LED Lighting Vs Fluorescent Lighting

LED light sources have developed at a rapid rate. Whilst they started off as an alternative to Halogen lighting only they are now able to offer better alternatives to incandescent lamps as well as Florescent Discharge lamps.

The advantages are increased where the application is: Food Environment / Frequent Switching / Cooled environment / Inaccessible Location
The list below shows the advantages of LED over Florescent lamps.

LED

  • Glass free construction

  • Integrated control ballast

  • Higher efficiency

  • Life span 50,000hrs

  • Lower carbon footprint

  • No mercury or phosphor

  • Simple clean process if broken

  • Performance increase if Cool

  • Excellent Integration with Occupancy Sensors

  • HMRC ECA compliant

  • No UV emissions

  • COP efficiency gain in cooled environment

  • Rapid restart

FLUORESCENT

  • Light source mainly glass construction

  • Separate ballast required

  • Lower efficiency

  • Life span 30,000hrs

  • Higher carbon footprint

  • Contains mercury and phosphor

  • Major Issue if broken on site

  • Performance decrease if cool

  • Poor performance with occupancy sensors

  • Not compliant

  • UV emissions

  • No gain

  • Slow restart

ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGES

Increased Productivity

From increased lighting (LUX) levels and whiter colour temperatures Good lighting on the task and in the workplace is essential for optimal task performance, especially with a progressively aging workforce. The effects of good lighting, extend much further since over the last two decades (medical) science has consistently shown the positive influence of light on health and well-being. Better lighting contributes positively to task performance (in terms of higher speed and lower failure rate), safety and accidents rate, absenteeism, health and well-being. In the metal industry, for example;

  • Increasing the lighting level from the minimum required 300 lux to 500 lux leads to an increased Productivity: based on realistic assumptions: more than 3-11%, on average 8 % but certainly to more than 3%.
  • For nightshift work at least the same productivity increases can be expected, i.e. 8% to more than 20%.
  • Using a good-quality lighting installation, a further increase in productivity of 0.2 to 1.0% is possible.
  • The energy consumption (and thus the operating costs) of a good quality lighting installation at the increased level of 500 lux will in most cases be lower than that of the existing installation at 300 lux.
  • Increasing the lighting level from 300 lux to 2000 lux increases productivity by 15 to 20%.

Philips Lighting, the Netherlands Ir.W.J.M. van Bommel Ir. G.J. van den Beld Ir. M.H.F. van Ooyen August 2002

Full Mapping

We will only confirm savings, efficiencies or Lux levels when a site survey has been conducted. This is used to produce photometric plots of the site in question. This includes gathering detail including wall colour information as well as the dimensional details of the site. Hence we can give accurate mapping to predicted LUX levels.

Trial and Evaluation

We strongly suggest a trial and test of the proposed solution. As well as confirming the projected LUX levels it gives the customer best opportunity to see benefits of better lighting and ensure that the solution has no unforeseen physical or aesthetic issues on fitment.

Capital Cost Recovery

Wherever commercially advantageous we use ECA approved equipment. Advice and assistance can be provided to allow the navigation through subsequent HMRC paperwork.

Finance

Separate finance packages are available for larger projects and cost benefits can be made.