Side-by-Side Comparison of Lighting Ballast Cuts Energy Costs

Online, June 26, 2010 (Newswire.com) - A plant engineer recently reduced energy costs by performing a side-to-side comparison of different lighting ballast units using a Fluke 43B Power Quality Analyzer. The engineer compared measured the actual performance of different manufacturers' products under actual conditions, making it easy to select the most cost-effective approach.

In most facilities, lighting is a major element of operating cost. Part of that cost is due to energy, and part is due to maintenance. The maintenance costs can be significant. Light fixtures require periodic maintenance -- for example, lamps burn out, ballasts fail and lenses need cleaning. The amount of maintenance required varies with the age and design of the lighting fixtures. The logistics of that maintenance (e.g., needing a personnel lift for high ceiling areas) can magnify "typical" cost estimates by an order of magnitude. It is sometimes cost-effective to replace an entire system with a more efficient one. In the case described here, the owner decided to replace the entire system.

While reducing the maintenance costs was the driving force in obtaining a replacement system, reducing energy costs was the driving force in selecting a replacement system. Determining the actual reduction in energy consumption required significant research. The research was difficult, because there was no common platform for comparing the widely varying performance claims from competing suppliers. Sometimes, critical specs were missing altogether.

The plant engineer decided to compare various units side-by-side, in the field. He began by asking each supplier to submit a sample for evaluation. Next, he worked on determining what to measure and how to make the measurements. The final measurement criteria included measurements of power consumption, power factor, displacement power factor and harmonic spectrum. Power consumption and displacement power factor would translate directly to operating cost. Harmonic distortion was of interest, because the plant engineer knew that high levels of harmonic current could cause problems for transformers, circuit breakers and other parts of the electrical distribution system.

To make these measurements easy, the plant engineer chose the Fluke 43B. The electrical team recorded the data in a matrix table and were able to make comparisons of all the key electrical factors on a level playing field. This allowed them to select the most cost-effective approach.

While each manufacturer bases its performance claims on a specified set of operating conditions, the conditions vary between manufacturers and the conditions differ from actual applications. As this comparison showed, when trying to make economic decisions on lighting or other electrical applications, measuring actual performance under actual conditions - with the right test equipment - is a sure way to arrive at the best decision.

For more information about the Fluke 43B, visit http://us.fluke.com/fluke/usen/Power-Quality-Tools/Single-Phase/Fluke-43B.htm?PID=56080.