High Performance Fluorescent Lighting
Current State of Play
Current recommendations and general thought regarding
fluorescent lighting and energy efficiency suggests that the most
energy efficient and preferred option is T5 fluorescent lighting
with HP electronic ballasts (e.g. the specific credit point for the
use of electronic ballasts within the Australian Green Building
Council's Green Star™ Rating system). This may be partly attributed
to the fact that HP electronic ballasts were introduced at a time
when there were no HP magnetic ballasts. However, several documents
and case studies have been released internationally in recent
times, indicating this may not necessarily be the case. These
studies found that installing T8 fluorescent lighting with more
recently developed HP (low-loss) magnetic ballasts (class B1 and
B2) can, in some instances, provide greater energy efficiency at a
lower cost.[1] Further, one particular study
compiled by leading European manufacturers of both HP electronic
and magnetic ballasts compares various aspects of both ballast
types favourably. The final recommendation of this
whole-of-industry backed report is that both HP
electronic and magnetic ballasts should be used in the future with
specific system design configurations for optimum
efficiency.[7] For example, HP magnetic ballasts
can also be used in conjunction with electronic starters to
increase efficiency of lighting systems.[2]
The purpose of this peer reviewed technical guide is to provide
a general overview of the industry and recent literature, to assist
decision-makers in selecting the most environmentally and
economically preferable and sustainable options.
T5 and T8 Fluorescent Tubes Compared
It is generally regarded that T5 tubes are the most energy
efficient fluorescent lighting currently
available.[3] T5 fluorescents can only be
installed in conjunction with electronic ballasts, and as such,
this has lead to the current recommendation that electronic
ballasts are the preferred option for the fit-out of all new
buildings. However, there are other factors that need to be
considered.
High Performance (HP) Magnetic Ballasts (B1 low
loss):
Traditional (older style) magnetic ballasts (C ballasts) are no
longer able to be sold in Australia. Current thinking and
recommendations suggest the desirable lighting option for all new
buildings is to install a system using HP electronic ballasts and
energy efficient tubes, such as T5. However, this adopted direction
may be partly attributed to the lack of HP, energy efficient
magnetic ballasts available at the time. In place of older style C
magnetic ballasts, new class B1 and B2 HP magnetic ballasts are now
also being produced. Similar to HP electronic ballasts, HP magnetic
ballasts have significant energy efficiency improvements over the
traditional magnetic C ballasts.
Efficiency and Waste Energy/Heat:
A major efficiency improvement of HP ballasts, electronic or
magnetic, is in the reduced energy loss across the ballast, which
equates to a direct energy saving.[4] This energy
saving is approximately 9%, when changing from a traditional
magnetic class C ballast to a HP B1 magnetic ballast, and
approximately 15.5% from a C ballast to a HP A1 electronic
ballast.5 Power management technology (hereinafter
referred to as Power saver units) that reduces the running voltage
of lighting systems after start-up, without any noticable light
loss, can also be installed that will further reduce energy loss
across the ballast, but these units are only compatible with
magnetic ballasts.[4]
Efficiency and Costs:
The significant energy efficiency of T5 tubes in electronic
ballasts can largely be attributed to their dimmable capacity.
However, only the class A1 electronic ballast (highest performance)
has this energy efficient, dimmable capability.[2]
The cost of a complete T5 (louvre arrangement) system with
class A1 electronic ballast and all components (tube, ballast,
fitting, etc.) is approximately $280 + GST (Source- Rexel
Electrical Suppliers, August 2007).
The cost of a complete T8 system with new class B2
(high-performance) magnetic ballasts and all components (tube,
ballast, fitting, etc.) is approximately $78.50 + GST (Source -
Rexel Electrical Suppliers, August 2007).
Electronic starters are available for purchase in Australia
(additional cost of $4-6), that are compatible with T8 tubes and B1
and B2 magnetic ballasts, to improve the energy efficiency of the
overall T8 lighting system.[2]
Efficiency and Light Output:
A T5 tube installed with a class A1 electronic ballast is
generally accepted as being more efficient than a T8 tube installed
in combination with magnetic ballasts. Table 1 below provides
a comparative example between T5 (installed with A1
high-performance electronic ballast) and T8 (installed with B2
high-performance magnetic ballast) fluorescent lighting systems.
The two different systems provide similar effective lumens (light),
but the T5 system runs off 28W rather than 35W, therefore using
less power.
