Global Market, if a T12 Fluorescent Tube is used in an area where people have reported migraines attributed to the work environment, property owners and managers should retrofit with LED Tubes. Studies have shown that LED Tubes reduce the adverse migraines caused for some people by Fluorescent Tubes. The Physiological Effect of Fluorescent Lighting can cause migraines and other neurological effects. What is perceived as optical flicker may not be optical flicker at all. It could be the effect of Fluorescent light on the person’s own optical response. Little is known about the actual cause. The most probable explanation is pupillary flutter caused by the spiked spectral pattern emitted by fluorescent lights. Fluorescent lights rely on ultraviolet light being fluoresced down to visible light frequencies (hence “fluorescent”). The spectral light output is not continuous; rather it is a series of spikes. The spikes cause the pupil to alternately dilate and contract in response to red and blue spectral peaks in the light. The result is that the pupil erratically adjusts or “flutters”, causing: perceived flicker and neurological effects such as headaches, migraines, drowsiness, general fatigue and malaise. Learn more here about: The Impact of Fluorescent Tubes on Migraines. Since LED Tubes do not have ultraviolet light or the spiked spectral patterns, there is no evidence that they cause migraines. This “LED Migraine Relief Advantage” is naturally compounded in high run time and high kWh facilities with the added advantage of energy savings.
#7 – Toxic Free: Across America and the Global Market, if a T12 Fluorescent Tube is used in an area that has restricted Mercury or has called for Mercury reduction measures, property owners and managers should retrofit with LED Tubes. Fluorescents contain noxious chemicals including argon and mercury that are contaminating the environment,. When the bulbs break, mercury can contaminate the environment, including soils, people and animals in the surrounding the area. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can severely harm the human nervous system through either ingestion, inhalation or skin absorption. It is a highly toxic heavy metal that acts as a cumulative poison similar to lead or DDT. Exposure presents the greatest hazard for infants, children and pregnant mothers. Physical symptoms may include an inability to coordinate body movement, an impairment of hearing, vision and speech, skin rashes and kidney damage. Learn more here about: The Impact of Fluorescent Tubes on Migraines. LED Tubes do not contain Mercury and are Toxic Free – RoHS Compliant. This “LED Toxic Free Advantage” is naturally compounded in high run time and high kWh facilities with the added advantage of energy savings.
#8 – CO2 Reduction: Across America and the Global Market, if a T12 Fluorescent Tube is used in an area that is part of an overall business or municipality’s Green House Gas (GHG) reduction initiative, property owners and managers should retrofit with LED Tubes. For every kWh saved in energy approximately 1.3 lbs of CO2 emissions are saved. Simply, making energy through means such as burning coal creates CO2. The less energy that a property uses on lighting, the less energy is needed to power the overall facility…and by extension the region. Learn more here about: CO2 Reduction. This “LED CO2 Reduction Advantage” is naturally compounded in high run time and high kWh facilities with the added advantage of advantage of energy savings.
BONUS: The Enterprise Value lift comes on the sale of the retrofitted property or business. If a T12 Fluorescent Tube is used in an area of building that is slated for sale, the property owners and managers should retrofit with LED Tubes. Simply, the reduction in operating expenses from LED Tubes increases the Net Operating Income (NOI) of the overall business. The multiple on the NOI that dictates the Enterprise Value naturally varies across different business sectors, but it is in most cases significantly higher than the cost of the LED Tubes. LED Tube White Paper Additional Resources: Beyond the Appendix files provided here, please also see the LED Boot Camp for Videos, Retrofit Photos, and other support files on LED Tubes
LED White Paper Appendix File Index:
Appendix #1: U.S. Department of Energy New Light Standards
Appendix #2: Historical Highlights on the Fluorescent Tube
Appendix #3: U.S. Census Data on Property Sq. Ft and Average Run Times
Appendix #4: ASHREA Report on Lighting Watts per Sq. Ft. by Property Type
Appendix #5: U.S. Department of Energy Number and Length of Linear Fluorescent Tubes across major U.S. Property Sectors
Appendix #1: U.S. Department of Energy New Light Standards
New Lighting Standards Begin in 2012
Beginning in 2012, common light bulbs sold in the U.S. will typically use about 25% to 80% less energy. Many bulbs meet these new standards, including incandescents, CFLs, and LEDs, and are already available for purchase today. The newer bulbs provide a wide range of choices in color and brightness, and many of them will last much longer than traditional light bulbs. The lighting standards, which phase in from 2012-2014, do not ban incandescent or any specific bulb type; they say that bulbs need to use about 25% less energy. The bipartisan Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) established these efficiency standards.
