I am involved as adviser in the building of a new rehabilitation centre in Haiti and the donors and future users are discussing light options.
I have a basic understanding of electricity and came to the below calculation and discuss the conclusion at present with my counterpart in Haiti.
Please be so kind to look over the paper since the outcome is very surprising and I might have overseen something or simply made a wrong assumption or mistake.
Additional info for this forum is that brownouts, blackouts, dips and spikes are fairly common at present at the site.
The place will have have offices, treatment rooms, a workshop, lobby etc and will be open 9 hours a day to receive patients.
I did this below exercise since I was under the impression that LED lightning is already more economic then Fluorescent and wanted to make a case in favor of LEDs. The result I got is a case against using LEDs.
What is wrong with the below calculation or are LEDs simply not yet ready to take on FTL in terms of total cost over 10years in such a building..
Many thanks for your precious time, expertise and respected opinion.
FTL vs CFL vs LED for Centre in Port au Prince
Specs, choices and assumptions.
1) Fluorescent tube lights T12, 40W represents 160W output and last 20.000H, cost about 2 USD per tube
2) Fitting last 10 years and cost about 20USD for two tubes.
1) Compact fluorescent E 27, 40W represents about 160W output and cost 8USD and last 10,000H (will get cheaper)
2) Fitting last forever and cost 2USD
1) 7 Watt E 27 represents about 40W output and cost 40USD and last about 40,000H (will get cheaper)
2) Fitting last forever and cost 2USD
“output” above is the equivalent of an incandescent lamp.
One KW cost about 0.30 USD in Haiti, we take 0.35 USD to account for inflation
We go for the purpose of this calculation for 100 double tube lights as in the drawing that must work for 10 years.
40% of the lights are on for 9 hours a day, 40% in the evening for 3 hours 5 days a week and 20% for 10 hours at night 7 days a week.
A) FTL :
a-Hours (80tubes do 9x5=45H/week) (24300/10y) 45x80=3600
(80tubes do 3x5=15H/week) (8100/10y) 15x80 =1200
(40tubes do 10x7=70H/week) (37800/10y) 70x40=2800
7600 burning hours over 200 tubes per week.
One average tube does 7600:200 = 38H per week
38x54x10=20520H in 10y.
(The average tube is doing 38 hours, but 120 are doing more and must be replaced before 10 years)
x 54weeksx10y= 4104000W
c-Consume: 4104KW x 0,35USD= 1436.4USD
d-Investment: Tubes (200x2USD) + (Fittings100x20USD)= 2400
e-Replacement: 120 tubes will be used for more then 38H per week (20500H per 10y) and have to be replaced once. 120x2= 240USD
c+d+e= 1436+2400+240=4076USD for 10y of FTL light.
Confirmed technology, they last probably 20000H if from a good brand.
(Estimated prices are Philips from Home Depot)
c-Consume: 4104KW x 0,35USD= 1436.4USD
d-Investment: Tubes (200x8=1600) + (Fittings200x2USD)= 2000
e-Replacement: 80 CFL have to be replaced 2 times and 40, 3 times
c+d+e= 1436+2000+2240=5676USD for 10y of CFL light.
CFL do not last 10000H due to heat, especially if the screw base is up at the ceiling. The ones I have at home die often and I live here only 3 years.
This is also the general complain among consumers.
4 leds of 7 watts is 28 W and have an output of 160 watt like one DFL or one CFL In this calculation.
x 54weeksx10y= 2872000W
2872KW x 0,35USD= 1005.2USD (Good)
d-Investment: Leds: to get 160 W output (equivalent of one 40 W FTL) we need 4 leds (800x40=32000) +
(Fittings800x2=1600) =33600 (Ouch)
e-Replacement: If they really last 40000H they do not have to be replaced
(price and specs are from a philips from home depot)
c+d+e= 1005+32000+0=33005USD for 10y of LED light.
If the LEDS last indeed 40000H has to be seen, of the 3 ones I bought for my house, 2 died in 3 months, 3rd one is passing away as I write.
-The FTL and CFL have mercury inside, the LED not.
-The LED’s will consume less power.
(The above will cost you about 25000USD extra)
Conclusion: The best solution is everywhere TFLs as Architect suggested and a few places (small space) with CFLs as they had already indicated. LED seems to be a NO NO due to the exessive investment.
Remark: Check that constructors are using in their specifications, tubes, bulbs and fittings (electronic ballasts) from known brands like GE, Sylvania, Osram, Philips etc.
If you find a serious mistake in the calculations or assumptions, let me know.
