Photoluminescent Exit Signs: How Cost Effective are they?
Posted on 17. Jul, 2010 by keith in Fire Safety
When you think about the energy efficiency of a building, the energy efficiency of its exit signs probably isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Compared to other building elements, such as interior lighting and HVAC components, exit signs use little electricity. But they do use enough to make a noticeable difference in your annual electric bill when you replace inefficient exit signs with efficient ones. Currently, four types of exit signs are considered energy efficient: compact fluorescent signs, LED signs, Tritium signs and photoluminescent signs. But because fluorescent and LED signs use electricity and Tritium ad photoluminescent signs don’t, the list can be narrowed to Tritium and photoluminescent signs.
Tritium and photoluminescent signs won’t cost you a cent to operate. But Tritium signs cost more than photoluminescent signs in the long run because the radioactive capsules that power them require a $75 disposal fee. Another disadvantage of Tritium signs is that, if their capsules break, you’ll paying thousands of dollars for the services of a radioactive clean up crew. Photoluminescent signs are non-toxic and 100 percent recyclable. When they fulfill their average 25-year lifespan, all you need to do is place them in the appropriate recycling bin.
Most U.S. buildings still contain incandescent exit signs; the least energy efficient signs on the market. Energy efficiency research shows that building owners who replace 100 incandescent signs with photoluminescent signs can save roughly $3,700 a year in energy costs alone. Subtract the cost of maintaining incandescent signs and the savings increase even more. The kind of exit sign that you use won’t make or break you. But when achieving the greatest utility savings is the goal, photoluminescent exit signs can play a valuable role.
