Big Green: Are photo-luminescent exit signs really a bad idea??

[Alex Wilson]

BigGreen list members,
I welcome this opportunity to get feedback on two 
opposing points of view on exit signs, and I 
think Michael for posting this message. First, a 
little background: I had long been intrigued with 
photoluminescent (PL) exit signs--what could be 
better than an exit sign that required no 
electricity to operate? So I started working on a 
product review for Environmental Building News 
touting these new exit signs, which are produced 
by about a dozen manufacturers.

But the more I dug into the issue the more 
concerned I became that while the PL exit signs 
don't use electricity directly, installing them 
as per manufacturer's instructions--with 5 
footcandles shining on them during building 
occupancy (and even prior to occupancy according 
to some recommendations) to keep them charged, 
and avoiding occupancy sensors in spaces 
utilizing these exit signs--may use significantly 
more electricity than the "zero-energy" exit 
signs save.

If you didn't read the article in EBN, here's a 
link to the article: 
http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=151101a.xml. 
(If you're not a subscriber to the BuildingGreen 
Suite, you'll need to log in to access the 
article, since we support EBN through 
subscriptions rather than advertising. The cost 
is $12.95 per week or $199 per year.)

We're working on a response to a letter that 
Michael submitted to EBN that makes the points 
outlined below, and we'd be very interested in 
hearing from BigGreen list members what they 
think and hearing any experiences you may have 
had with this issue. If we're missing something 
major and are off-base in our fundamental 
conclusions, we'll certainly admit that, but so 
far Michael hasn't convinced us of any flaw to 
our overall concerns.

Looking forward to your collective wisdom!

Cheers,

-Alex Wilson

At 11:41 AM -0800 12/4/06, O'Connell at ActiveSafety wrote:
>Dear BigGreeners
>
>As a rep for a company that manufactures 
>photo-luminescent exit signs I was shocked at 
>the recent EBN article on exit signs that 
>concluded "photo-luminescent exit signs are a 
>bad idea".  Here is a link to a more balanced 
>perspective: 
><http://www.buildings.com/Articles/detailBuildings.asp?ArticleID=3423>http://www.buildings.com/Articles/detailBuildings.asp?ArticleID=3423
>
>The technology behind Photo-luminescent exit 
>signs is highly sustainable and becoming popular 
>with LEED projects for good reasons:
>
>  >  They are charged by ambient lighting and use no electricity.
>  >  They operate for 25+ years with minimal maintenance
>  >  There are no batteries or lights to replace 
>[these are now hazardous wastes]
>  >  The materials of construction are 
>non-radioactive, non-hazardous, non-toxic and 
>not regulated
>  >  Many photo-luminescent exit signs are 
>constructed of recycled materials that can 
>easily be recycled again.
>  >  Photo-luminescent exit signs are Energy Star 
>listed, UL listed, NFPA, UBC, IBC compliant and 
>rated "best available technology" for exit signs 
>by the US Dept of Energy.
>
>We are hoping that EBN does a more accurate 
>follow-up article and makes the following 
>clarifications:
>
>  > there is no UL requirement to have the lights 
>that charge photo-luminescent exit signs on for 
>one hour before occupancy.
>  > electro-luminescent exit signs do not provide 
>better visibility in smoke [green signs provide 
>better visibility than red]
>  > properly engineered, the energy to charge a 
>photo-luminescent exit sign DOES NOT exceed the 
>energy to power an LED or EL sign.
>  > properly engineered, photo-luminescent exit 
>signs can be used in low light areas that use 
>timers and sensors.
>
>In most locations that require an exit sign, 
>photo-luminescent exit signs are a good option 
>because most locations [hotels, condos, retail, 
>offices, medical, schools, parking] provide the 
>requisite 5 footcandles of artificial 
>illumination that is on when the building is 
>occupied.  However, there are locations where 
>they are not the best exit sign technology to 
>use.  Experienced electrical engineers and 
>lighting consultants know what the constraints 
>are.
>
>Finally, there are numerous compelling 
>sustainable reasons to install photo-luminescent 
>exit signs and they are a safer and less 
>expensive exit sign than LED and radioactive 
>tritium exit signs.  Sometimes it takes a little 
>thinking "out of the box" but we think it's 
>worth the effort
>
>Your comments on BIGGREEN would be appreciated.
>
>MICHAEL O'CONNELL
>SALES ENGINEER - LEED AP
>ACTIVE SAFETY CORPORATION
>
>858 254 8234
><mailto:moconnell at activesafety.com>moconnell at activesafety.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>This green building dialogue is provided as a public service
>by Drew George, along with Environmental Building News
>http://www.buildinggreen.com. For instructions 
>see http://www.biggreen.org/discussion.html
>_______________________________________________________________


-- 

BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec®
122 Birge Street, Suite 30
Brattleboro, Vermont 05301
802-257-7300 ext. 106
802-257-7304 (fax)
http://www.buildinggreen.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.biggreen.org/pipermail/biggreen/attachments/20061205/5142d121/attachment.html