While sorting through my browser bookmarks, I came across the following report (initially published in the April 2011 issue of Today’s Facility Manager) that I believe to still be relevant and worth discussing: Special Report: The Value Illumination Offers.

Sponsored by the National Electrical Manufactures Association (NEMA), this report set out to discover facility managers’ attitudes toward lighting technologies.

When facility managers were asked to rate specific lighting upgrade objectives from most important to least important:

• 90% said “reducing energy usage and costs” was the top objective
• 67.1% said “lower maintenance costs” was the next largest objective

*graphic by www.nema.org*

While these statistics seem to favor the highly efficient, long lifespan of the LED lamp, the survey indicates facility managers are hesitant to employ the LED lighting. The perception is that the technology is “too expensive” and “too new”.

While the view of LED technology as “too expensive” is common, facility managers must look past the upfront cost of the bulbs and calculate the cost savings they will achieve if they replace their existing bulbs with LEDs. This analysis indicates the speed with which they will recoup their initial investment, and often times, results indicate that it is quicker than expected. For a simple method of discovering your return on investment, see the Leapfrog Lighting Savings Calculator.

And what about the technology being “too new”? Well, as Toronto Star Energy and Technology columnist Tyler Hamilton recently stated in his article How to separate the bright LED lights from the dim bulbs, this year marked the 50^th anniversary of the invention of the first visible light-emitting diode (LED). While it’s application in the office, industrial, and retail space is more recent, I think the real issue is not its age, but the variety in bulb quality, which leads people to believe the technology isn’t sufficiently developed. For various reasons (one which deserves its own blog topic), a lack of standards has led to the production of inferior bulbs. Unfortunately, these bulbs are widely available and lower price points have made them attractive, but the majority do not live up to performance expectations and have cast a shadow on the technology as a whole. This is not to say that the technology is perfect—advances are still needed—but those substandard bulbs lead to this inaccurate view.

If facility managers want to achieve their top two lighting upgrade objectives (reduced energy and lowered maintenance costs), LED technology must be seriously considered.

Are you a facility manager that’s hesitant to use LED technology? Does the NEMA survey accurately reflect your stance? We’d love to hear from you!