Fluorescent tubes V LED batons power consumption

[yartin]

Hi
I was looking to replace fluorescent lights with LED batons to save power usage.
My fluorescent lights are 36W giving 3350 Lumens. An LED baton of around 3000 Lumens will use around 30W, so there no saving. Am I right or missing something?

 

[Notch7]

Fluorescent lights are already very efficient, however LEDs do offer a bit of a saving and they have some advantages: they have instant full brightness and they maintain brightness over time.

its Difficult to compare lumens as LED lights are usually directed over 120degrees rather than 360 like a fluorescent, which need a reflector to bounce back the light heading upwards.

this one gives 3600 lumens over a 1500mm length for 30w usage.

Integral LED Lightspan IP20 IK08 Batten

Looking for a more efficient alternative to T8 fluorescent tube fittings? This single batten light from Integral LED offers a high lumen output for less energy consumption, making it a great choice for indoor commercial spaces.The cool white 4000K light provides bright and crisp task lighting...

www.toolstation.com

 

[yartin]

Fluorescent lights are already very efficient, however LEDs do offer a bit of a saving and they have some advantages: they have instant full brightness and they maintain brightness over time.

its Difficult to compare lumens as LED lights are usually directed over 120degrees rather than 360 like a fluorescent, which need a reflector to bounce back the light heading upwards.

this one gives 3600 lumens over a 1500mm length for 30w usage.

It's very little saving, not worth the cost unless new installation.

It's huge saving when comes to halogen v led bulbs, cost is minimal, bulbs are same base and no need to change fittings, wiring or junction boxes, no labour basically.

 

[ericmark]

You are correct lumen per watt fluorescent with electronic ballast to LED hardly anything in it. Only way they save is when they produce less light, so people replace a 68 watt fluorescent (which with an electronic ballast uses around 65 watt, with a 22 watt LED which produced 1/3 of the lumens, but since they want the spread of light rather than the lumen output is saves money.

I did this with my kitchen before I moved, did not need that much light, but son replaced with GU10, and now it uses more power than the fluorescent.

 

[yartin]

Only way they save is when they produce less light, so people replace a 68 watt fluorescent (which with an electronic ballast uses around 65 watt, with a 22 watt LED which produced 1/3 of the lumens, but since they want the spread of light rather than the lumen output is saves money.

Why would they do that?

If for example office has 3000 Lumens fluorescent, don't you need 3000 Lumen led baton to get same level light/illumination?

 

[winston1]

It's huge saving when comes to halogen v led bulbs, cost is minimal, bulbs are same base and no need to change fittings, wiring or junction boxes, no labour basically.

Unless they are 12 volt fittings as the halogen drivers don’t work with LEDs.

 

[yartin]

Unless they are 12 volt fittings as the halogen drivers don’t work with LEDs.

They are mains, halogen and leds. You can buy 40W halogen 700 Lumens, you can buy GU10, E14, E27, BC22 or E14 with 700 lumens plus and 7 or 8W, all mains.

 

[winston1]

Fluorescent lights are already very efficient, however LEDs do offer a bit of a saving and they have some advantages: they have instant full brightness and they maintain brightness over time.

LEDs do get dimmer over time as well, maybe not as much though. But LED tubes cost vastly more to replace when they fail.

 

[ericmark]

Why would they do that?

If for example office has 3000 Lumens fluorescent, don't you need 3000 Lumen led baton to get same level light/illumination?

Often the fluorescent tube is used to get the spread of light. The has been little change in wattage, think 5 foot was 64 watt with thick tubes, 58 with thin, but to light a 100 foot long space normally we would use 10 x 5 foot fitting, using bulbs more likely 10 x 100 watt, and the shadow cast was more important than the lumen output.

The same with 2" down lights, often spaced more down to shadow cast, than light output.

Ceiling height is important, I fitted low bay lights 250 watt in a factory and very pleased with result, they were about 25 foot above the ground but same lights 10 foot up were useless.

Lighting is not easy, I have made errors, moving tungsten to LED we need more bulbs.

 

[SUNRAY]

A couple of weeks ago 3 of us replaced 42 LED tube fittings with flou. They were first fitted 7 years ago, following an energy assessment, with a promise the energy consumption would be at least halved.
After getting used to the reduced brightness and increased shadows (their words, not mine) they found the failure rate exceeded that of fluo and with the price being several times the price of fluo tubes any promised energy savings were soon eaten up with maintenance costs.

people entering the area commented on the increased light levels, one was wearing a head torch to counteract the shadows on the lower shelves/bins and mentioned he didn't need it

At the end of the job the maintenance manager showed us the spreadsheets averaging 20-25 replacements per year but only 10-15 before LEDs. My quick mental arithmetic say a flou lasts 3-4 years and LED 2 years. He accepted fluo's lose their performance which is only noticed when a tube is replaced. They noticed a £500 reduction in energy in the first year but after that it got swallowed by other things.

Another point he made was the perceived increased number of lost days due to migraines although that hasn't been tabulated.


This is not the first job of this type I've been involved with.

