1

BEE - S & L Program – Distribution Transformers & Fluorescent Tube Lamps

PRESENTED AT THE WORKSHOP

ON

“ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS & LABELING”

BANGALORE – 13, 14 OCTOBER, 2004Shri. S. Ramaswamy, GTZ

2

Distribution Transformers

• S & L Program

3

Technical Committee

Mr. K. Venkata Narayana : CPDCAP

Mr. P.N. Gopinath : NDPL

Mr. Tirupathi : TNEB  

Mr. Alok Kr. Chattopadhyay : WBSEB  

Mrs. Rajani Menon : E.R.D.A.  

Mr. Vijay Kolambekar : E.R.D.A.  

Mr. A.B. Bhatia : Crompton Greaves Ltd  

Mr. D.J. Ramesh : Vijai Electricals Ltd  

Mr. Nitin Nayak : El-Tra Equipment Co.  

Mr. K.V.S.S.R. Venugopal : ABB Ltd.  

Mr. Manoj Mishra : ABB Ltd.  

Mr. Y.S. Shingne : Danke Products  

Dr. H.M. Gupta : IIT, Roorkee  

Mr. Mayur Karmarkar : ICPCI  

Mr. Avinash Barve : IEEMA  

Mr. S. Ramaswamy : BEE  

CONSUMERS

Testing Institution

Manufacturers

4

Technical Committee: Responsibilities

– Identify technical parameters

– Study & validate test procedures for adoption

– Define criteria for Laboratories (NABL)

– Identify & recommend Laboratories for testing ?

– Decide on label rating plan ?

– Decide parameters on label ?

– Design label

– Decide on enforcement mechanism and work out protocol

– Carry out economic analysis for MEPS

– Recommend MEPS

5

Recommendation

• Reduce temperature rise limits• Due to frequent overloading in service, life

deteriorates.

• Contributes to poor reliability.

• The current temperature rise limits 50/550C over the ambient of 500C of top oil and winding respectively.

• Temperature rise limits revised to 35/400C over the ambient of 500C of top oil and winding respectively.

• Implication on cost average of 3%.• Similar changes helped GEB to reduce failure rate

from 27% to 20%.

6

Basis for Star rating plan

Case Basis of losses (Total at 50% Load Condition)

Base case Star 1 Current purchasing practice (IS 1180 Max Losses)

Star 2 Some utility purchase specs like AP, NDPL

Star 3 Losses from TOC design (Moderate)

Star 4 Losses from lowest TOC design

Star 5 High efficiency design

7

X axis is PU Load & Y axis price in Rs.

Optimum eff Vs cost for various designs - 100 kVA

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

8

Star 3 -100 kVA

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

120% 115% 110% 105% 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5%

Loading

Tota

l Los

ses

at re

spec

tive

load

in W

atts M3Al

M4Cu

M3Cu

M5Cu

ZDMHCu

ZDMHAl

AMTCu

AMTAl

Limits at 100% load

9

Recommendation

• Star rating plan– The star rating represents the loss level and will

represent the efficiency status.– Star 1 is current IS level and Star 5 will be

lowest loss specifications.– Star rating will represent total losses at 50% &

100% loads and at 750C.

10

Recommendation

kVA Star Rating

Max Losses at 50% (Watts)

Max Losses at 100% (watts)

16 1 200 555

  2 165 520

  3 150 480

  4 135 440

  5 120 400

       

25 1 290 785

  2 235 740

  3 210 695

  4 185 655

  5 160 615

       

11

Recommendation – 3

kVA Star Rating

Max Losses at 50% (Watts)

Max Losses at 100% (watts)

63 1 490 1415

  2 430 1335

  3 380 1250

  4 330 1170

  5 280 1100

       

100 1 700 2020

  2 610 1910

  3 520 1800

  4 440 1700

  5 360 1600

12

Recommendation – 3

kVA Star Rating

Max Losses at 50% (Watts)

Max Losses at 100% (watts)

       

160 1 1000 2800

  2 880 2550

  3 770 2200

  4 670 1950

  5 570 1700

       

200 1 1130 3300

  2 1010 3000

  3 890 2700

  4 780 2400

  5 670 2100

13

0.9650

0.9700

0.9750

0.9800

0.9850

0.9900

0.9950

16 25 63 100

kVA

%

IS - 100%

BEE 100%

IS 50

BEE - 50

Existing & Proposed efficiency levels

14

Comparison with international standards 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 100 200 300 400 500kVA

Loss

es @

50%

Loa

d (W

atts

)