The new energy-saving light bulbs— CFLs, and LEDs—are available today and could save you about $50 per year when you replace 15 traditional incandescent bulbs in your home.
Measuring Light in Lumens
The new efficiency standards require light bulbs to consume less electricity (watts) for the amount of light produced (lumens). More traditional inefficient 100 watt (W) bulbs—typically incandescent bulbs—will give way to choices—including newer incandescent bulbs—that use only 72 watts or less to provide you a comparable amount of light (lumens). If you are replacing a 100W bulb, a good rule of thumb is to look for a bulb that gives you about 1600 lumens. Your new bulb should provide that level of brightness for no more than 72W, cutting your energy bill. Learn more about lumens.
As of January 1, 2012, traditional, inefficient 100W incandescent light bulbs will not meet the standards and will no longer be available at most stores.* However, you will have many other options that will save you money. Many of these choices are already on store shelves.
Similar standards will phase in for other types of light bulbs over the next three years. Traditional 75 watt incandescent light bulbs will no longer be available as of January 1, 2013. Traditional 40 and 60 watt incandescent light bulbs will no longer be available as of January 1, 2014.**
New Lighting Standards Will Save You Money
The savings can add up. Upgrading 15 inefficient incandescent bulbs in your home could save you about $50 per year. Since most of the bulbs also have longer life spans, you’ll continue to save into the future. Nationwide, lighting accounts for about 10% of home electricity use. With new EISA standards, U.S. households could save nearly $6 billion dollars in 2015 alone.
Various specialty bulbs, including appliance bulbs, heavy-duty bulbs, colored lights and three-way bulbs, are exempt from the new standards.
For the specific related language in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), see our Frequently Asked Questions page.
- Learn about lighting choices to save you money
- Find out how to shop for energy-efficient lighting
- Get answers to frequently asked questions
- Find information for light bulb retailers
- Find information for media.
Appendix #2: Historical Highlights on the Fluorescent Tube
A fluorescent lamp or fluorescent tube is a gas-discharge lamp that uses electricity to excite mercury vapor. The excited mercury atoms produce short-wave ultraviolet light that then causes a phosphor to fluoresce, producing visible light. A fluorescent lamp converts electrical power into useful light more efficiently than an incandescent lamp. Lower energy cost typically offsets the higher initial cost of the lamp. The lamp fixture is more costly because it requires a ballast to regulate the current through the lamp.
While larger fluorescent lamps have been mostly used in commercial or institutional buildings, the compact fluorescent lamp is now available in the same popular sizes as incandescents and is used as an energy-saving alternative in homes.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency classifies fluorescent lamps as hazardous waste, and recommends that they be segregated from general waste for recycling or safe disposal.
Commercialization of fluorescent lamps
All the major features of fluorescent lighting were in place at the end of the 1920s. Decades of invention and development had provided the key components of fluorescent lamps: economically manufactured glass tubing, inert gases for filling the tubes, electrical ballasts, long-lasting electrodes, mercury vapor as a source of luminescence, effective means of producing a reliable electrical discharge, and fluorescent coatings that could be energized by ultraviolet light. At this point, intensive development was more important than basic research.
