Mayor Gordon Continues Phoenix's Transformation into a "Green" Utopia Tonight By Going to First Friday and Changing Some Light Bulbs

By James King Fri., Aug. 7 2009 at 4:27 PM

Categories: News

igniterocksonline.com

How many Mayors does it take to change a light bulb? Only one if he's got a dauntingly cliche plan to make his city "the greenest city in America."

As part of Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon's "17 point green plan" to "green up" Phoenix, the city will be testing new light-emitting diodes in Phoenix streetlights starting today.

The new bulbs need much less power than the ones in the streetlights currently, and could potentially save the city a little coin if it turns out they work properly.

Rather than simply installing the bulbs, and seeing the savings, the politically savvy mayor is going to "unveil" the project to his loyal subjects at the First Friday Art Walk, and let them marvel in his eco-conscious deportment.

"Our current streetlight technology has advanced about as far as it can," Gordon says. "With efficient, cost-effective LED lights now available, this fits right in with our plans to make Phoenix the greenest city in America."

Umm...why not try and make Phoenix the safest city in America, or the most business friendly? Then we can worry about our hue.

Tags:

green, light bulbs, mayor phil gordon, phoenix

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

More About:

Phil Gordon

Mayor Gordon proved tonight just how un-green he is. At the rezoning for the Mormon temple he dismissed concerns about what the temple light pollution will do to Thunderbird CONSERVATION Park right across the street from the temple. Of course it's in Glendale, so he can keep on claiming to be green in Phoenix.
First, I agree that the snarkiness of the original story was really excessive. I don't mind a little humor, but the bitterness is really off-putting. Not to mention that better and more cost efficient street lighting, in fact, will make Phoenix safer and more business friendly. Second, why the big fight over LED vs. induction? We should be exploring both, and seeing which works better! Obviously this is a pilot program and now we can see how LED works in actual Phoenix climate. The induction people shouldn't be so defensive, and maybe they should offer some of their product to the city for testing! Third, Becki, what is this garbage about "Phoenix remains in such debt." Phoenix has a AAA bond rating, and carries no debt other than bonds issued for specific infrastructure projects that have been approved by voters. Compare that to our Republican-controlled state, which is boroowing money left and right to stay afloat, selling off buildings and bonding against future lottery revenues. Compared to that mess, Phoenix is a model of fiscal responsibility, even in very tough financial times. So get your facts straight before spouting off!
So Phil replaced the light bulbs..??? He needs to replace the dim bulb in his head. What's that again about Sheriff Joe not doing his job??? All we get from Phil is light bulbs?? GEEZE that's a stupid thing to do while Phoenix remains in such debt. Going to save money later...yeah yeah, heard that before..there he goes again. Spending money the City does not have.
After a little Internet research, it appears that just about everything claimed by "Green" is wrong. First, lifespan: even those who market induction lighting (the relatively honest ones) admit that the tested lifespan is 30,000 hours and the rated lifespan is 60,000 hours: "If you observe closely, you will find that those claiming 100,000 hours are those relying on marketing, rather than a serious technical understanding of induction lighting. You will also notice that they don’t offer anything more than what the Chinese manufacturers are exporting to them because they don’t have the knowhow or development ability to bring out the best in induction lighting...One thing that we repeatedly told our customer is that induction lighting is a 60,000 hours solution, not 100,000 hours. That is a theoretical lifespan and it completely disregards the CIE recommendation of replacing lamps once they have reached a 30% or greater lumens depreciation." Second, LEDs generally have much higher energy efficiency (as measured both in lumens per watt and overall) than induction lighting, commonly rated in the 90 percent efficiency range as opposed to induction lighting which functions in the 50 to 70 percent range. They also have a potential lifespan of 100,000 hours with little degradation in output (unlike induction lighting) over their use life. Third, as for desert use, with high-temperature ICs and proper heatsinking, they're apparently up to the job. By the end of 2007, Phoenix had already replaced more than 9,000 conventional traffic lights with LED lights, for an energy savings of 90 percent. The current project, as noted by Mr. King, involves a TESTING phase first, demonstrating that the city wisely doesn't take manufacturer claims for granted. Fourth, as for initial cost, induction lighting is generally higher cost than LED lighting per unit (including but not limited to the fact that induction lighting requires special fixtures): the lowball cost estimates presented by Green rely on shoddy Chinese induction products which are notoriously unreliable, thus requiring more frequent and expensive maintenance (e.g., failing ballasts and lights) and replacement. At reputable companies induction lighting ballasts are only warrantied for 3 years. Fifth, induction lighting uses mercury gas as a fluorescent, and so is not as green as LED lighting. Induction lighting was excluded from the Energy Star standard for 2007 by the EPA.
