REPP logo banner adsolstice ad
site map
Google Search REPP WWW register comment
home
repp
energy and environment
discussion groups
calendar
gem
about us
employment
 
REPP-CREST
1612 K Street, NW
Suite 202
Washington, DC 20006
contact us
discussion groups
efficiencyefficiency hydrogenhydrogen solarsolar windwind geothermalgeothermal bioenergybioenergy hydrohydro policypolicy
Greenbuilding Archive for August 2002
231 messages, last added Tue Nov 26 17:27:12 2002

[Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [GBlist] Regular vs. Fluorescent Lighting



I have been reading this thread with some interest as I have been weighing
the benefits of installing fluorescent vs incandescent lights especially in
a residential setting for some time.  
A few thoughts: I think any amount of mercury in an industrial process is a
huge environmental negative, which I believe is a huge strike against
fluorescent lighting.  Another thought is that the ability to dim
incandescents is very favorable.  I don't remember the article/research in
particular; however, I seem to recall that dimming incandescents can extend
their life by 2-6 times as well as reduce energy use.  Since electricity CAN
come from renewable sources, I think saving energy (fluorescents) needs to
be considered along with the production of hazardous waste (mercury).  As in
all sustainable endeavors, if beauty and 'spirituality' are left out of the
equation, I think we err towards a sub-optimal solution.  Pleasing lighting
makes a huge difference in the ambience and pleasantness of a home in
particular.  So, I am still on the fence regarding fluorescents although
they have made quantum leaps in the past few years.  In residential
applications I still lean towards daylighting whenever possible,
incandescents on dimmers and always turning off the lights when you don't
need them. 

thoughts?
dmc


-----Original Message-----
From: David Bergman [mailto:bergman@cyberg.com]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 6:14 PM
To: Laurence
Cc: greenbuilding@crest.org
Subject: Re: [GBlist] Regular vs. Fluorescent Lighting


Laurence wrote:
>Lights should be full spectrum I know that only.  Other factors I'm unaware
>of.
>
>Laurence


That's part of what I was referring to as questionable. Full spectrum is 
basically an undefined marketing term, with at least as much data 
disproving its effectiveness as there is proving it -- and much of the 
latter is from manufacturer's of "full specturm" bulbs.

Here's a couple of links  to skeptical sites:
http://www.sylvania.com/forum/pdfs/faq0012-0297.pdf
http://www.nrc.ca/irc/fulltext/ir659/contents.html (several scientific 
papers linked here.)
http://www.elflist.com/article02_spectrum.htm

David Bergman
David Bergman Architect/Fire & Water Lighting + Furniture
bergman@cyberg.com    http://www.cyberg.com
t 212 475 3106    f 212 677 7291



______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________