In 1934, Arthur Compton, a renowned physicist and GE consultant, reported to the GE lamp department on successful experiments with fluorescent lighting at General Electric Co., Ltd. in Great Britain (unrelated to General Electric in the United States). Stimulated by this report, and with all of the key elements available, a team led by George E. Inman built a prototype fluorescent lamp in 1934 at General Electric’s Nela Park (Ohio) engineering laboratory. This was not a trivial exercise; as noted by Arthur A. Bright, “A great deal of experimentation had to be done on lamp sizes and shapes, cathode construction, gas pressures of both argon and mercury vapor, colors of fluorescent powders, methods of attaching them to the inside of the tube, and other details of the lamp and its auxiliaries before the new device was ready for the public.”
In addition to having engineers and technicians along with facilities for R&D work on fluorescent lamps, General Electric controlled what it regarded as the key patents covering fluorescent lighting, including the patents originally issued to Hewitt, Moore, and Küch. More important than these was a patent covering an electrode that did not disintegrate at the gas pressures that ultimately were employed in fluorescent lamps. Albert W. Hull of GE’s Schenectady Research Laboratory filed for a patent on this invention in 1927, which was issued in 1931.
While the Hull patent gave GE a basis for claiming legal rights over the fluorescent lamp, a few months after the lamp went into production the firm learned of a U.S. patent application that had been filed in 1927 for the aforementioned “metal vapor lamp” invented in Germany by Meyer, Spanner, and Germer. The patent application indicated that the lamp had been created as a superior means of producing ultraviolet light, but the application also contained a few statements referring to fluorescent illumination. Efforts to obtain a U.S. patent had met with numerous delays, but were it to be granted, the patent might have caused serious difficulties for GE. At first, GE sought to block the issuance of a patent by claiming that priority should go to one of their employees, Leroy J. Buttolph, who according to their claim had invented a fluorescent lamp in 1919 and whose patent application was still pending. GE also had filed a patent application in 1936 in Inman’s name to cover the “improvements” wrought by his group. In 1939 GE decided that the claim of Meyer, Spanner, and Germer had some merit, and that in any event a long interference procedure was not in their best interest. They therefore dropped the Buttolph claim and paid $180,000 to acquire the Meyer, et al. application, which at that point was owned by a firm known as Electrons, Inc. The patent was duly awarded in December 1939. This patent, along with the Hull patent, put GE on what seemed to be firm legal ground, although it faced years of legal challenges from Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., which claimed infringement on patents that it held.
Even though the patent issue would not be completely resolved for many years, General Electric’s strength in manufacturing and marketing the bulb gave it a pre-eminent position in the emerging fluorescent light market. Sales of “fluorescent lumiline lamps” commenced in 1938 when four different sizes of tubes were put on the market used in fixtures manufactured by three leading corporations, Lightolier, Artcraft Fluorescent Lighting Corporation, and Globe Lighting, two based in New York City. During the following year GE and Westinghouse publicized the new lights through exhibitions at the New York World’s Fair and the Golden Gate International Exposition in San Francisco. Fluorescent lighting systems spread rapidly during World War II as wartime manufacturing intensified lighting demand. By 1951 more light was produced in the United States by fluorescent lamps than by incandescent lamps.
In the first years zinc orthosilicate with varying content of beryllium was used as greenish phosphor. Small additions of magnesium tungstate improved the blue part of the spectrum yielding acceptable white. After it was discovered that beryllium was toxic, halophosphate based phosphors took over.
- ^ http://www.ecy.wa.gov/mercury/mercury_light_bulbs.html
- ^ M. A. Laughton Electrical Engineer’s Reference Book Sixteenth Edition, Newnes, 2003 ISBN 0750646373, page 21-12
- ^ http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/wastetypes/universal/lamps/index.htm
- ^ Gribben, John; “The Scientists; A History of Science Told Through the Lives of Its Greatest Inventors”; Random House; 2004; pp 424–432; ISBN 978-0812967883
- ^ US 865367 Fluorescent Electric Lamp
- ^ “Mr. Moore’s Etheric Light. The Young Newark Electrician’s New And Successful Device.”. New York Times. October 2, 1896, Wednesday.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9400E1DE133BEE33A25751C0A9669D94679ED7CF. Retrieved 2008-05-26. Paid access.