Table 1- Comparative example of T5 (Class A1 ballast) and T8
(Class B2 ballast) fluorescent lighting
systems.[6]
|
Input (W)
|
System
|
Lumen output
|
Luminaire efficiency
|
Effective lumens (output x efficiency)
|
Difference in lumen output
|
Difference in power required
|
|
28 Watts
|
T5
|
2900
|
0.9
|
2610
|
Approx 2% less
|
Approx 20% less
|
|
35 Watts
|
T8
|
3250
|
0.82
|
2665
|
-
|
-
|
Electronic ballasts are stated in general as saving between
17-25% energy consumption compared with traditional magnetic
ballasts.[6]
Maintenance and Costs:
There has also been a recent report (reliable source but
unconfirmed by ecospecifier) of a building owner in Brisbane CBD
that actually went down the path of having their lighting of an
office floor upgraded to electronic ballasts with T5 fluorescent
tubes. In this particular case, regular maintenance and associated
costs proved to be an issue, and the owner is now considering the
option of replacing the new electronic ballasts
with HP magnetic ballasts in the office as this
will allow them to revert to T8 tubes and install a power saver
unit.
Health and Environmental Issues: Copper vs Electronic
Recyclability and Hazardous Nature:
Recycling of new, HP copper-based magnetic ballasts is regarded
as less problematic than that of electronic ballasts, due to the
varying components of each.[7]
The "diverse materials found in electronic ballasts are
unfortunately environmentally incompatible, and these materials
must be treated as hazardous waste and disposed of
accordingly".7 Given the comparatively high
failure rate and lower lifespan of electronic ballasts, their
resource use and hazardous waste disposal nature is a significant
environmental and economic factor to consider.
Newer, HP magnetic ballasts, on the other hand, are generally
considered fully recyclable. The materials used can be separated,
reused and reprocessed.[2]
* NOTE - It is important to note here that magnetic ballasts
being discussed here, do not, like those
manufactured to 1979, contain polychlorinated biphenyls PCBs. PCBs
are considered possible carcinogens, and the health risks
associated with disposing used fluorescent ballasts containing PCBs
include skin, liver, and reproductive disorders. The health and
safety aspects associated with this issue are widely documented,
but are not relevant to this discussion.
Resource Availability:
Electronic ballasts use rare metals that are already subject to
'peak metal availability concerns' and these resources are not
likely to be easily recovered. While we are still awaiting
confirmation from manufacturers as to the exact rare metal
componentry of electronic ballasts, it is believed they contain
indium. At current consumption rates, this rare metal is expected
to run out within 5 years.[8]
Longer term concerns about the rates of extraction and
availability of copper resources, required for magnetic ballasts,
also exist. Recent research suggests that by 2100, the global
demand for copper will have surpassed the amount actually
extractable from the ground.[8]
Health:
There is also significant health issues associated with the
metal componentry used in electronic and magnetic ballasts. Indium,
a likely component of electronic ballasts (as discussed above),
should be regarded as highly toxic and indium compounds damage the
heart, kidney and liver, and may be teratogenic (damaging to unborn
babies).[9]
Relevant to magnetic ballasts, copper mining has been associated
with significant social and environmental impacts in many places
around the world (e.g. Bouganville, PNG). The health impacts of
communities living around smelters are also an issue. Excess deaths
among men by lung cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, and
diseases of the digestive system have been noted,and among women,
deaths by endocrine and metabolic diseases and chronic respiratory
diseases were also found to be in excess.[10]
EMR (Electro-Magnetic Radiation)
Fields:
Ecospecifier is unaware of whether new HP magnetic ballasts have
potentially problematic health impacts from EMR, as the older style
class C magnetic ballasts did. However, it is known that new HP
magnetic ballasts do not have the same interference with computer
screens.
New Technology Options
As previously mentioned, energy consumption of a T5 tube
installed with a HP electronic ballast is up to 17-25% less than
that of a T8 tube installed with a traditional class C magnetic
ballast. However, such use of electronic ballasts would allow no
further use/benefit of various voltage reduction or power saver
units, with recognised potential to reduce energy consumption in
fluorescent lighting systems.
Typically these power saver units reduce lighting energy
consumption by approx 30%, and seen in the BMASS- Suncorp Metway
Office- Power Saver trial below, by as much as 37.45% (kwh).
Ilum-a-Lite- Light Eco Energy Controllers is an example of such
power saver units:
Ilum-a-lite's Light Eco® is also based on an energy
saver/voltage reduction mode which is automated or 'soft-switched'
once the unit is activated. Light Eco® extends the life of tubes,
ballasts and fittings within a fluorescent lighting system. The
temperature of the tube and fitting are also stated to be
reduced.