Induction is less per unit, as stated above, and will provide the same if not better energy savings compared to LED's. So, if an LED lasts 50,000 hours at normal use, but not in the desert, and Induction will last 100,000 hours and they both give you the same savings, but LED's cost 2-3 times as much - which is the better choice. "Well Bob, that might be a trick question, but I'm going to go with.....um, Induction?!" "You got it...contestant (Emil)...you've just won a new car!" On top of that, LED's cannot provide the same light dispersion as Induction. Come on Emil - get with it, think logically and stop being so naive...and stop embarrassing yourself! Think logically - 2+2 in this case does equal 4.
Thank you, Anonymous (aka Green), for your cavalcade of mixed metaphors. So good of you to agree with the positive assessments above, before proceeding to shred me as a "half-empty backseat driver". I think it's clear that you are, indeed, sincere, and not merely a self-interested salesman willing to talk from both sides of his mouth, using cynical appeals to popular sentiment even as you attempt to undermine it. Just for the record, as a simple matter of logic, if the glass is half-empty then it must ALSO and SIMULTANEOUSLY be half-full, and of course vice-versa. I note that you STILL fail to answer whether induction lighting is cheaper than LED lighting. You say that the cost of LEDs is more (which LEDs?) but you don't say which is cheaper to operate because it uses less power to produce an equivalent amount of light. You talk about savings compared to APS, but that refers to current street lighting. I stand by my earlier remarks.
Emil - I can provide you with all sorts of facts that back up the Induction technology and how much better it is then anything else in the marketplace. LED's cost $800-$1,200 (FACT) each versus Induction at $350-$550 (FACT) each with twice the life. If you did your homework about these two technologies, you'd also find out that LED's lose up to 40% of their life (FACT) in the desert due to the heat and ballast temperature. Induction street lights last 22 years (FACT) without burning out or replacing compared to 5 years of high pressure sodium (FACT). Induction also cuts the wattage usage 50%-65% (FACT) compared to what's being used today in our streets, parks, parking structures, residential communities, etc. This is not a self promoting venture on my part, certainly not one I'd spend time or energy doing to a small audience if I was promoting Induction. What I am doing though is trying to share vital information so people like you can understand that technologies will allow us to free up cash to put into other projects to better the city and make it safer, cleaner and more attractive for businesses. Lighting is the easiest category to make changes in simply because of our 40+ year old inefficient technology that's been eating away at our pockets for decades. It is all about leveraging a simple technology like Induction to free up dollars to help pay for other projects...are you telling me the City of Phoenix would not like to save $400,000 to $500,000 per month on their street light bills from APS/SRP? It really is that simple to save that kind of money. Induction lighting is "Green" and has been used in other countries for years.
I agree with the commentary above but Emil seems to enjoy being the back seat driver on issues....Its the glass half empty or half full concept...Emil is a obviously a half empty contributor... All is well..we need all types for the world to go around...
We agree with the commentator that Emil Pulsifer is a knowledgeable and regular contributer of credible information and opinion, regardless of his stance on issues. He is an asset to these blogs. We were also surprised to see many redundant posts by a fellow that has no need to post duplicitously. He makes his point well the first time around. Someone or some "thing" is trying to detract from Emil's credibility. Apparently they cannot defeat him on the facts.
Another reason why I don't trust "Green" is that he's been posting under three different names to pretend mass support: "Jon", "Anonymous", and "Green". In fact, above, Green alludes to a message that didn't appear in this thread, but to one which he posted, accidentally, as "Jon" to the Hot Links thread nearby. Particularly amusing is the way he plays "good cop" as Jon and "tough cop" as Green when discussing the Mayor's initiative. Also, I despise his smarmy marketing schtick, e.g., "Emil - What do you think about those facts posted about Induction Lighting? You can't argue with that response..." which came right out of a timesharing presentation. All of this tells me that he has utter contempt for our intelligence and that therefore I have no reason not to be sharply skeptical.
Robert, your question is one long presumption. You have no reason to believe that the specific LED lighting product touted by Mayor Gordon is inappropriate for our desert environment or the envisioned application(s), or that the inductive lighting technology touted by "Green" is less expensive. You also have no reason to believe that a product promoter has any motive other than making money by marketing THEIR product. That's what they're in business for, not civic duty. They have a vested interest in both self-delusion and in deluding others, if and when doing so assists sales. On the other hand, it's just possible that before touting the LED lighting technology in question, the city listened to various proposals by various contractors and consultants, and made an informed decision on that basis. This means not merely a sales talking point, but an actual accounting estimate based on capital outlay, operating costs, and maintenance costs, comparing the merits of SPECIFIC products, not the general properties of general categories of technology, since new variations are always emerging. Does that mean that "Green" is wrong? Not in itself. Call me skeptical, and call me ignorant: I don't have the data, the technical expertise, or the cost estimates. Maybe he should contact the Mayor's office. Maybe he already has, and envisions guerilla media tactics as a way of drumming up public support, which he hopes to turn into political pressure to adopt his product.
