|
|
Gutierrez-Escolar, A., Castillo-Martinez, A., Gomez-Pulido, J., Gutierrez-Martinez, J. - M., González-Seco, E., & Stapic, Z. (2016). A review of energy efficiency label of street lighting systems. Energy Efficiency, , 1–18.
Abstract: There are very few countries that have provisions addressing the energy efficiency of the whole street lighting system, such as Spain or the Netherlands. Nevertheless, there is not an agreement about how energy efficiency must be assessed. The Spanish Government contemplates it in the Royal Decree 1890/2008 with the goal of improving energy savings and efficiency. However, this has not obtained the expected results. Nowadays, energy efficiency of this kind of systems is assessed using a label. In the case of Spain, this label only assesses one magnitude. The contributions of this paper are two evaluation systems (kiviat diagram and pie chart) which assess five magnitudes: lamps, energy efficiency index, light pollution, renewable energy contribution, and harness of the luminous flux using dimming. After that, a survey was done to study several subjects: (1) if citizens are aware about the efficiency of street lighting systems, (2) whether the sample of colors used in the label is adequate, and (3) if our proposed systems could replace the current evaluation system. Finally, the paper finishes with the conclusions of the survey.
|
|
|
|
Tähkämö, L., Ylinen, A., Puolakka, M., & Halonen, L. (2012). Life cycle cost analysis of three renewed street lighting installations in Finland. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 17(2), 154–164.
Abstract: Purpose
Outdoor lighting is facing major changes due to the EU legislation on ecodesign of energy-related products, such as the ban of high-pressure mercury (HPM) lamps widely used in outdoor lighting. This article presents life cycle costs (LCC) of three examples of replacing HPM lamps in street lighting in Finland. The purpose of the article is to assess how the development of light-emitting diode (LED) technology affects LCCs and how the division of LCCs differentiates in the cases.
Methods
Two of the cases change from HPM lamps to high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps. In the third one, HPM lamps are replaced by LED luminaires. LED technology predictions of price and luminous efficacy are included in different scenarios. The calculations consider investment and operating costs and residual value.
Results and discussion
Each replacement reduces the energy costs approximately by half compared to the original HPM lamp luminaires. Energy costs dominate the LCCs of the HPS lamp installations while investment cost is the dominating one in LED luminaire case. The changes from HPM to HPS technology have payback times lower than 9 years, while changing to LED luminaires is not economic. However, the electricity price is low in this case. The payback times of LED installations can be as low as 6 years if the luminaires are installed in 2015 and an average electricity price is used.
Conclusions
The LCCs of real-life case studies cannot be directly compared, since their luminous properties vary. There is a need for a method for including luminous properties in LCC calculations.
|
|