Various case studies have also been documented, where energy
savings of approximately 30% (and over) have been achieved through
the installation of Light Eco® into existing buildings with T8/T12
fluorescent lamps and traditional magnetic type C and type B
ballasts installed. It is also worth noting that Ilum-a-lite Pty
Ltd provides a written guarantee of a minimum saving of 25% when
using Light Eco®:
Case Study 3*-
Royal Perth Hospital - Achieved annual energy savings of
419MWhr, where annual electricity consumption for lighting was
approximately 1250MWhr. This represents lighting energy savings of
approx 33%, and is stated to have a direct pay-back period of 21
months.
Case Study 4*-
Sydney Opera House (Car Park) - Achieved annual energy savings
of 226MWhr, where annual electricity consumption for lighting was
approximately 700MWhr. This represents lighting energy savings of
approx 31%, and is stated a direct pay-back period of only 9
months.
*NOTE- All case studies in this document have been provided by
the manufacturer/supplier, and have not been verified by
ecospecifier.
For further case studies or information, please view the current
ecospecifier assessment of Ilum-a-Lite Light Eco
Energy Controllers:
Ilum-a-Lite-
Light Eco Energy Controller
or visit http://www.ilumalite.com for detailed
information.
Save It Easy® is an innovative electronic ballast adaptor device
used to retrofit energy efficient T5 electronic fluorescent tube
lamps into existing lighting systems with conventional magnetic
ballasts, (i.e. T8, T12, etc.) thereby giving the efficacy shown in
Table 1 without the high cost . The kit consists of the electronic
ballast adaptor, an end piece and a green connector which replaces
the white magnetic ballast starter.
Energy savings resulting from the use of T5 tubes (28
Watts) in place of magnetically ballasted T8 tubes (36 Watts) for
example, can be achieved without the need to change the T8
luminaire fitting. Save It Easy® enables a quick and simple
retrofit of electronic T5 tubes, without the significant time,
material, disposal, labour and disruption costs involved in
replacing T8 luminaires with T5 luminaires. The magnetically
ballasted luminaire remains in the ceiling and upgrading is as
simple as changing a fluorescent tube.
Save It Easy® is recommended for lighting systems where
continuous operation is not a feature of use, or where customers
prefer the use of T5 lighting. Installing T5 lamps also encourages
'delamping' - the removal of lamps where customers determine
lighting levels can sustain less lamps than those which currently
exist. This differs from power saver units/voltage reduction
systems such as Light Eco® and BMASS Power Saver Units, where
similar energy saving levels are achieved primarily through
continuous use or lengthy periods of operation.
As Save It Easy® is an electronic ballast, it cannot be used in
conjunction with power saver units/voltage reduction systems
such as BMASS and Light Eco ®
Case Study 5*-
NSW Department of Environment & Conservation (Dubbo)- Save
It Easy® upgrade devices were specified and all T8 fluorescent
tubes were upgraded to the more energy efficient electronic T5
tubes. Energy savings of up to 33% were recorded, with a direct
payback period calculated at 40 months.
NSW Department of Environment &
Conservation
*NOTE- All case studies in this document have been provided by
the manufacturer/supplier, and have not been verified by
ecospecifier.
For further information and case studies, please see the
following link:
Save It Easy® Information and Case Studies
Other Energy Saving Options
Replacing older style halophosphor fluorescent tubes with
triphosphor tubes can increase light output by 20%, with no
additional energy consumption. Where increased light output and low
energy consumption is desired by a designer or developer, the
incremental replacement (at end-of-life) of halophosphor tubes with
triphosphor may therefore be an effective option or alternative to
reinstalling.
The Case for Review
Existing Buildings:
As highlighted by the various case studies above, there are
instances where comparative, or even greater energy savings than in
the use of T5 tubes and electronic ballast combinations, can be
gained through the use of power saver units (such as BMASS and
Ilum-a-Lite) in combination with magnetic ballasts. These case
studies involved buildings with less efficient (older style)
magnetic C ballasts, which have now been superceded by HP magnetic
class B1 and B2 ballasts. These HP magnetic ballasts are likely to
increase potential savings even further.
In terms of retrofitting existing buildings, similar (at the
very least) or even greater energy savings may be achieved by
installing a voltage reduction/power saver unit, rather than going
down the path of re-installing accepted energy efficient T5 tubes,
fittings and control gear throughout an entire building (with a
significantly greater cost and labour process). Furthermore, new
technology such as ecoBright- Save It Easy, means significant
lighting energy savings (approximately 30%) of using T5 tubes may
be achieved anyway, without going down the path of replacing the
whole luminaire (tube, fitting, ballast/control gear).
New Buildings:
Seen in the cases where energy savings of better than 30% have
been achieved by installing voltage reduction/power saver units
with older style (less efficient) magnetic ballasts, there is
actually also an argument to fit-out new buildings with HP
magnetic ballasts. This is because the potential energy consumption
reduction achieved through power saver units (such as BMASS and
Ilum-a-Lite), can actually go beyond the standard 17-25%
energy improvement of HP electronic vs traditional magnetic
ballasts.