What is wrong with being a product promoter...If the government is doing something you feel is incorrect and others can offer better solutions, isn't it our/your duty to inform?
Once again Facts are Facts Emil...You should not trust posts on the internet as they are factual, but instead of arguing the facts, take it upon yourself, do the research, then repost your findings... You will find the the facts posted are correct....
Thanks. The only duplicate posting I may have made here recently, was one to the "Valley Metro Sees 15 Percent Increase In Ridership" thread, which never showed up (and neither has the second). Valley Metro has a way of using local media outlets to confuse and propagandize, and it would be nice if my rebuttal would be printed, at least as a comment in an open forum.
"Green" wrote: "Technology is technology and facts are facts Emil. Separate your thoughts before you post." This is nonsense. You've made some claims about technical differences in LED vs. induction lighting, but claims are not facts, and you seem to have a vested interest in promoting induction lighting. You haven't said anything about the bottom line, either, which leads me to wonder if what you are promoting isn't, either as a capital outlay, or over time, or both, more expensive. In any case, I don't trust anything you write, and I don't have the technical background to argue about the relative merits of these two technologies, so again, I'll confine myself to noting that you seem to be a troll ("Are you by any chance a member of Sheriff Joe's posse?") and a product promoter on the prowl. Do you sift the Internet for any mention of alternative lighting technology and then show up with a ready made screed against theirs and in favor of the product you market?
i think someones f***kin with emil.he really isnt a bad guy and pretty smart really. I just dont agree with his liberal views but its a free country. i never saw him spam in here.he never does that//
Technology is technology and facts are facts Emil. Separate your thoughts before you post. You are looking for information to obtain solutions, well a technology like Induction lighting is a solution. What does it matter if it's Induction or solar, it should all be used to better the community and if it makes sense financially it should be used for municipalities. I think this anonymous posting with all the facts of Induction Lighting is useful for people who are uneducated about what technologies are in our world today that can lead to cost savings. Emil - Are you by any chance a part of Sheriff Joe's posse?
I might add that the three copies of the post made on Saturday at about 8:30 AM could not possibly have been made by me, since I didn't have access the Internet until 9:00 AM this morning, and didn't post that text at all today. James King or others at Phoenix New Times should check the IP address of the duplicate posts and see if it doesn't match that of someone posting here this morning under a different name. Impersonation is a no-no.
First of all, I only posted that message once, so I can't imagine why it appeared three times. As for the question about induction lighting, I think that somebody owns an induction lighting company and is eager to get a contract. I won't pretend technical expertise.
Emil, you made your point. There is no need to post it 1000 times. We realize that Mr. King has upset you, but calm down dude.
Emil - What do you think about those facts posted about Induction Lighting? You can't argue with that response...
The individual highlighting INDUCTION LIGHTING to be used in the desert is 100% correct and it should be recognized that LED's cannot withstand the heat we have here in Arizona. Consider this, the total net savings to the City of Phoenix over 20 years would be $150 million with a projected payback in just 3.9 yrs. The carbon reduction from earth’s atmosphere is 743 million pounds of carbon air pollution impact - the equivalent automobile reduction of 644,000 cars. INDUCTION LIGHTING benefits far out weigh LED's: - 100,000 hour life span (22-23 years, based on 12 hours per day) - reduces maintenance costs. - 50%-65% reduction in energy cost. - Similar per unit cost as current incandescent shoe box/cobra head fixture replacement. - Return on capital investment is 18-24 months (depending on usage). - Low total cost of ownership. - Reduce overall maintenance costs. - Carbon Footprint reduction. - No color shift over lamp life (CRI 80 at the end of 100,000 hours). - Highly reliable - instant hot and cold start-up and re-start. - Stable light output - no variation over a wide range of temperatures and voltage fluctuations. - Available in various wattage. Now Emil, why wouldn't we make our city the greenest when it can help save money to pay for your idea of making the city the safest!
To tour comment Pulisfier about "Umm...why not try and make Phoenix the safest city in America, or the most business friendly? Then we can worry about our hue" With the amount of money that can be saved by implemeting induction lighting citywide, these trendous savings can and will be used to make the city the safest and and most business friendly city in the country.. Check your facts!
