During an interview for a recent article in Maintenance Solutions magazine, Brad Dow, director of properties at Mohonk Mountain House, talked about various energy-saving initiatives implemented at his facility.
One of those green efforts addressed lighting in the 266-room hotel, located 90 miles north of New York City. Dow and his department replaced light bulbs in about 95 percent of the areas that could be converted to compact fluorescent technology. Changing the bulbs reduced the hotel’s lighting load by 150,000 watts. But Dow says fluorescent bulbs were not appropriate for certain areas in the hotel, including rooms where art is hanging on the walls.
That brings me to a recent article in The New York Times that highlighted the differences between compact fluorescent and incandescent lighting technology. Here’s a glimpse into the comparison:
Fluorescent lighting’s environmental benefits are obvious. But, like Dow says, certain applications are not suited for that technology based on the type of light emitted from the bulbs. Some say fluorescent bulbs make a room look dark or cloudy and don’t give off the warmth of an incandescent.
For example, think about health care facilities and K-12 classrooms. Certain lighting can help create an optimal healing or learning environment, and despite the energy savings generated by using fluorescent bulbs, managers in those facilities might not specify them because they don’t fit with the organization’s overall mission.
So regardless of what seems to be obvious environmental benefits, most managers still have to address certain green technologies on a case-by-case basis to see if they are the right fit for their organization.