[All photos by BUILD LLC]
Lately, building departments all over the United States have been adopting more stringent energy codes. Which is great, we’re all about intentional design and creating a more sustainable built-environment. The City of Seattle recently approved the new Washington State Energy Code which includes an important requirement that affects most residential projects. Here’s an excerpt from Section 505.1 of the WSEC regarding interior lighting for single-family residential projects:
…a minimum of 50 percent of all luminaries shall be high efficacy luminaries.
What this means is that half of the lights in a new home now need to be fluorescent lights. This is a pretty significant change for one reason in particular: aesthetics. To us, the quality of light from a fluorescent bulb has never matched the quality of light from an incandescent or halogen bulb; and while that may not be a big deal in a garage, it’s a very big deal at the bathroom vanity, the kitchen and the living room. In the past, fluorescent bulbs have been known to produce a cold, blue-ish light uncomplimentary to skin tones, which look better under a warmer, redder light. Replace the lights in your living room with traditional fluorescent tubes and your once cozy lounge will look like a meat locker.
Without a doubt, fluorescent bulbs are far more energy efficient than incandescent or halogen bulbs; but our focus here is on the quality of light. Ever since architecture school, we’ve been hearing that fluorescent bulbs are available in warmer tones –intended to match the light quality of incandescent/halogen bulbs and thereby making fluorescent bulbs or CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) a desirable substitute. We’re always reading claims about fluorescent bulbs matching or exceeding the quality of light produced by incandescent/halogen bulbs. Great! Sign us up! But here’s the dealio –for reasons that are unclear to us, we’ve never personally experienced any of these rival fluorescent bulbs. Having been in the architecture and construction business for decades now, this seems a bit odd to us. It may very well be our own fault; maybe we’ve failed to do our homework in this area, perhaps we haven’t seized the right opportunities in lighting design, or maybe we’ve been sustainably delinquent. Who knows, but we’re not going to let this go on another decade. So without further ado, we’re officially launching <drum roll please> THE FLUORESCENT LIGHTING CHALLENGE; AN INVITATION TO THE CFL SHOW-DOWN.
We’re inviting any and all lighting manufacturers, lighting suppliers, lighting reps, lighting designers, architects, lighting geeks and homeowners alike to submit their fluorescent bulbs directly to the BUILD LLC World Headquarters for a hands-on, comparative quality test. We’ll be replacing the incandescent bulbs in our own homes with the submitted fluorescent bulbs for a period of one week, at which point we’ll post the results. We’re not going to be analyzing the data or crunching the numbers, we already know that fluorescents kick some serious fanny in that department. This show-down is all about the quality and experience of light. The evaluation period may include (but not be limited to) the following questions:
Did we stop cooking at home because we’re tired of eating blue food?
Am I no longer attracted to my significant other?
Do we hang out in a meat locker each evening?
In all seriousness, any bulbs that meet, exceed, or even come close to the quality of our current incandescent and halogen bulbs will be promoted on the BUILDblog and we’ll give a nice healthy shout-out to the companies that produce them.
Here are the specifications for the (4) incandescent/halogen bulbs in question:
1. A 60W 120V Incandescent bulb in a Thomas SL875 wall sconce at the master bathroom.
2. A 100W 120V Incandescent bulb in a George Nelson Criss-Cross Saucer Ceiling Pendant at the dining room.
3. A PAR30 50W Halogen in a Lightolier ceiling mount recessed can light at the living room.
4. A PAR20 Halogen in a Juno T12W Trac-Master track light in the den.
There it is. Got a great fluorescent bulb? Send it on in to the address below and stay tuned. And cheers from team BUILD.
BUILD LLC
5611 University Way NE #100B
Seattle WA 98105
Great idea guys, I’m looking forward to seeing the results.
The new ESL (Electron Stimulated Luminescence) bulbs are supposed to have great light quality, much closer to incandescents than LED or CFLs but with the same energy efficiency as the latters. Have you tried them?
I think all the talk that CFLs meeting the warmth factor of incandescents is a bunch of marketing hooey. I’d be surprised if lighting mfrs participate in this because they know that, based on pure visuals, CFLs don’t compete.
The new Washington State Energy Code requiring 50% of lights to be fluorescent is a joke. It’s a clear indication of the disconnect between the policy makers and the profession.
I can hardly wait to see the outcome of this challenge–please post as soon as you know! This is a bit of a battle in my own home, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Thank you!
Great idea. I’m doubtful, but would love to see some alternatives.
Recently, I tried replacing a can light with an LED. Ugh. Talk about gross light. Even dimmed way down, it’s still harsh and unacceptable.
It sounds like there’s a few fluorescent lobbyists working hard out there with the new energy code -LOL.
I’ve had similar experiences and I’m very interested in the outcome of this. Thanks for posting all of this for everyone’s benefit.
