|
|
|
| | Seesmart installs LED T8s at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center | | 26 Apr 2012 | | The Manhattan-based hospital has commissioned Seesmart to retrofit 700 fixtures with LED tube lights, which should reduce energy cost by 57%. | | LED lighting manufacturer Seesmart Technologies, Inc, based in Simi Valley, CA has announced the completion of an LED retrofit project involving the replacement of nearly 700 fixtures at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
By switching from fluorescent T8s and T12s to Seesmart T8s in the facility’s parking garage, the hospital’s energy cost has been reduced by an estimated 57%. Its energy consumption is expected to be 160,000 kWh less annually. Up-front cost for LED lighting was offset by a $22,000 rebate from energy provider Con Edison. The Center anticipates a full return on investment within two years.
“The return on investment for this project will come not just from the $2500 per month in energy savings but also from lower maintenance costs and less facility waste,” said Kenneth Ames, CEO of Seesmart Technologies.
Following its work with Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Seesmart was commissioned by two neighboring organizations – one residential center and one medical center – to help transition from low-efficiency fluorescent lights to sustainable LED tube lights.
Last month, Seesmart announced a $2.3 million contract with Pasadena City College in Pasadena, CA to supply the school with more than 34,000 LED-based retrofit tubes for installed fluorescent linear fixtures. The project is expected to deliver $720,000 in annual energy savings and a reduction in carbon footprint by 5 million pounds.
| | About the Author | | Laura Peters is the Senior Technical Editor of LEDs Magazine. | | COMMENTS | | Name: jack jack Posted: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:04 |
| The before and after pictures are highly highly suspect.
For one, I have never ever seen a fluorescent bulb used in a commercial setting parking lot that is that extremely "Warm". They obviously used a high color balance on the camera when that picture was shot which is completely misleading. Many of the bulbs looked burnt out as well. I am curious how so many few lumens resulted in a brighter light .... | | Name: asudan Posted: Thu, 03 May 2012 05:05 |
| I agree with Jack's comment. Those before and after pictures are extremely suspect. It is so easy to manipulate a camera. Lucky for us the images have the camera settings embedded and sure enough - they aren't even close!
The "before" picture had an f-stop of 11 and a .5 second exposure where the "after" picture had an f-stop of 8 and a .8 second exposure. The lower f-stop of the after picture tells me they are letting more light into the camera. Also the longer exposure means they are capturing more light. There is no way these pictures can be considered evidence of "before and "after" and they should be ashamed for representing them as such. | | Name: ethan Posted: Mon, 07 May 2012 05:05 |
| I don't think LED tubes can truly replace Fluorescent based on huge different lumens between them,Seesmart delivers only 1800 lm with 4ft 19w tubes,in addition its poor design | | Name: dbseesgreen Posted: Mon, 07 May 2012 16:05 |
| Are you Fluorescent apologists or just paranoid? I suspect the photos were shot with an Automatic setting on the camera, not intentionally misleading. Irrespective of the photos, which are always suspect in today's digital age, the economics of the change and the incredible benefits to the energy grid and the environment are irrefutable. | | Name: g.m.g. Posted: Tue, 08 May 2012 07:05 |
| I suppose the lux level has been lowered considerably with the new installation. Taking that into consideration and allowing for the same lower lux level I think similar savings could have been achieved using T5 lamps, however at a much reduced installation cost.
LED are great but not the solurion for each and every project. | | Name: asudan Posted: Tue, 22 May 2012 18:05 |
| dbseesgreen - I am a HUGE fan of LED lighting. In fact a large majority of my business is LED lighting retrofits.
With that said I find it disingenuous when I hear competitors telling clients that "T8 LEDs" are as good as they say, or have anywhere near the payback they claim. I've personally tested no less than 40 different "T8 LED" tubes and I can tell you that not a single one has an ROI that makes sense or performs as the manufacturer suggests. I have taken the SeeSmart product apart and tested it independently and it simply is not a T8 replacement. I wish it was. I wish someone would make a T8 replacement that was compelling but it doesn't exist - yet. What is available today either under performs or is too expensive.
As for the photos - the Auto setting was not used on that camera per the image properties. (just download the picture, right-click and go to properties and then details) These pictures were taken in manual mode with manual exposure AND white balance settings. Also the camera used was a Canon 5D MKII - a very expensive professional camera which you can do just about anything you want to an manipulate a picture.
I'd like to see a before and after photometric analysis of this site that was performed by a neutral third party but I'm guessing none was completed.
| | Name: aleda Posted: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:08 |
| While most people comment without any or little education on LED technology, lumen output has nothing to do with the quality of illumination nor what the eye depicts as the an impressive, positive impact of superior LED illumination! Engineered LED solutions are available right now and an amazing tool, revolutionizing the way the world looks at light! |
| | | |