Mr. King wrote that the bulbs use "much less power", but went on to belittle the cost savings by describing them as "a little coin". Does the Mayor's office, or any other source, have an estimate for the savings? Because there are an awful lot of street lights in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and multiplied by those, along with other potential city applications, the savings could potentially be a great deal more than "a little coin". Since budget problems are one of the perennial issues of local government, especially in these times and in the near future as the state struggles with its own revenues and raids local funds, it seems that such a project might be of considerable importance. Making the city "the safest" would take considerable additional police manpower and resources: before you can even contemplate that, you need to provide "the green". Similarly, what does Mr. King (whom I suspect to be a Republican) mean by making the city "business friendly" (you mean it's not?) except some sort of tax breaks or subsidies? Where is the money for THAT going to come from? Why must the Mayor concentrate on one project at a time? Do you suppose that his schedule doesn't allow him to appear at First Friday to draw attention to a revolutionary and potentially important change? Do you suppose that the Mayor isn't entitled to do a little harmless politicking? These kinds of columns aren't cute, and they aren't well considered. They seem to indicate nothing more than Mr. King's tendency to put the political opposition in his sights and squeeze the trigger. I suppose he's entitled, but don't imagine it isn't obvious, or that it's witty, or in the least civically productive. You're not exposing injustice, fraud, or corruption here, you're just using your bully pulpit at New Times to ridicule a Democrat.
Mr. King wrote that the bulbs use "much less power", but went on to belittle the cost savings by describing them as "a little coin". Does the Mayor's office, or any other source, have an estimate for the savings? Because there are an awful lot of street lights in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and multiplied by those, along with other potential city applications, the savings could potentially be a great deal more than "a little coin". Since budget problems are one of the perennial issues of local government, especially in these times and in the near future as the state struggles with its own revenues and raids local funds, it seems that such a project might be of considerable importance. Making the city "the safest" would take considerable additional police manpower and resources: before you can even contemplate that, you need to provide "the green". Similarly, what does Mr. King (whom I suspect to be a Republican) mean by making the city "business friendly" (you mean it's not?) except some sort of tax breaks or subsidies? Where is the money for THAT going to come from? Why must the Mayor concentrate on one project at a time? Do you suppose that his schedule doesn't allow him to appear at First Friday to draw attention to a revolutionary and potentially important change? Do you suppose that the Mayor isn't entitled to do a little harmless politicking? These kinds of columns aren't cute, and they aren't well considered. They seem to indicate nothing more than Mr. King's tendency to put the political opposition in his sights and squeeze the trigger. I suppose he's entitled, but don't imagine it isn't obvious, or that it's witty, or in the least civically productive. You're not exposing injustice, fraud, or corruption here, you're just using your bully pulpit at New Times to ridicule a Democrat.
Mr. King wrote that the bulbs use "much less power", but went on to belittle the cost savings by describing them as "a little coin". Does the Mayor's office, or any other source, have an estimate for the savings? Because there are an awful lot of street lights in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and multiplied by those, along with other potential city applications, the savings could potentially be a great deal more than "a little coin". Since budget problems are one of the perennial issues of local government, especially in these times and in the near future as the state struggles with its own revenues and raids local funds, it seems that such a project might be of considerable importance. Making the city "the safest" would take considerable additional police manpower and resources: before you can even contemplate that, you need to provide "the green". Similarly, what does Mr. King (whom I suspect to be a Republican) mean by making the city "business friendly" (you mean it's not?) except some sort of tax breaks or subsidies? Where is the money for THAT going to come from? Why must the Mayor concentrate on one project at a time? Do you suppose that his schedule doesn't allow him to appear at First Friday to draw attention to a revolutionary and potentially important change? Do you suppose that the Mayor isn't entitled to do a little harmless politicking? These kinds of columns aren't cute, and they aren't well considered. They seem to indicate nothing more than Mr. King's tendency to put the political opposition in his sights and squeeze the trigger. I suppose he's entitled, but don't imagine it isn't obvious, or that it's witty, or in the least civically productive. You're not exposing injustice, fraud, or corruption here, you're just using your bully pulpit at New Times to ridicule a Democrat.