Not to rain on the parade here, but I’d be surprised if you get *any* submissions for this. I think the CFL lighting manufacturers, distributors, reps and showrooms all know that fluorescents are inferior when it comes to light quality. You’ve never seen them because they don’t exist.
@jeff,
WSEC requires (for new buildings, not remodels) 50% be high-efficacy, not necessarily fluorescent.
additionally, there are exemptions @ sections 1520/1530.
Mike Eliason,
for residential, those exceptions have not been viable. We are searching for LED alternates.
Shawn Busse, I just installed a Lightolier LED retrofit part number:
L56LED09S27D1 over my kitchen sink and it is close to perfect, and there are a number of very nice LED products out there. The problem is that few are efficient enough to be rated High Efficacy (50 lumens/watt) so you can’t use them and make code. The Lightolier I installed is 46 lumens per watt.
Brian
I think that CFLs in this usage are already on their way to the passé. LEDs have thus far, at least in a lab, been able to be far more flexible in their tint-ability through the simple alteration of the casing color. That would be in much of the same vein as using CTO warming filters over a flash in photography, warming a 5500 degree flash to that of a 3200deg tungsten bulb. The issue with hardness of LED lighting may call for a solution in shade designs to diffuse the light, even if the color temp has already been accounted for. We should note that most of our fixtures are designed for incandescants, vs designing with newer technology in mind. That said, I’ve been working on lighting product design in leiu of available architecture work, but more in the pendant / shade / decorative capacity, not the production of actual light emitters. If we can agree on a favorable product here, I’ll be sure to look into integrating it into our products, and host an ongoing discussion @fotonflow.wordpress.com!
The Phillips AmbientLED is 60+ lumens/watt I think. Many more options in the near future.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/08/ff_lightbulbs/all/1
It might be helpful to be more precise with your lighting terminology, especially if you’re talking to lighting manufacturers. If warmth is what you’re after, make sure you’re checking the Color Temperature of the bulbs (or “lamps” to use the industry term) you’re buying. You can get standard spiral CFLs with a color temperature as low as 2700K, which to my eye are indistinguishable from incandescent lamps in terms of color. The other factor which I don’t think anyone has mentioned is Color Rendering Index (CRI) which is the measure of how colors appear under a given light. Incandescent bulbs have the highest CRI of 100, because they emit light across the full visible spectrum, making colors appear truer and more vibrant. LED and florescent lamps tend to fall in the 75-85 range due to their more limited spectral range.
To me the biggest problem with CFLs is their size, which makes them useless in any kind of directional application (like a PAR or MR lamp). The spiral tube is just too bulky of a source to be efficiently focused in one direction.
There are a zillion lighting products out there. It really comes down to finding the right lamp and fixture for a given application, rather than trying to find a one-size-fits-all light bulb.
Here in CA we’ve been living with similar issues in kitchens for a while now (Title 24), but mandating the whole house be 50% fluorescent is indeed a hard pill to swallow.
Because fixtures here are rated by the LEAST efficient bulb they can accept, the lions share of the new, warmer LED bulbs made to retrofit existing incandescent fixtures are off the table… This is poor long term planning by code officials built around ease of enforcement rather than practical outcome.
The result? Gobs of cheap, hidden fluorescent cove lighting thats never used but counted toward the required 50%. The winners? The electricians who are paid to install twice as many fixtures as necessary.
Recently attempted to spec LED cable track heads in the kitchen areas of an MCM Eichler here in the bay area. No go – because LV track could accept non-LED heads, the plan checker refused.
The winner
Regarding PNJ’s comment: The fact that they’re not getting all wrapped up in the numbers and terminology is precisely why I like this idea. It’s about one simple thing: does the fluorescent light match the experience of the incandescent when I walk in the room. Different lighting companies have different terminologies and everyone’s got their marketing spin on products; but at the end of the day (regardless of color temp or coloring rendering index) either the bulb is up to the job, or it’s not. They’ve provided the exact bulbs they’re trying to match and the lighting company can determine what numerical values best match the bulb.
I agree with TDI -I’m no Joe technician and I don’t really care to sort through all of the technical terms. I just want a light that matches my incandescent bulbs. Fluorescent lighting companies have indeed been touting how great their lights are, so let’s see them.
“I’m no Joe technician and I don’t really care to sort through all of the technical terms. I just want a light that matches my incandescent bulbs.”
Jim if you can’t take the time to do a little research then don’t complain when a CFL or LED lamp doesn’t match your ‘soon to be obsolete’ incandescent bulbs.
The original incandescent was intended to replicate & replace candles hence its low temperature range. The first CFLs were high output lamps with higher temperature ranges trying to approaching daylight. Natural daylight being 4000K. But those CFLs tended to be overly bright and the lamp coatings were not amenable to the “warm fuzzy” glow we associate with incandescent bulbs.
