...
首页> 外文期刊>International journal of thermal & environmental engineering >A Comparative of Energy Efficiency of Luminaries for General Lighting for a Residential Building: CFL vs LED
【24h】

A Comparative of Energy Efficiency of Luminaries for General Lighting for a Residential Building: CFL vs LED

机译:住宅普通照明用灯具的能源效率比较:CFL与LED

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

This paper presents comparison study between two types of lighting technologies; the compact fluorescent lighting (CFL) and light emitting diode (LED) luminaries for home general lighting usage. This study includes all parts of the luminaries that include the lamp itself and the housing. An experimental test was done to verify the luminance produced by the two technologies. The generated energy of the two technologies was compared by using DIALUX software under the same lumen flux. Furthermore, the associated cost is also evaluated over the stipulated operational period which shows the most advantages of the LED technology over CFL although the initial capital cost for LED is 22% higher than CFL. However, this increment can be equalized by a short payback period of nearly 18 months for the case. This comparison shows that the LED luminaries have the advantages of a significant reduction in the environmental impact, i.e. reduction of 41-50% of greenhouse gas emission and energy demand, mainly due to lower energy utilization and substantial reduction of 60-78% in electrical consumption.
机译:本文介绍了两种照明技术之间的比较研究。用于家用普通照明的紧凑型荧光灯(CFL)和发光二极管(LED)照明器。这项研究包括灯具的所有部分,包括灯本身和外壳。进行了实验测试,以验证这两种技术产生的亮度。使用DIALUX软件在相同的流明通量下比较了两种技术的产生能量。此外,尽管在最初的运营成本上比CFL高出22%,但在规定的运营期内也评估了相关成本,这显示了LED技术相对于CFL的最大优势。但是,对于这种情况,可以通过将近18个月的较短投资回收期来使此增量相等。该比较表明,LED灯具具有以下优势:大大降低了对环境的影响,即减少了41-50%的温室气体排放和能源需求,这主要是由于能源利用率降低以及电费大幅减少了60-78%消费。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号