 

[ericmark]

I look at adverts "Energy Saving up to 85%" since a tungsten will not work in a fluorescent fitting, it can not be comparing to tungsten, the advert I looked at was for a 1200 lumen tube, the fluorescent 2 foot tube is 1350 lumen at 18 watt, where the LED is 9 watt, so easy to work out it uses half the watts, so since lower output less than 50% saving. With longer tubes the LED seems not to save as much, and the 65 watt tube I replaced to LED did not last very long, I replaced it as could not get 65 watt tubes any more, and with the 240 volt wire wound ballast the 58 watt had a rather short life, and where it was it was hard to renew the ballast.

For fluorescent bulbs the LED does seem better, but with for example a 2D the LED is no better, so can't say compact fluorescent as the larger versions of folded tube the LED looses its advantage.

But the 7 watt GU10 fluorescent bulb I have is a pain, as low output and longer than quartz or LED versions, same with E27 and BA22, so bulbs the LED is better, but in the main fluorescent is still a good cheap light source.

 

[SUNRAY]

Another thing with fluo tubes; the performance drops and the changes at the ends give some warning of its usefulness coming to an end, chances are they'll start flickering and give that final bit of service too, LED tubes usually just stop working with no warning.

 

[winston1]

I look at adverts "Energy Saving up to 85%" since a tungsten will not work in a fluorescent fitting, it can not be comparing to tungsten, the advert I looked at was for a 1200 lumen tube,

Have you never come across an advert that lies?

the fluorescent 2 foot tube is 1350 lumen at 18 watt, where the LED is 9 watt, so easy to work out it uses half the watts, so since lower output less than 50% saving. With longer tubes the LED seems not to save as much, and the 65 watt tube I replaced to LED did not last very long, I replaced it as could not get 65 watt tubes any more, and with the 240 volt wire wound ballast the 58 watt had a rather short life, and where it was it was hard to renew the ballast.

The 58 watt tube is meant to work with the same ballast as the 65 watt. Indeed the later ballasts were labelled as suitable for both. I suggest you were unlucky and a sample of one is meaningless.

For fluorescent bulbs the LED does seem better, but with for example a 2D the LED is no better, so can't say compact fluorescent as the larger versions of folded tube the LED looses its advantage.

But the 7 watt GU10 fluorescent bulb I have is a pain, as low output and longer than quartz or LED versions, same with E27 and BA22, so bulbs the LED is better, but in the main fluorescent is still a good cheap light source.

 

[ericmark]

The 58 watt tube is meant to work with the same ballast as the 65 watt. Indeed the later ballasts were labelled as suitable for both. I suggest you were unlucky and a sample of one is meaningless.

When the 65 watt tube was used the UK voltage was 240 volt, when we went to 230 volt in real terms nothing happened, but when we started to use solar panels, over volt would cause them to lock out, so as solar panels arrived so the voltage in real terms dropped.

It was at this point when 58 watt tubes failed to run for any time in 65 watt fittings, it was likely a combination of volt drop and change of tube type, the 58 watt tube would work for a short time, but where the 65 watt version had a typical life of 6 years, the 58 watt version was more like 6 months, I am sure if the ballast was changed then it would have worked.

The LED tube lasted 18 months, and at that time house was mainly empty, the replacement lasted until my son swapped to GU10 down lights, so that could have been one odd tube failure.

I have not had many LED lights fail, lost a few GU10, but in the main they were smart bulbs, so could well be something to do with the smart circuit. I do have SPD fitted, my son doesn't and he has lost quite a few GU10's how much is due to spikes I don't know, however since 95% of the LED failures have been GU10's one tends to think it is something to do with the package, maybe too small to dissipate the heat?

The odd 4 low voltage MR16 lamps, from a toroidal transformer have lasted over 10 years, but the fluorescent lamp on landing in old house was fitted in 1995 and used a lot, and on its second tube, and first one was second hand, since it is an emergency lamp, it has an electronic ballast, only one lamp, but seems to show the claims that tubes last longer with electronic ballasts is true.

The problem is the tube is rated for use with magnetic ballasts, but it is claimed electronic ballasts use less power, produce more light, and extend the life of the tube, so in real terms a 5 foot fluorescent is the same as a 5 foot LED, the only question is mercury or the nasties found in LED's, since the LED tube is made of plastic it is less likely to release the nasties which are worse than the fluorescent nasties, but it depends on how the waste is dealt with.

Most my waste is collected by the council, there are places to put batteries and light bulbs tubes etc. If I travel 16 miles to the collection site, but how many will do that, battery, light bulbs, tubes etc, end up in general rubbish. The outlets who sell them, should also deal with failed returns, I tried it with Wicks when I got my last 65 watt tube, and they would not take it, so never tried again.

 

[SUNRAY]

Have you never come across an advert that lies?

The 58 watt tube is meant to work with the same ballast as the 65 watt. Indeed the later ballasts were labelled as suitable for both. I suggest you were unlucky and a sample of one is meaningless.

I will confirm the short life of 58W tubes running on OLD 65W chokes, I'll even go as far as saying when retubing an area we've noticed the difference between chokes and ballasts. the same is true for 36w & 40W ballasts but to a lesser extent.

And before anyone gets pedantic yes I know they are the same thing but originally they were always called chokes then quickstart ballasts appeared (which will not operate slim tubes) then the term choke faded away.