Kill the Lights
The City's New LED Streetlights Could Drive You Crazy and Make You Fat—Seriously
Kelly O
THIS IS A TEST One of the “zombie blue” lights on 22nd Avenue East. More test lights will go up in South Park next month.
Tools
During the day, the block of bungalows and houses at 22nd Avenue East and East Mercer Street looks like most of Capitol Hill. But at night, it looks crazy. This is one of seven test areas in the neighborhood where Seattle City Light swapped the high-pressure sodium streetlights, which emit a warm orange hue, with glaring LEDs. City officials want to replace all 40,000 residential streetlamps in Seattle with the new light-emitting diodes by next year to save energy and money. But the lights cast a sickening hue. "It is a very cold color—zombie blue," says Dan Travers, who lives on the block. "My first thought was that people are going to look scary under these lights."
"It looks like you are in a supermarket aisle," says Andie deRoux, who lives in an apartment building seven blocks west of Travers. Abby Katzman, who has lived on the eastern slope of Capitol Hill for 20 years, says, "I like the energy it saves, but it does seem very cool and wintery."
Stranger Personals
On the shortest night of the year, just after dark at 11:00 p.m., I walked to each of Seattle City Light's test areas to see what's sparking revulsion from Travers and others who live under the lights. The beams from the high-intensity, light-emitting diodes are striking. The rays turned my skin the color of white taffy and cast crisp shadows on the pavement. "Zombie blue" is exactly right: Like a day-for-night special effect in a vampire movie, the test streetlights create the sort of atmosphere where you almost expect the undead to emerge from the flower beds and begin eating your face. Everyone I spoke to enthusiastically supported the idea of the LEDs—which require 50 to 60 percent less electricity for the same lumens—but most resented the quality of the light itself.
The problem with the new lights isn't just aesthetic. According to Dr. David Avery—a professor of behavioral sciences and light therapy at the University of Washington and the region's leading researcher on the impact of light on human chemistry—the LED lights could interfere with human biorhythms. Certain photoreceptors in the eye's retina react to cooler colors of the light spectrum, sending a signal to the brain that the sun is up. When humans see the blue light, our bodies think it's daytime. "The sensitivity to these cells for the blue and greenish color makes perfect sense, because the sky is blue. So for millions of years, life has evolved with this 24-hour rhythm of blue light being very prominent for part of the day and then darkness," he says. "This is kind of a conductor of a circadian symphony in the brain and body."
According to Avery, "Theoretically, if someone has one of these LEDs or a blue light outside their window, it could fool the eyes and the brain into thinking that the sun is still up, so the melatonin hormone might not rise normally and sleep might be disrupted." Incandescent lights, the standard bulb in homes, are on the red end of the spectrum. (You may think of them as being white, but they're not.) Shifting the city's primary outdoor lighting to blue-hued LEDS, Avery adds, "would be a major change in terms of our environment." Studies suggest that people exposed to daylight at the wrong hours, like those who work night shift, have more health problems such as high blood pressure and obesity, Avery says.
Mayor Greg Nickels wants most Seattle residents to be living under new streetlights by 2015. Seattle City Light intends to install the lights specifically in residential areas—not commercial arterials or industrial zones, which require more illumination than LEDs can affordably provide.
"They would save about nine million kilowatt hours and about $408,000 a year," says Seattle City Light spokesman Scott Thomsen. An LED lamp uses only 50 watts, while traditional high-pressure sodium bulbs require 130 watts and waste electricity on heat. The conserved power roughly equates to the energy used by 750 single-family houses a year, Thomsen says. Moreover, the LED lamps last three to four times longer—up to 18 years—which drastically reduces maintenance costs to the city. (The city currently pays about $100 in labor costs to replace each dead bulb.)
But LED fixtures cost much more. Whereas the bulbs in the existing fixtures (awesomely dubbed "cobra heads") cost about $15, the LED lamps are part and parcel with their fixtures and each costs $300 to replace, says Edward Smalley, Seattle City Light's streetlight engineering manager. "The real payout for the city, to the customer, is not having to go out to change the light." Funding to kick-start the program comes from a $6.1 million federal stimulus grant to reduce energy use. Of that, $1 million will go toward installing the first 2,500 streetlamps next year, assuming the Department of Energy approves the expenditure this summer. If the city council expands the program, new streetlamps citywide will cost about $20 million.