Canadian StandardsAssociation C802.1-00

National Standads ofChina GB/T 6451 - 1999

EU HD 428

Australian Standards AS2374.1.2 Part XX (MEPS)

Australian Standards AS2374.1.2 Part XX (HighEfficiency)

NEMA TP-1 2002

Proposed MEPS (BEE)

15

Impact of star 3 on cost & material

kVA Star 1 Star 3

Design Material

Ex-works price (Rs)

Design Material

Ex-works price (Rs)

25 M6Al 18,382 M3Al/M4Cu 20,941

63 M5Al 32,904 M3Al/M4Cu 41,400

100 M6Al 47,149 M3Al/M4Cu 60,236

160 M4Al 68,100 M3Al/M4Cu 85,572

200 M4Al 82,182 M3Al/M4Cu 102,164

16

PAY BACK PERIOD

Pay-back Period for 100 kVA

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

AM

TC

u

M3

Cu

ZD

MH

Cu

M3

Al

ZD

MH

Al

M4

Cu

M5

Cu

AM

TC

u

AM

TA

l

ZD

MH

Cu

M3

Cu

ZD

MH

Al

AM

TC

u

AM

TA

l

ZD

MH

Cu

Star 3 Star 3 Star 3 Star 3 Star 3 Star 3 Star 3 Star 4 Star 4 Star 4 Star 4 Star 4 Star 5 Star 5 Star 5

Yea

rs

Pay Back Period at 30% Load Pay Back Period at 50% Load Pay Back Period at 100% Load

STAR - 3 LEVEL

17

Energy saving potential in 1st year

Transformer

size(kVA)

% Of Total Sale

upto 200kVA

Purchases

Annual Sales (MVA)

Average No Load Losses

(W)

Average Load

Losses (W)

Effective Load

Factor

Annual Energy Losses (kWH)

Annual Loss per

kVA (kWh)

Annual loss

(Million kWh)

Energy Saving in 1st Year (Million kWh)

25 6% 863 86 620 0.5 1808 72.30 62.3963 25% 3760 173 1180 0.5 3510 55.71 209.49

100 44% 6667 250 1710 0.5 5081 50.81 338.77160 3% 398 395 2370 0.5 7406 46.29 18.42200 14% 525 425 2960 0.5 8738 43.69 22.94

652.01

25 6% 863 66 571 0.5 1566 62.63 54.05 8.3563 25% 3760 141 951 0.5 2841 45.09 169.54 39.95

100 44% 6667 218 1201 0.5 3887 38.87 259.14 79.63160 3% 398 259 2035 0.5 5758 35.99 14.32 4.10200 14% 525 311 2304 0.5 6653 33.26 17.46 5.47

514.51 137.50

25 6% 863 75 335 0.5 1191 47.63 41.10 21.2963 25% 3760 114 659 0.5 2091 33.18 124.77 84.71

100 44% 6667 157 804 0.5 2685 26.85 179.01 159.76160 3% 398 229 1359 0.5 4266 26.66 10.61 7.81200 14% 525 283 1542 0.5 5014 25.07 13.16 9.77

368.65 283.35Total

Purchases of year

2001-2002

Conservation case with Star

3

Conservation case with Star

5

Total

Total

18

Recommendation

• Energy efficiency labels– Manufacturers would conduct the test as per the

approved procedure register with BEE & display label on the transformer.

– Label will display rated capacity, star rating and maximum total losses at 50% and 100% loads.

– No positive tolerance on the displayed label value.

19

Sample DT label

20

Recommendation – 5

• Utility purchases– Utility to improve MEPS from star 1(IS-1180)

to Min star 3.

21

Fluorescent Tube Lights

• S & L Program

22

Lighting industry in India

• Total lighting market : Rs. 18,000 M ; Growth : 12% p.a.

• Lamps : Rs. 10,800 M : Growth : 10% p.a.– GLS : Rs. 4,500 M (435 M units) ; Growth : 5% p.a.

– Tube lights : Rs. 4,200 M (136 M units) ; Growth : 10% p.a.

– HID : Rs. 1650 M ( 4 M units) ; Growth : 20% p.a.

– CFL : Rs. 450 M ( 1 M units) ; Growth : 15% p.a.

• Luminaires : Rs. 7,200 M ; Growth : 15% p.a.

(Ballasts, fixtures & accessories)• Unorganised sector accounts for 35% of the total lighting market (value

terms)

– Around 440 unorganised players

– Around 20 organised players

• Lighting accounts for 17% of total electricity consumed in India

23

•Work on BEE S & L programme on FTL was initiated on 08 September 2002.