I have carried out many surveys of this nature and installations and my comments would be.....
The current purchase cost of LED lamps / luminaires is prohibitive when up against Fluorescent technology when the opening hours of the facility is less than 18 hours.
Look more closely at maintenance costs....are the luminaires at height and difficult to access ?....and therefore costly to re-lamp ?
Your cost of fittings at 20 USD seems a bit low
Instead of purchasing LED lamps and fittings, look at dedicated LED luminaires
However, as with the first comment, I cannot see this project stacking up !
Many thanks for this usefull info etc.
Your first statement about the 18Hours is very clear.
Just to finalize the thread and answer your questions:
1) The FTL luminairs are easy to access, no problem with re-lamping.
2) If we count 26USD, for a double fitting, FTL still seems the most riskfree and cost effective.
3) I had a look at some dedicated LED solutions but the investment is also too high.
The novelty factor seems still an issue in pricing.
4)Lastly you write:
"However, as with the first comment, I cannot see this project stacking up !"
What was that first comment and what do you mean by not stacking up?
Do you mean that the use of LED is in the case study (project?) un-economical overall?
Thanks for a last answer.
Many thanks to you to take the trouble to answer my quiery in the first place.
I did saw the light of some sort!
PS success with the forum, a very good source.
First of all, I think your right and LED still isn't able to compete with FTL.
But in this comparisation you compare E27 replacements to FTL who are used in different applications. To make it a fair comparisation, you can calculate with T5 or T8 replacements. for example: http://www.shoposlite.com/LED/light-tube-T8.html or http://www.earthled.com/DirectLED-t5-led-tube-replacement.html. I don't know this companies, just giving an example. Also I'm not a big fan of these replacements because they're not using the potential of LED technology
A better option (i think) is going for complete fixtures like: http://www.energysmartindustry.com/admin/images/uploadedimages/brochure/4adc70bf8a3a5VisionX4000.pdf or http://www.lunera.com/products/6400series.html
I hope I'm not breaking any rules by placing these links, but its just to give a some examples. (therefore more than one example)
Conclusion: Your calculations might be unfair, but the end result probably (!?) isn't going to change.
This is Albert, I have listed few points below, hope can give a additional view in choosing LEDs.
1) Cost between FTL vs CFL vs LED, the Initial Cost from LED as per today, is still high, and we know the price will come down, it will reach it's
mass volume consumption in few years, for sure within 10 years.
2) The application of LED has another upcoming trend, to see it as DIRECT viewing, and all FTL and CFL is meant to see as INDIRECT viewing.
3) DIRECT Viewing from LED has many benefits, such as
i) Uniform lights, few projects I did, the LED were placed behind a single-way mirror, the even spread of LED light is the only choice.
ii) Color Temperature, ranging from 2500 to 6500K, easily control over a dynamic range of white (which I like most, over traditional CW and WW),
it is rather difficult for CW/WW Tube to tune a specific color. and also does not look nice to put them together.
iii) Provision of Colors, if the customer is not particular in WHITE, the RGB White LED will give provision of Color with NO COST.
iv) Media inputs, the even layout of LEDs can also perform as Media Wall. That is new mind shift in using LED.
v) Interactive, adding senser, heat, motion etc is another field standout for LED system, that brings many creative idea for rehabilitation centre
4) Engage a Lighting Designer, he/she will help to build a total concept, balance between a Performace lighting and Effect lighting.
I have seen a "Blue sky on a meeting room ceiling light using LED" in conjunction of FTL.
Hope the above additional Field Applications will help in your 10 years consideration.
Thank you all for your contributions.
While my calculations have been clearly off at some specifics, the overall outcome has been confirmed by your kind experts.
I will keep my eyes peeled and follow the progress of LED lightning.
Energy use vs Investment will be a factor to include in new projects.
For now it will be FTL for overall efficiency reasons.
The LED applications available in terms of ambiance, architecture and energy saving are truly impressive.
(Philips is clearly a trailblazer in this respect)
However, the case study was about a rehabilitation centre with clinics and workshops to serve the Haitians that can't affort to pay for such services.
Efficient management, bang for the bucks, and low cost technology/operation are key.
Have a look at www.healinghandsforhaiti.org if your interested in the isue and the efforts.
Again, thanks a lot, this Philips forum and you as contributors has been most usefull.
PS. 30 years ago mentioning brand names on the Dutch public TV was definite No No.
Philips was refered to as " Een gloeilampen fabriek in het Zuiden van het land" (A light bulb factory in the South of the country). I wonder how to describe them at present. The bulbs went a long way!!!!!