First time. 75% less electric load.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/1/7959895/super-bowl-xlix-pheonix-lit-by-leds
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/1/7959895/super-bowl-xlix-pheonix-lit-by-leds
Super Bowl will be lit with LEDs this year.
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
I suppose they decided that due to the lights going out a few yrs ago. If they wanted to go eco friendly, they could start at noon,,,, but that would only save 20 million watts.
While I'm always interested to see LED's installed in new locations, I'm afraid I don't believe the 75% less claim, unless they're either comparing to incandescent lighting, which is disingenuous since nobody uses incandescents for lighting on this scale, or comparing to last year's game, which started after sunset, as opposed to 2-1/2 hours before sunset.
The thing is, metal halide lights are already pretty efficient - 75-100 lumens/Watt, not counting the ballast. I think counting the ballast 60-80 lumens/Watt is common, and I'd assume with an installation of this size, they'd have opted for the higher performing types.
I looked up the manufacturer mentioned in the article, and they list stadium fixtures capable of up to 115 lumens/Watt, which would presumably be a fully integrated fixture (no separate ballast/power supply). So it's conceivable that the upgrade could reducing lighting requirements by almost half, but 30% is more likely, and I can't see how 75% would be possible.
- Status