- ^ Gaster, Leon; Dow, John Stewart (1915). Modern illuminants and illuminating engineering. Whittaker & Co.. pp. 107–111.http://books.google.com/books?id=jVVDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA107.
- ^ a b c Bright, Jr., Arthur A. (1949). The Electric-Lamp Industry. MacMillan. Pages 221–223 describe Moore tubes. Pages 369–374 describe neon tube lighting. Page 385 discusses Risler’s contributions to fluorescent coatings in the 1920s. Pages 388–391 discuss the development of the commercial fluorescent at General Electric in the 1930s.
- ^ Weeks, Mary Elvira (2003). Discovery of the Elements: Third Edition (reprint). Kessinger Publishing. p. 287. ISBN 9780766138728.http://books.google.com/books?id=SJIk9BPdNWcC&pg=PA287.
- ^ Claude, Georges (November 1913). “The Development of Neon Tubes”. The Engineering Magazine: 271–274. http://books.google.com/books?id=erpMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA271#v=onepage&q&f=false.
- ^ van Dulken, Stephen (2002). Inventing the 20th century: 100 inventions that shaped the world : from the airplane to the zipper. New York University Press. p. 42. ISBN 9780814788127. http://books.google.com/books?id=aVHRRoQvW60C&pg=PA42.
- ^ US patent 1790153, Albert W. Hull, “Electrical Discharge Device and Method of Operation”, issued 1931-01-27, assigned to General Electric Company
- ^ US patent 2182732, Friedrich Meyer; Hans-Joachim Spanner & Edmund Germer, “Metal Vapor Lamp”, issued 1939-12-05, assigned to General Electric Company
- ^ http://americanhistory.si.edu/lighting/20thcent/prec20.htm
- ^ Kane, Raymond; Sell, Heinz (2001). “A Review of Early Inorganic Phosphors”. Revolution in lamps: a chronicle of 50 years of progress. p. 98.ISBN 9780881733785. http://books.google.de/books?id=klE5qGAltjAC&pg=PA98.
Appendix #3: U.S. Census Data on Property Sq. Ft and Average Run Times
|Property Type||Number of Buildings in the US||Total Square Footage||Run Time (Hours per Week)||Run Time (Hours per Year)|
|Warehouse & Storage||452,250||10,477,000,000||49||2,548|
|Health Care – Inpatient||11,000||1,865,000,000||165||8,580|
|Health Care – Outpatient||116,000||1,053,000,000||56||2,912|
|Public Order and Safety||72,000||1,168,000,000||95||4,940|
Appendix #4: ASHRAE Report on Lighting Watts per Sq. Ft. by Property Type
|BUILDING TYPE||Baseline Watts/Sq.ft|
|MOTION PICTURE THEATRE||1.2|
|DINING: BAR LOUNGE/LEISURE||1.3|
|DINING: CAFETERIA/FAST FOOD||1.4|
|PERFORMING ARTS THEATER||1.6|
Appendix #5: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Report released January 2012: Number and Length of Linear Fluorescent Tubes across major U.S. Property Sectors
|Linear Type||Residential||Commercial||Industrial||Outdoor||All Sectors|
|T12 Greater than 4ft||28,685,000||109,066,000||10,830,000||148,581,000|
|T12 Less than 4ft||7,025,000||7,294,000||14,000||14,333,000|
|T8 Greater than 4ft||1,369,000||27,914,000||3,349,000||32,632,000|
|T8 Less than 4ft||3,020,000||14,090,000||708,000||17,818,000|
Source: Page #35 of the Department of Energy DOE January 2012 Report
2,385,399,000 fluorescent tubes in American ceilings:
48.1%: T8s totaling 1,148,222,000 Tubes
39.5%: T12s totaling 941,335,000 Tubes
12.4%: T5s or Miscellaneous totaling 295,842,000 Tubes