The Neon Bender's BBS!
The Archive no longer allows posting but search of hundreds of previous posts are available
If you have any questions please
contact us.
[Please Read]
| |
Re: Led's
Posted By: SVP Neon Equipment In Response To: Re: Led's (james1095)
Date: Friday, 5 March 2010, at 2:31 p.m.
In the interest of discussion I'd like to offer a correction to your calculations: All 12 lights are not on at the same time. Each side of the traffic signal will either be red, yellow or green at any given moment, not all three colors on all four sides at the same time. There is also the possibility of the arrow being on at the same time as either the red or green light on a given side, but most likely it would only be two arrows at the most at any given time, not all four. So the most lights that would be on at any given time would be closer to 6, not 12.
I won't argue a savings of $1K per year per intersection, though that figure could be debated as well. But the only way to really tell is to do a side-by-side comparison test for at least 1 year. However, add to the overall dollar figures the initial cost of the LED's, which are much higher than incandescent's, plus the cost of installing them and it would literally take YEARS to offset the savings in electricity - and that's assuming there are no service issues with the LED's, which would be very hard to believe based on what I have seen, read about and have heard. I also wonder how much money will be "saved" once the cost of all the law suites are figured in to the overall cost of switching to the LED traffic lights. Some law suites have already been filed and more will follow. And you know attorney's: If there is any question of negligence on the part of a municipality, who is assumed to have deep pockets, the attorney's will be lined up for a chance to represent the "victim" of a snow obscured LED traffic light.
Btw, I don't think anyone has questioned whether or not you like neon, just the numbers and some of the info presented.
Mark
> Sorry, I had recalled what I was told
> incorrectly, that was $10K over the 10 year
> test period or $1K per year, no propaganda,
> I've got a family member who does the signal
> maintenance for the city, I collect traffic
> signals and related bits, as well as light
> sources of all kinds so it's an interest of
> mine, it's actually in his best interest for
> them to require more frequent maintenance,
> and I've got nothing to gain either way.
> Lighting is only a hobby for me, software
> pays the bills.> Four way intersection with left turn signals
> on all four sides. 12" signal heads
> means 159W incandescent lamps x3 per side on
> at any given time. Four sides means 12
> lamps, so 1.9 KW consumption 24/7, that's
> 45KWH per day, 16425 KWH per year, which at
> 7 cents per KWH works out to about $1150 per
> year. The LED signals that replaced them are
> ~10W per unit, so less than 10% the
> consumption of incandescent, so not hard to
> believe a savings of $1K per intersection
> per year, not including the reduced
> maintenance.> The LED signals in that installation held up
> fine, as do most I see in this region, but I
> have certainly seen a lot of failing ones in
> other places. Hot climates, and inferior
> quality products are to blame. Quality LEDs
> can be had, but they cost more, so most of
> what you see out there is junk from China,
> some of which are so bad that they fail in a
> matter of months.> Again, I'm very pro-neon, I've loved neon
> signs my entire life, and I don't find LED
> signs to be particularly attractive, nor are
> they nearly as robust, but there *are*
> applications where LEDs work very well. It's
> not any more fair to make a blanket
> statement that they're crap than it is to
> tout them as the solution to everything.
| |
Neon Bender's BBS! is maintained by Kenny with WebBBS 5.12.
This page Copyright © 1996-2005 Krypton Neon