City officials acknowledge the test lights aren't great. (A different brand of LED is being tested at each site, or in some cases the same brand at different levels of brightness.) Although some people like the lights, other people in the test areas have been complaining—in one area, the reaction from residents has been so intense that Seattle City Light is canceling that test site. And it is continuing to look for better technologies. There's a relationship between a light's warmth and how much energy it saves. High-pressure sodium lights, which give off that night orange glow, emit light at about 2200 degrees Kelvin. But the pilot LEDs are between 5000 and 6000 Kelvin. While Smalley acknowledges the new lights are "a lot bluer, for sure, than what we have now," LEDs as warm as the old lights aren't energy efficient enough to be practical. Seattle City Light will begin testing slightly warmer-hued streetlamps in Seattle's South Park neighborhood in late July. "We are looking at 4000 degrees Kelvin and above, so that way we can provide the best comfort for the city and the energy savings that we are looking for."
Anchorage has begun installing 16,000 LEDs streetlamps, San Francisco has announced it will convert 30,000 streetlamps, and Los Angeles has announced plans to convert 140,000 lamps. Smalley says that technology to produce energy-efficient LEDs with a more palatable hue is evolving, with new generations of lights emerging as quickly as every six months.
Considering the bulbs live longer than most pets, the city should
take as much time as necessary to pick a light we can live with for a
while. "For those folks who dislike the lights, I say stay tuned and
look to our next test sites like South Park. We have not locked into
what you see out on the street now," says Smalley. If you want to
complain about (or—if you're a zombie—praise) the LEDs, you
can call Mike Eagan at his desk: 615-1691. You can even request a
10-question survey to express your opinions about them. ![]()
I am glad Dr. Avery was given the soap box, here. Is there any areas of our grid that could benefit from the cost saving yet 'ugly/unhealthy' lighting? I'll leave it to more expert hands, but, this is something worth following. Saving on energy and maintanence seems like a good idea to me. As long as it is safe and effective, sign me up.
2
SEATTLE RESIDENTS ARE THE WHINIEST BUNCH OF BITCHES ON THE FACE OF THE MUTHERFUCKING PLANET!
If it is theoretically possible to complain about something, no matter how ridiculous, WE WILL DO IT.
Efficient, environmentally-friendly streetlights? That's awesome! We should totally have some of those. Test sites? Fuck test sites. Stupid, stupid city-running people, don't you know better than to give us a chance to form an opinion? JUST DO IT.
6
@ 4) Good question; we didn't have room in the article to answer that. Filters and gels decrease the amount of light emitted by the LEDs, Seattle City Light officials say. So covering the light would require increasing the wattage--increasing the electricity required--and thereby negating the energy savings.
2. LEDs have a higher Color Rendering Index that allows a driver to better recognize color differences and therefore better recognize objects in or along the roadway.
3. Before HPS, the City used mercury vapor fixtures that were much closer in color to LEDs than HPS.
Your article also failed to mention the benefits of higher CRI and higher color temperature light. As humans age, it is quite common for our corneas to begin to yellow. This yellowing of the corneas can begin to filter out light at the lower (more yellow) end of the visual spectrum. Hence, older people tend to see more clearly under high color temperature (more blue) light.
Finally, there is a growing school of lighting researchers and professionals, who believe that the human eye actually sees better in higher CRI and higher color temperature light. The equivalent of our eye's 'sweet spot', there are certain ranges within the visual spectrum, where we actually see better. Known as scotopically enhanced light, this is light that measured scotopically, light seen by the rods (not cones)in your eyes. Traditionally, we have only measured light photopically (light seen by the cones in the eye), but modern research suggests that rods and cones function together more than previously believed. This mesopic range where rods and cones function together is where our eyes reach their peak sensitivity. The net result is that we perceive brightness better under scotopically enhanced light. This ties back to the street lighting issue in that, with high CRI/high color temperature light, the light appears brighter to the eye than to conventional light meters. Since the light appears brighter, we don't need as much light to see with the same visual acuity. So by changing the quality of the light, we can actually reduce the amount of light needed and reduce the amount of energy needed to produce the light, with out reducing our ability to 'see' in the space.
