Comparative study of energy saving light sources

Abstract

Techno-economic performance comparison of compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) with light emitting diodes (LED), electrode less fluorescent lamps (EEFL), fluorescent tubes, incandescent bulbs, photovoltaic (PV) and fiber optic lighting systems was carried out in view of worsening power and energy crisis in Pakistan. Literature survey showed 23W CFL, 21W EEFL, 18W fluorescent tube or 15W LED lamps emit almost same quantity of luminous flux (lumens) as a standard 100W incandescent lamp. All inclusive, operational costs of LED lamps were found 1.21, 1.62. 1.69, 6.46, 19.90 and 21.04 times lesser than fluorescent tubes, CFL, EEFL, incandescent bulbs, fiber optic solar lighting and PV systems, respectively. However, tubes, LED, CFL and EEFL lamps worsen electric power quality of low voltage networks due to high current harmonic distortions (THD) and poor power factors (PF). Fluorescent lamps emit UV and pollute environment by mercury and phosphors when broken or at end of their life cycle. Energy consumption, bio-effects, and environmental concerns prefer LED lamps over phosphor based lamps but power quality considerations prefer EEFL. CFL and EEFL manufacturers claim operating temperatures in range of −20°C<TCFL<60°C and −30°C<TCFL<50°C but CFL frequently damage in wet and damp locations. Costs of low THD and high PF CFL, EEFL and LED lamps may be five to ten times higher that high THD and low PF lamps. Choice of a lamp depends upon its current THD, PF, life span, energy consumption, efficiency, efficacy, color rendering index (CRI) and associated physical effects. This work proposes manufacturing and user level innovations to get rid of low PF problems. Keeping in view downside of phosphor based lamps our research concludes widespread adoption of LED lamps. Government and commercial buildings may consider full spectrum hybrid thermal photovoltaic and solar fiber optic illumination systems.