Energy reduction in fluorescent lamps

Dec 22, 2006 4 Replies

Hi all, The company that I work for are in a drive to reduce costs by energy reduction.



One of the main areas is lighting. It has been found that an acceptable amount of lux levels can be achieved by removing 2 or the 3 fluorescent tubes from a ceiling tile tile type fluorescent fitting.



We propose to do this only in certain corridors some of which had over



100 of these fittings every 4th tile. These corridors only have approx
4 people per day.

Will it have any adverse affects on the fitting if we remove two of the tubes?



Thanks, Shay



| The company that I work for are in a drive to reduce costs by energy | reduction. | | One of the main areas is lighting. It has been found that an acceptable | amount of lux levels can be achieved by removing 2 or the 3 fluorescent | tubes from a ceiling tile tile type fluorescent fitting. | | We propose to do this only in certain corridors some of which had over | 100 of these fittings every 4th tile. These corridors only have approx | 4 people per day. | | Will it have any adverse affects on the fitting if we remove two of the | tubes?

The fittings should be OK. However, do not expect the energy savings you think you might get.

Fluorescent lights don't work the same way as incandescent. If the whole fixture runs from one ballast (think: would you put 3 of these expensive devices in the fixture when it can operate from just 1) then you'll still have the same current flow at the same voltage. And it won't make the remaining bulb any brighter (since the voltage _drop_ across the bulb is still the same while the current remains the same). What you end up with is some combination of hotter ballast, hotter wiring, decreased power factor, etc. In some cases I have even seen the remaining bulbs (2 out of a fixture of 4) have a shorter life. In one case I saw the after effects of an exploded ballast that also created a chemical hazard from the melted potting material (could be a very expensive cleanup).

You will see minimal energy reduction, and a possible increase in costs due to a variety of issues (the fittings are not one of them).

Try completely disconnecting selected fixtures. Try desk lamps of the appropriate energy saving type and leave most ceiling lights just off.

turn all lights off. issue flashlights.

in one facility the idiot in charge insisted on putting sutomatic switches in high volume areas like the lunch room aginst my strong recomentation. the cost in replacing lamps and ballasts by far exceeds any cost savings.

Yes but ...

In a place where you only need, say, 2 minutes of light per hour, it would make sense to use incadenscent lamps with the automatic (?PID) switches with a handful of flourencent lamps on all the time as "night lights."

Just how efficient is a high voltage discharge tube (neon ad type) when switched on and off a lot?

Yes, No & maybe... It all depends on the ballasts in place.

Your company would be well advised to contact their electrical utility and ask them for help. It will likely be free advice from professionals, who can see the actual building. They may also have rebate programs to pay for part of the work.

Even better would be to hire your own expert...

( Sorry Phil I can't back you up on this one. I've seen similar situation with no difficulties. The details of the job are critical! )

RickR

shay wrote:

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required