The fact that magnetic ballasts are now only commonly available
for purchase in Australia in the form of HP class B1/B2 ballasts,
will ensure that potential savings through reduced waste
energy/heat loss across the ballast (as previously mentioned) will
also be achieved.
Conclusion
There is a seemingly strong case to review the single emphasis
on the use of electronic ballasts only, to achieve optimum energy
efficiency and environmental outcoems. This review should include
the assessment of HP magnetic ballasts, used in conjunction with
voltage reduction power saving units, electronic starters, and
innovative new technologies in project analyses and Green Star™
credits, to take energy efficiency in lighting to yet a new level
of saving.
The information in this report may be used for educational
purposes provided the source is cited.
© Baggs, D. and Stanley, M. 2007.
Summary of Reference Papers
European Copper Institute- 'Ballasts for Fluorescent
Lighting'
This document provides a detailed technical analysis of the wide
range of factors to be considered with regard to the performance of
magnetic and electronic ballasts for fluorescent lighting. Some key
points outlined in this paper include:
- Payback period of upgrading to high-performance magnetic
ballasts is significantly shorter than an upgrade to high
performance electronic ballasts.
- Standard line voltage reductions are likely to result in
significant energy efficiency increases in magnetic ballasts, but
will see no change in electronic ballast efficiency.
- Electronic starters can be used in both electronic
and magnetic ballasts, to increase lamp
lifetime.
- Two case studies from Switzerland are discussed, where the use
of high-performance magnetic ballasts was a more energy efficient
and economic option than using high performance electronic
ballasts.
- In June 1999 the European Commission drafted a directive to
move towards electronic ballasts and phase out magnetic ballasts.
In May 2000, after being informed of the above, the EU reportedly
made an amendment to their document, stating any move to
improve energy efficiency and encourage the use of energy-saving
lighting systems should be considered, not just a move towards
electronic ballasts.
Please see the link below to view the full paper:
European Copper Institute - Ballasts for
Fluorescent Lights
'Are You in Line with the Future of Lighting: Keep in
Step by using High-Performance Ballasts?'
This paper, compiled by leading European manufacturers of both
electronic and magnetic ballasts, provides an interesting
comparison between high-performance magnetic and electronic
ballasts. Key findings outlined in a table presented in the
document show that while electronic ballasts provide a higher lamp
lifetime and energy saving, high performance electronic ballasts
themselves have a lower lifespan (50, 000hrs) than high performance
magnetic ballasts (100, 000 hrs) and also double the failure
rate.
From an economic perspective, high performance electronic
ballasts are stated to have approximately double the initial
purchase cost of high performance magnetic ballasts, and are more
expensive to maintain (due to failure rate) and dispose of (due to
status as 'hazardous' electronic waste).
The final recommendation from this paper was that
both high performance electronic and magnetic
ballasts should be used in the future.
Please see the link below to view the full paper:
Ballasts - High Performance Comparisons
References:
- European Copper Institute, 2006, Some Basic Facts and Some
Advanced Information on Ballasts for Fluorescent Lamps,
accessed April 2013 at
http://www.etsii.upct.es/antonio/html_der/papers/Ballasts.pdf
- Nickols, D., June 2007, BMASS, Pers. Comm.
- Philips Lighting, 2001, Philips 'TL'5 Lamps: Product
Information, Roosendaal.
- Ziebarth, K., June 2007, BMASS, Pers. Comm.
- Australian and New Zealand Standard MEPS - Fluorescent Lamp
Ballasts, as cited on Comparison of Energy and Ligthing
Efficiency Technologies, accessed March 2012 at http://www.bmass.com.au/Energy%20and%20Efficiency%20Facts.htm
- no longer accessible April 2013
- Prasad, J., 2007, Pers. Comm., 16 July/16 August
2007, Philips Lighting.
- Are You in Line with the Future of Lighting?: Keep in Step by
using High-Performance Ballasts, accessed March 2012 at
http://www.bmass.com.au/images/Ballasts_High_Performance_Comparisons.pdf
- no longer accessible April 2013
- Cohen, D. 2007, New Scientist, 23 May 2007, iss. 2605 page
34-41 accessed at http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19426051.200-earths-natural-
wealth-an-audit.html
- Accessed April 2013 at http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/periodic-chart.htm
- Stephens, C. & Ahern, M, 2001, Worker and
Community Health Impacts Related to Mining, LondonSchool of
Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
- QLD EPA, 2007, The Compass: New Directions in Queensland
Industry, Issue 19- Autumn 2007, Brisbane. Sustainable
Industries Division,