10
Perhaps the 3 to 4-story tall streetlight posts meant to light things (cars, people, animals) on a human scale could be part of the problem????
I know this crazy talk, but let's not rule out redesigning roads entirely? Design them with drainage, lighting, snowremoval, etc baked right in...?
At bare minimum, we should look at lowering the lighting position: a huge part of the waste is trying to light the entire street from one post high up in the air - you end up paying a premium to light a whole lot of bugs and air, and much of the light-level at the source is lost travelling the distance to the ground. It's wasteful - like trying to light the soprano on stage from the lobby.
Brainstorm options off the top of my head:
1. Street lights that focus exactly where you need the light (rather than random flood), say, with thin plastic fresnel lenses.
2. Street lights lowered to 10-15' height - smaller lamps needed for shorter throw distance. 12' should be fine to light up most sidewalks, streets, parking spots. Yes, it might mean more light sources needed, but look into the real long-term cost of the current system versus the cheap alternative of LED lamps & fixtures.
3. LED Footlights built into the side of the sidewalk curb: hell, take it a step further and have a few sections of sidewalk double as solar cell for power.
4. color correction media or color filters to warm up LED color temperature. You don't need to make it orange, you just need to warm it enough to get the NIMBYs to shut up.
5. Small urban neighborhoods (Little Italy comes to mind)have known this trick for about 100 years now: string lights aka party lights hung above the street itself light the block better and with much less wattage than streetlights. Cheap materials with some arguably higher labor -[ I'd rather the city money go to pay local electricians' work than into GE's pocket (or korean and chinese lamp manufacturers' pockets)]. Use the newer warm-white LED string lights ($5-$9 @ target), which will last 5 years or so. Drawback is light pollution, but I'd like to see the cost difference on paper before considering light pollution's impact: I bet the financial difference would be astounding.
6. Internal lighting imbedded in the roadway. Imagine little dots/dashes of light rather than paint . Taking it further; Set up fields of them in intersections that serve as crude jumbotrons, and sell ad space/time to sponsers - you get an ad for the Sounders as you wait at the red light - ad goes dark as light changes.
7. Transparent roads lit from underneath by fiberoptics / telecom utility lines.
8. Motion sensor / heat sensor activated lights: much like restrooms and stairwells, the lights do not need to be on all night long - only when in use . LED's can do this best, since they have no overlong & stupid power-up/warmup time like typical street lights. Huge savings AND a cut in light pollution!! (AND a de facto security system for your neighborhood block)
9. Glow-in-dark 'technology': paint roads in light-absorbing glow-in-the-dark paint?
10. Moving lights: LED floods are being used in architectural and artistic applications (ex: Outside Seattle Opera, and those are circa 2002 technology) - save power and need fewer fixtures by setting moving lights to slowly sweep the street. Better yet, combine motion-detection and targeting, to have the lights focus on people, bikes and cars moving through its zone.
Be glad we're not using zombie green gaslight.
11
11. On cloudy nights (200+ of them, no?) - point focused lighting into the clouds and use the bounce light as street light.
=)
12
14
I have to say, streetlights are the most thorniest issue I face in my work. The very few people who care about them are passionate about them. Just the other day I had a lengthy exchange with a guy who thinks they should be eliminated on side streets on Capitol Hill. I pointed out that there are quite a few people who want more of them because of safety, and he told me the streets would be safer with no streetlights because nobody could see to commit crimes.
Me, I'm firmly in Violet's camp. I'm all for conservation, and I think if we had just changed them, no one would notice. Now it will become a big drama. Or, as Divine so famously said "Now what? More soiled laundry for mommy, l suppose...."
Get me a bromide. And put some gin in it.
I wonder if any studies noticed health changes such as lower blood pressure, better sleep habits or weight loss when the sodium lights were introduced.
16
In which case: a) it was a list to prove there are over ten OTHER ways to do this, (and 11 is not at all my first choice suggestion). b) is it possible for astronomers to get any star-voyeur action on overcast nights anyway...? Seattle's not known for much in the way of astronomer /observation stations.
