Lighting technology comparison...

[NM_Shooter]

I've been pondering what the most efficient and cost effective light source might be for my cabin.  I found some interesting data ( I borrowed this from Wikipedia, so blame them if not correct). 

I've been wondering about this for awhile.  I was actually leaning towards halogen spots over CFTs running at 120V, as my theory was that I could get by with much smaller halogens as I could direct the light exactly where I wanted, rather than let the CFTs radiate in an omnidirectional way.  Don pointed out that I could place reflective fixtures to also radiate the CFTs in a more specific direction. 

I thought about LEDs too, but they are just too expensive for me.  And in looking at the chart below, they may not give you an edge over the fluorescents.  Definitely not when you take into account cost.  Anyway, check out the chart below.  I suspect that I will be using flourescent in the cabin.  Unless I decide to light my cabin with a 1400W sulfur lamp and distribute the light with fiber optics.  Not sure how cost effective that might be.

Bon apetit!

-f-

Combustion candle  0.04%
gas mantle 0.3%

Incandescent 5 W tungsten incandescent (120 V)  0.7%
40 W tungsten incandescent (120 V)  1.9%
100 W tungsten incandescent (120 V)  2.5%
100 W tungsten incandescent (220 V)  2.0%
100 W tungsten glass halogen (220 V)  2.4%
2.6 W tungsten glass halogen (5.2 V)  2.8%

quartz halogen (12–24 V)  3.5%
high-temperature incandescent  5.1%

Fluorescent 5–24 W compact fluorescent  6.6%–8.8%

34 W fluorescent tube (T12)  7%
32 W fluorescent tube (T8) 9%
36 W fluorescent tube (T8) up to 14%
28 W fluorescent tube (T5)  15.2%

Light-emitting diode white LED  1.5 to 13%
white LED (unreliable prototypes)  up to 22%

Arc lamp xenon arc lamp 4.4%–7.3%
mercury-xenon arc lamp  7.3%–8.0%
Gas discharge high pressure sodium lamp  22%
low pressure sodium lamp  27%
1400 W sulfur lamp 15%
Theoretical maximum  100%

[MountainDon]

Oh Frank! Numbers! I love 'em!  Interesting stuff there.

Look at the performance of some of those T5 & T8 tubes,
36 W fluorescent tube (T8) up to 14%
28 W fluorescent tube (T5)  15.2%
Does that take the ballast performance into account as well, I hope?

Something spectacular has to happen in LED manufacturing technology to make them a viable alternative.

Just so anyone who's interested is aware; when talking FL and CFL lights it's the ballast that is designed for different voltages, 12 VDC, 24 VDC, 120 VAC, etc. The light emitting tubes are the same. So you can modify any fluorescent fixture that has a separate ballast to run on 12 or 24 VDC as long as you can find a suitable ballast. One source is Solarseller
  Iota is one of the specialty manufacturers.

[Willy]

I have been using high pressure sodium lamps (22%) for allmost 20 years now for outside and lighting in the higher/bigger buildings.  I have 2-400 W HPS aimable lights outside at my home one on a 30 ft pole plus a 70 W HPS and the other 400W mounted off the roof shining twords the street on the lake and pasture. I have a 150 W HPS aimed at the big barn off the house and one on the barn with two 400 W HPS High Bay lights in the big barn. All are on either there own time clock/photo cell switches and over ride switches. It is nice to have light when you need it and a switch when you don't. Mark H.

[NM_Shooter]

If I had to guess, I would guess that the efficiencies do not take into account ballasts.  I'll do a little research and try to find out.

[Willy]

If I had to guess, I would guess that the efficiencies do not take into account ballasts.  I'll do a little research and try to find out.

You do need to watch the ballasts on the HPS fixtures. There are 2 types Low Power Factor and High Power Factor.
     The efficiency and the closely related energy savings, ambient temperature handling capability and reliability can be considered as a crucial factor according to the practical application of ballasts. Therefore the following sub-classification of ballasts with respect to the efficiency may be justified:

1. Conventional (core & coil)
• low efficient (< 80% )
• high efficient (> 85%)
2. Electronic

• very low efficient ( < 85% )
• low efficient (85% - 90% )
• high efficient( 90% - 93% )
• very high efficient( > 93% )
The average temperature inside an electronic ballast (this is a very global approach, separate temperature measurments are recommended for crucial components) depends on the external ambient temperature (which can be high as 50°C for industrial HID applications) and the temperature rise which is directly related to the power loss of the ballast. Therefore the efficiency of an electronic ballast for HID lamps (especially at high lamp power range) can be a crucial limitation factor according to the applications.

4. Power Factor. High power factor ballast are recommended especially in the high power range(> 150W).

High power factor: PF > 90%
Low power factor: PF < 90%
Low power factor equipments can result an increased harmonic distortion and effective value of the current in the power line. On the other side an extra unit (power factor preregulator) is required decreasing the efficiency and reliability. The cost of ballast can be approximately increased by 30%.

Mark