•ELCOMA was requested to spearhead the BEE S & L Programme.

•T-8 ( 36W ) & T-5 ( 28 watt ) Triband offers lumen efficacy of 85 lumen per watt

VISION OF S & L PROGRAMME

• Lighting industry should strive to improve lumen efficacy of over 70 lumens per watt in about 5 years time.

24

In order to create market pull, the government could buy only star rated products, i.e. the highest energy efficiency products.

 The standards should be futuristic since there is also a time frame required for phasing out old products and introduction of efficient products. A time frame of 2-3 years was suggested.

Labeling would be the first activity to be taken up in these products.

VISION OF S & L PROGRAMME( CONTINUED)

25

MEETINGS

 

In first meeting of steering committee held on 27 September 2002, it was decided to form a Technical Committee having following compositions: Mr. R.Nandakishore – convener, Philips India LimitedMr. R.S.Mandal, Osram India Private LimitedMr. S.K.Neogi, Phoenix Lamps India LimitedMr. S.Ramasubramanian, Surya Roshni LimitedMr. Ramaswamy, BEE

26

The task of Technical Committee is to finalise:

 a.      Testing protocol

b. Technical parameters along with weightages for labeling

c.       Label design

d.      Test laboratories

e. Challenge & Check testing protocol.

Tasks of Technical Committee

27

FTL Technical Committee Recommendations

•For energy labeling 3 parameters should be considered which would provide efficacy from both efficiency as well as life:

 Lumens at 100 hrs.(initial lumens) Lumen/watt Lumen depreciation @ 2000 hours Lumen/wattLumen depreciation @ 70 % life (3500) hours Lumen/watt.  

•Test Procedure: relevant BIS test procedures including amendments

  • meet all the minimum requirements of BIS to qualify for labelling

• BIS certification or a quality control certification, a prequalification for labelling

28

 

•For 18W we have considered 940 lumens in place of 1015 lumens in BIS since this has been agreed in the last meeting of the BIS.

 

•Based on the visit of the technical team to the four Laboratories, the recommendations of the technical committee is to go for testing at NPL & ERDA after ascertaining Proficiency testing in both the Laboratories. Accreditation of NPL with NABL is under process.

 

•The 3200 lumen output lamps (Triband) was also included for testing and BIS has also agreed to go in for the standards in the last meeting

FTL Technical Committee Recommendations ( Continued)

29

• 10 lamps were tested at manufacturers laboratory as well as ERDA to get comparative readings/calibration before full scale testing begins (Proficiency Testing).

•There were certain differences in the optical measurements in the three laboratories but these are with in the z score of proficiency testing.

•Since the measurements are against a standard reference lamp, it was felt necessary to ensure the quality of reference lamp. BEE to take up with NPL

The lighting industry had agreed to align with ERDA laboratory

FTL Technical Committee Recommendations ( Continued)

30

Revised Star rating Plan ( This would need another meeting with stakeholders)

Star levels

100 hrs efficacy Lumens/W

2000 hrs efficacy Lumens/W

3500 hrs

efficacy

Lumens/W

1 >47 & < 54 >40 & =<46 >38 & =<43

2 >54 & = <60 >46 & = <51 >43 & = <48

3 >60 & = <69 >51 & = <59 >48 & = <55

4 >69 & = < 85 >59 & = < 72 >55 & = < 68

5 > 85 > 72 > 68

31

Basis

• Values for the 100 hours efficacy was worked out taking into consideration that all Wattages and their energy efficacy is reflected the star rating plan.

• The values of IS with permissible tolerances for different wattages were used to arrive at the boundaries.

• Efforts were made to differentiate 20 W & 18 W, 40 W & 36 W and halo phosphates and Tri phosphates

• Star rating plan would ensure efficiency purchases.

• The cut off % for these categories have been fixed in such a way the categories of lamps operating with good quality control as well as above the minimum threshold would fall in the appropriate levels.

32

Energy Label

33

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONMEPS – CURRENT INDIAN STANDARD

Lamp type Minimum average lamp efficacy (lm/W)

India ( Lamp only)

India ( Lamp &

ballast)

Australia Canada USA Korea

600mm - 20 W 51 36 70 64 64 55

600 mm - 18W 56 42

600 mm - 18 W HL 72 59

1200mm - 40 W 61 47 75 75 75 66

1200 mm – 36 W 67 51

1200 mm - 36 W HL 90 81

MEPS ALSO TALKS OF LUMEN MAINTANANCE AT 70% OF LIFE

34

Thank you!!!