Catalina: thanks for the specifics. My driving question remains: WHY are they at that height? And why use that position with LED lamps? The model T anaology remains...
And no lights on cap hill side streets guy has taken a few too many trips to bat country. Yikes! NO lights on side streets? W T F.
17
It seems like I was told at one time that lighting is dictated by S-DOT, using some sort of national standard that is undoubtedly car-centric. Since everything in utility work tends to be standardized, that would make sense.
Actually, why don't you just kill yourself as a protest over how awful and unjust this is? We need less self-absorbed drama queens with their hypochondria in this stupid town.
20
If the only complaint is the unsightly blueish cast, that is easily fixed.
(A) Use a gold reflector behind the bulb, rather than silver. The bulb itself will still have a blue cast, but the reflected light will be warmer, and will partially compensate. This will cause ZERO loss of light and will not use any more energy.
(B) Tint the glass dome cover. Yes, this will dim the light, but only a tiny amount. Colored gels are used to cover lights in photography, film, and theater. It wouldn't take a huge thick yellow cover, or you'd get light that looks like urine. Just a slight warming tint will change the color of the light, particularly if used in conjunction with a gold reflector. It won't absorb much light. It probably wouldn't even be noticeable.
If switching to LEDs will save energy AND money, then it is stupid as fuck not to do it just because you don't like the color tint. Especially when it is easily remedied. Do it, and do it now.
Anyway, astronomers and lighting engineers are working on that. Seems having the experiments is getting the results needed.
23
Zombies prefer halogens actually.
24
So.... you conducted a survey of every resident, did you? Or are you just pulling that out your ass because it suits your agenda?
26
They should have just imposed red LED lights and then let everyone complain about them, with no testing period.
They are HORRIBLE lights. WAY to bright and give way too much light polution.
It will actually be more expensive for the city in the end when we all start taking sling shots to them....
30
I'm not convinced that this couldn't be a story, but this one comes across pretty one sided.
33
A-fucking-men. Let's all make sure to compost our pizza boxes while bitching about a change that might actually make a real difference.
I lived in one of the test sites until recently (in north Capitol Hill). For sure, the new lights looked weird, especially as this blue-ish island in the middle of a sea of orange glow; I was skeptical and ready to hate it. But, I have to say, I liked the new lights. Colors seemed truer, and it was easier to see. If it's going to save energy and maintenance costs while increasing safety by making the streets more visible at night, it seems like a good idea to me.
35
This piece came across as a smear campaign. If the neighbors you interviewed were that upset about the lights, you should have grabbed some stronger quotes. It sounds like they're pretty much on the fence.
I'm not convinced that this couldn't be a story, but this one comes across pretty one sided.
Dominic is an activist posing as an objective journalist. In other words, he fits in perfectly with the rest of the staff on this paper.
36
Bright bluish-white light can kill you - in a traffic accident. Reddish lights preserve your night vision better.
Studies also show that highly-lit areas have MORE crime, due to the uninhabited look (like a parking lot) and the contrasting darkness of the shadows (easy to hide in).
Higher rates of cancer have been found in areas without true darkness, and invasive wildlife and disrupted songbird activity.
And finally, areas without visible stars show a 20-40% drop in real estate value as street and house lighting increases.
Not saying all that stuff in the article isn't true, just that we've been down a similar road 20-30 years ago and zombie blue may not be all that much worse than liver disease yellow.
I'm not enough to remember why/if people objected to mercury street lights.
"Blue light" (and for humans. at these levels, it has to be "blue") promotes wakefulness in humans by suppressing melatonin. Also, the presence of melatonin reduces the incidence and growth of cancer, and promotes sleep, reduces obesity etc. The day/night cycle is part of every animal and most plants - and these "very blue" lights will increase the effect on humans TREMENDOUSLY!
LEDs can be made in any "color" - but the cost and efficiency do go up for "warmer" (lower CCT) sources - but so what? Do we only filter some poisons from our water, because that's at the limit of what we will pay? (well yeah we do .. )
For more technically accurate information see the documents available at
http://www.mindspring.com/~resodance/RAM…







RSS
Comments (45) RSS