The commercial industry is moving quickly towards LEDs because the lamping flexibility & color rendition are better and more flexible than CFLs. What does this mean for the downscale home market? It means that the LED lamping options & color rendering is close to incandescents & halogens but without the inefficiencies and buying a one-time $30 LED bulb for the life of your house vs. multiple incandescent replacements and waster energy over the life your house.
We’re renovating our house now and we’re using low-watt, 3500K fluorescent lamps for the bathroom (providing bright light but close to the warmth of an incandescent and LED lamping elsewhere in downlights. Most people who have issues with CFLs don’t take the time to look at the particulars to get bulbs that are effective replacements for incandescent bulbs. Another thing to consider is how often are you going bare bulb for lighting? Because I’m buying a CFL / LED bulb doesn’t mean I take the shade off my floor lamp and go “bare bulbing.”
But once the incandescent ban..err phase out begins, I plan on simply switching everything to kerosene lamps for that warm glow look, as I read Gibson & Sterling’s “The Difference Engine” in my steampunk armchair smoking a pipe.
each CFL bulb contains enough mercury, one of the most potent neurotoxins out there, to poison 6,000 gallons of water.
sweet.
Recently completed a project in Kenmore. Design complied with 50% high efficacy. When the inspector came through and he noticed the pin based CFLs he siad “oh apparently there is some new code addendum that says you dont have to do this”. I don’t know if that was just the city of Kenmore or if it came from the IRC. Id be curious what others have experienced on this in the last couple weeks. I think they might be back pedaling because of complaints and difficulties described above.
If you’re on the test circuit, would love to know if you look at these guys: http://www.vu1corporation.com/ I came across them in my own search, but haven’t pulled the trigger on ordering any yet. Worth a look though…We did put in a few Plumen bulbs in one of the rooms of our new house. Very cool and make a nice visual statement, as long as that’s what you’re going for. ( http://plumen.com/ )
I’ve found that not all CFL’s produce the same quality of light. I’ve found that there are typically three qualities (depending on mfr.): 1. the terrible green/blue light sometimes referred to as “bright white” 2. the slightly blue but mostly white light which still looks pretty terrible but is supposed to look most like natural sunlight and 3. the “soft” or “warm” white that i use at my house. I have them in every lamp in my house and It is nearly impossible to tell them apart from an incandescent. I just get them from Lowe’s or Home Depot. Just sayin’
Be sure to check out Consumer Reports’ data. They tested and ranked 40+ bulbs.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/home-garden/home-improvement/lightbulbs/lightbulb-ratings/ratings-overview.htm
Personally, I love the Philips LED bulbs at 40 and 60 watt equivalent. More expensive CFLs, but the quality of the light is great and almost angelic on a dimmer.
@Christian -that’s a great resource, looking forward to sorting through the data there.
Hey Guys, not sure if this was addressed in the comments above but this statement isn’t exactly true: [i]“What this means is that half of the lights in a new home now need to be fluorescent lights.”[/i]
The lights need to be high efficacy, meaning they can be LED or even Halogen in some cases.
We’re finding that most LED boxes to work out to the same cost as a bi-pin fluorescent and swapping all recessed (or some other widely used lighting solution), will make it so your decorative fixtures (sconces, pendants, etc) can be whatever you like.
Also, The WSEC strictly specifies “No medium Screw-In Bases” meaning the lights you test (fluorescent or not) need to be bi-pin, etc. rather than incandescent replacement bulbs as medium base fixtures are effectively banned.
We’re finding the GE print catalog very useful for looking up lumens and watts for specified bulbs.
In addition, if you dig through the WSEC the explicit definition of high-efficacy is:
over 40w : min. 60 lumens/watt
14w-40w : min. 50 lumens/watt
<15w : min. 40 lumens/watt
@Trevor -great data! Thanks for clearing up a few things.
Can you put a finger on what it is about fluorescent light that seems lacking? Is it the warm/cool issue (color temperature)? The way objects look under it (color rendering)? For some, it can be a general lack of intensity as well.
Most of the above are hard to find solutions for while staying with fluorescent lamps. Has anyone submitted anything yet?
@Nathanael -it’s the temperature (cool vs. warm). No submissions yet, which causes us to think that fluorescent lights aren’t what they claim to be.
That’s too bad about the lack of submissions.
I’m a lighting designer in Seattle and the almost total domination of CFLs locally is frustrating. Not only is the light quality sub-par, but there are some reports coming out of adverse health-effects relating to CFL’s emission of UV and electromagnetic interference. I hope this isn’t a case of moving too far ahead too quickly!
Lights do have their own advantages and downfalls that is why you should learn more about them to make better decisions. This would help you out decide on what would really work best for you.