LED lighting is too good, too cheap, makes it too easy to have way too much goddamn light in every corner of every street over every hour of every day. It feels like it's so machines can see better, not so I can see better.
That's essentially correct, but modern tech also makes it relatively easy (and in the end cheaper compared to non-LED) to
- make lights with a properly focused well directed beam instead of flooding the whole place; we have a new one close to our house and it sheds light only on the street itself to the point you can almost see a nice straight line where the light beam stops and beyond that line it's markedly darker than it used to be even though the light beam itself has a higher intensity
- make lights which emit in wavelengths which are less environmentally harmful for flora/fauna
- make each lantern remote controllable (on/off/dimming); main street lights here dim after 11pm and are truned off in all secondary streets
(there's a website dedcated to listing the best models for all of this but I cannot find it anymore)
The thing which is lacking here mostly is awareness and governments willing to implement this properly. We live in a rather small rural village which did implement all of this - too bad there's no research project assesing before and after but since it counters most of the negatives I assume it should turn out positive for the environment. Birds are definitely positively affected by it: execpt for owls I don't hear any singing in the middle of the night anymore. And in any case it feels pretty 'normal' to come home at night while it's properly dark.
I don't think modern tech is really needed for (some of?) the things you list:
* we've know about lenses and focusing for centuries (the highly directional Fresnel lens was invented ~1815).
* incandescent lights have been around for a century and they were <3500K since the beginning; sodium street lights (<3000K) have been around for decades too
It is not so much modern tech that's the thing as modern (better) understanding: we've actually done research into the topic, and that research is more widely known; see for example this report by the city of Toronto on effective lighting (that mentions Dark Sky certification by name):
* https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/8ff6-city-...
Could be the DarkSky approved products: https://darksky.org/what-we-do/darksky-approved/
The customer (municipality or state) often will compare the nice lights with all of the options you listed against a more basic light during the planning phase and opt to spend less money on the more basic lighting.
Oh how I wish that were true in all cases :)
Integral occupancy sensors are usually an easy sell, like you said the energy savings usually cover the added cost of the sensor and relay, given that most LED pole heads draw anywhere from 50w to 150w. It also simplifies installation and maintenance since you don’t need to switch a whole line of poles with a single occ sensor and contactor.
The more esoteric options are usually a harder sell, stuff like glare shields and non-standard optics/distribution. I see options like this selected when a commercial property borders residential property, but it’s atypical.
Photometric studies can be done to figure out what options should be selected, but the customer, engineer, and contractor are all overworked and don’t always design things the way they could (or should) be designed. I will say that wealthier areas tend to have the budgets and time to go the extra mile on stuff like this.
FWIW, one of the things I do at my day job is sell LED pole heads (and a full range of electrical services) to municipalities (and others).
Here’s an example pole head cutsheet that shows the options that can be selected for reference: https://pdmassets.azureedge.net/library/LL/documents/specshe...
Hehe, sorry for explaining the obvious to you then :D
This is one of the biggest contributors to the uncanny movie-set feeling for me. I don't like it :/