This green initiative is a great cause and the mayor is to be applauded on his efforts...Anyone who is not embracing green technologies must have a screw loose...The only problem is that LED technogy will not perform well in this hot desert envirnoment......Induction lighting is the technology of the future especially with our extreme temperature fluctuations here in the desert.
Mr. King wrote that the bulbs use "much less power", but went on to belittle the cost savings by describing them as "a little coin". Does the Mayor's office, or any other source, have an estimate for the savings? Because there are an awful lot of street lights in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and multiplied by those, along with other potential city applications, the savings could potentially be a great deal more than "a little coin". Since budget problems are one of the perennial issues of local government, especially in these times and in the near future as the state struggles with its own revenues and raids local funds, it seems that such a project might be of considerable importance. Making the city "the safest" would take considerable additional police manpower and resources: before you can even contemplate that, you need to provide "the green". Similarly, what does Mr. King (whom I suspect to be a Republican) mean by making the city "business friendly" (you mean it's not?) except some sort of tax breaks or subsidies? Where is the money for THAT going to come from? Why must the Mayor concentrate on one project at a time? Do you suppose that his schedule doesn't allow him to appear at First Friday to draw attention to a revolutionary and potentially important change? Do you suppose that the Mayor isn't entitled to do a little harmless politicking? These kinds of columns aren't cute, and they aren't well considered. They seem to indicate nothing more than Mr. King's tendency to put the political opposition in his sights and squeeze the trigger. I suppose he's entitled, but don't imagine it isn't obvious, or that it's witty, or in the least civically productive. You're not exposing injustice, fraud, or corruption here, you're just using your bully pulpit at New Times to ridicule a Democrat.
Great job, Mr. King. Keep hammering Gordon, make him look like the cowardly fool he really is. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the Nation, Gordon and many others are getting a cut of the human smuggling and dope profits. The racial-profiling smokescreen didn't work, as Gordon's handpicked corrupt Judge Mary Murguia recused herself from hearing the false and malicious profiling case, Melendres v. Arpaio, in which Gordon's former assistant JESSIKA RODRIGUEZ is a "dupe" plaintiff. While we respect our environment, Gordon's motives in this "greening" kick are another smokescreen. Who cares how green Phoenix is, when its broke and beseiged by foreign criminal elements that Gordon, et. al. aids, abets, and harbors. Keep slamming them, Mr. King. Feel free to write us at gerric7@gmail.com and/or equityct@yahoo.com . Plenty of solid information and evidence for you.
I've been reading the New Times blogs a couple weeks now, and Emil hits it on the head. James King can't write 3 sentences without inserting some kind of childish jab against democrats or what he perceives as liberal interests. Such as <a href="http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/08/sheryl_crow_slated_to_welcome.php" rel="nofollow">in this post</a>, we're informed that "At last years conference in Boston, more than 28,000 people showed up, and showed off more than 800 half-baked contraptions designed to reduce polution," and that "Saving the environment's important, but we long for the day when 'green' was just a color." Or, rather, "energy efficiency is great and all, but isn't it sad how there are so many stoners making half-baked contraptions? And what's the with deal all these celebrities, anyway? Go back to Cambridge, you dirty fucking hippies!"
Mr. King wrote that the bulbs use "much less power", but went on to belittle the cost savings by describing them as "a little coin". Does the Mayor's office, or any other source, have an estimate for the savings? Because there are an awful lot of street lights in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and multiplied by those, along with other potential city applications, the savings could potentially be a great deal more than "a little coin". Since budget problems are one of the perennial issues of local government, especially in these times and in the near future as the state struggles with its own revenues and raids local funds, it seems that such a project might be of considerable importance. Making the city "the safest" would take considerable additional police manpower and resources: before you can even contemplate that, you need to provide "the green". Similarly, what does Mr. King (whom I suspect to be a Republican) mean by making the city "business friendly" (you mean it's not?) except some sort of tax breaks or subsidies? Where is the money for THAT going to come from? Why must the Mayor concentrate on one project at a time? Do you suppose that his schedule doesn't allow him to appear at First Friday to draw attention to a revolutionary and potentially important change? Do you suppose that the Mayor isn't entitled to do a little harmless politicking? These kinds of columns aren't cute, and they aren't well considered. They seem to indicate nothing more than Mr. King's tendency to put the political opposition in his sights and squeeze the trigger. I suppose he's entitled, but don't imagine it isn't obvious, or that it's witty, or in the least civically productive. You're not exposing injustice, fraud, or corruption here, you're just using your bully pulpit at New Times to ridicule a Democrat.