Each new technology initiated burst in light efficiency has offered up the possibility of meeting current lighting needs with significantly less energy. Unfortunately, the other side of the coin is that we can also choose to produce far more light with the same amount of energy. As luck would have it, we have regularly chosen the later. Homes and business are much brighter then ever. The night is fading from the ‘civilized’ world. Many locations are now awash in so much artificial outdoor lighting that it never really gets dark anymore. Light polluted skies now span continents and can be seen as an orangish grey haze instead of the inky black of years gone by.
LED light fixtures offer us the promise of reduced energy consumption yet again. They are still fairly early in the development cycle. Many of the higher wattage options don’t yet match the output punch of older technologies such as metal halide and high pressure sodium. This, however, will likely change quickly. If consumers continue to choose brighter lighting over energy savings, you can be sure that lighting manufacturers will rise to the occasion and offer the brightest mega-LED lights imaginable. At this point, education seems to be the key. People need to understand just how responsive our eyes are to low light levels. We don’t need to have daytime conditions at night to move about safely. Additionally, we need to understand how damaging light at night can be to the environment. Many nocturnal species are having trouble adapting to the increased lighting levels. Even humans are not immune to this, with cancer rates on the rise throughout the developed world. Light at night and night shift work were recently listed as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization.
As the wasted light that creates light pollution provides no benefit to society, continued education will (hopefully) lead to a reduction of this waste. This is especially true given the number of major issues converging on our society. Peak oil and global warming being the two biggest. These could converge to create something akin to a perfect storm for our society. Hopefully, we can quickly address the low hanging fruit, such as light pollution reduction. Addressing light pollution does not require any major technological advances. We have all the technology we need. A light switch can be used to turn off unnecessary lights. Motion sensors can be used to turn lights on and off as needed. All that is lacking is public awareness and a desire to do something about it.
I used to be a lighting designer. I agree on the education part but one has to realize possible legal issues for designers and building owners. When I designed outdoor areas I always used the IES recomendations. Remember those are recomendations not laws. Some cities have made ordances but when a lighting designer/engineer is designing an area he has to keep in mind the design goals of the area and safety. I had to always keep safety in mind. I never wanted to place my client, building owner, my company, or myself in jepardy of being in a legal battle. In the court of law you can win the war but loose the battle in legal cost. It was always better to error on the brighter side as long as it was not in conflict with the artistic requirements of the design.
I hear what you’re saying… and have heard this argument many times before. You’re never going to be sued for putting in extra lights, right? Well… maybe… maybe not. With the link between bright lights at night and cancer now established, it’s only a matter of time before this logic is used against a lighting designer somewhere.
Anyway, the whole idea is that people are pushing for dark skies… not dark streets. Put the light on the ground, only where it’s needed… in appropriate quanties… and turn them off when no longer necessary.
LED’s offer a higher degree of control than other lighting sources, so at least theoretically, this should help solve the problem. Human nature, however, will often times counter the best logic.
JVI: Since you say you used IESNA Recommended lighting levels, my question is why go brighter? Those levels are safe – especially with FCO’s! Plus the recommended levels save energy. The human visual system doesn’t need any more light than is necessary to see and be safe. Adding more light and more glare just to make people “feel” safe isn’t he same as being safe. It’s sort of like a drowning man asking for more water.
“Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run”:
In normal advertising manufacturers themselves highlight such a possible advantage of their products. Completely agree the thing I am concerned about with LED lights is their recycling, I think with the mass use not all countries are prepared to deal with lamp once they resume working and the planet gets polluted because not all people know about the hazardous impact on the nature. People have to be aware and reasonable about electricity that it’s not a one way energy source and it leads to nature outbreaks and mishaps.