You are on page 1of 65

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING

DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION OF SOLAR LANTERN

AUTHOR SUPERVISOR DATE

TABREZ MANSOORALI DAYA DR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS SEPTEMBER, 2010

Project thesis submitted in part fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Electrical Technology for Sustainable and Renewable Energy Systems, The University of Nottingham

Abstract
In Kenya, 80% of the population live in rural areas with no access to electricity from the grid, hence they resort to kerosene based lanterns that pose considerable health hazards, from fires to respiratory illness. While cheap to purchase, they are very expensive in the long run and are subject to unsteady price fluctuations. This has given rise to the development of solar lanterns, with their benefit of utilizing energy from the sun, a clean and renewable form of energy that is free to harness in abundant amounts. The main problem with many solar lanterns is their high purchase costs due to the expense of batteries and solar panels, even though their benefit is one that can be seen in the long term. One such solar lantern is the Glowstar Solar Lantern (GSL). This thesis presents a changed GSL design that performs almost the same as the normal model but is cheaper and smaller in design. Replacing the CFL lamp with a lower wattage LED lamp led to a smaller battery capacity required to run the LED. This in turn meant that the size of the PV panel reduced and so did the cost. While the discharge and charge characteristics of the simulations portrayed a working new design, the attempt to obtain a 360 degree light by the LED (which is comparable to the CFL) was considered unsuccessful due to the experimental procedure being very error prone. The system utilized a reflector (foil) in a shape of a half sphere (rounded) to direct the light in a 360 degree pattern. However, the reflective material surface was not smooth and so light did not reflect in the direction that was aimed at. Several other reflector configurations were tested such as conical and flat reflectors, however, the rounded reflector portrayed the best results. While not being comparable to the CFL in terms of spread of light, the new model was far better than a paraffin lamp which was tested as well, indicating the better performance of the new model GSL. All in all, the new model GSL was cheaper than the current GSL model GS7 and had better long term benefit as well in terms of financial saving. Also, the life cycle analysis of the system proved that making the new model lantern used less energy and produced less carbon dioxide, hence a more environmental friendly option.

i

Acknowledgement
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my personal supervisor, Dr. Arthur Williams, for allowing me the freedom to pick the project title and having faith in my ability to undertake this project. I am grateful for his guidance and helpful suggestions, which were fundamental in aiding me to accomplish this thesis. Further acknowledgement should also be given to my peers and friends whose valuable input to my work is very much appreciated. Special gratitude must go to Chris White at the University of Cambridge for his generous time and knowledge that shed light on important aspects of my project. Finally I would like to thank my immediate family for their great mental support during trying times. Their emotional support has been fundamental in keeping me focused on my goals and objectives.

ii

Table of Contents
Title List of Figures ..................................................................................... List of Tables ....................................................................................... 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... Page iv v 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 14 14 22 22 24

1.1 Glowstar Solar Lantern (GSL) …………………………… 2.0 3.0 AIM AND OBJECTIVES ………………………………………. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................

3.1 Light Sources........................................................................ 3.1.1 Incandescent Lamps …………………………………... 3.1.2 CFL Lamps …………………………………………………. 3.1.3 LED Lamps………………………………………………….. 3.2 Light source Characteristics........................................... 3.2.1 Luminous Efficacy……………………………………….. 3.2.2 CRI and Colour Temperature ……………………….. 3.3 Rechargeable (Secondary) Batteries .......................... 3.3.1 Lead Acid Battery Vs. NiCd Battery...................... 3.3.2 NiMh Battery and Other Battery types ............... 3.4 Solar Cells (Photovoltaic Cells) ………………………….. 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................

4.1 PART 1: LED Vs. CFL …………………………………………..... 4.2 PART 2: Solar Powered Battery System ...........................
iii

4.2.1 Sizing the Battery ......................................................... 4.2.2 Sizing the PV Panel ....................................................... 5.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ..................................................

25 27 31 31 35 41 46 47 48 52

5.1 PART 1: LED Vs. CFL …………………………………………..... 5.2 PART 2: Solar Powered Battery System ........................... 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS ……………………………………… COST .......................................................................................... CONCLUSION …………………………………………………….. REFERENCES ..........................................................................

10.0 APPENDIX ……........................................................................

iv

List of Figures
TITLE
    Figure 1: Physical properties of an incandescent light bulb Figure 2: Physical properties of a CFL Lamp Figure 3: Physical makeup of an LED Figure 4: Volumetric and gravimetric energy density comparisons of different types of rechargeable batteries (each battery type has its own sub-divisions or sub-types, hence the regions of energy densities) Figure 5: lIlustration of the charging of a secondary cell battery Figure 6: Charge/discharge curve for a general rechargeable battery Figure 7: Cross sectional layout of the physical make-up of a NiCd battery. Figure 8: Available capacity of the NiCd battery at different temperatures Figure 9: Typical charge/discharge characteristics of various secondary battery systems of equal weight discharging under the same conditions Figure 10: Discharge characteristics of affected (red) and non-affected (blue) cells Figure 11: Basic components that make-up a PV cell Figure 12: Behaviour of light shining on a PV cell. Figure 13: PV module and array formation from PV cells Figure 14: General circuit representation of a solar cell Figure 15: Cell model with double the Isc and two diodes Figure 16: I-V characteristics of a PV panel Figure 17: PV output power characteristics Figure 18: Bias points for various load resistances Figure 19: Electrical Characteristics of the SQ150 at Standard Test Conditions (STC) Figure 20: Temperature Coefficients of the SQ150 Figure 21: IV curve of the SQ150 at various irradiance levels Figure 22: I-V curve of the SQ150 at various cell temperature Figure 23: Equipment setup to determine difference between light characteristics of CFL and LED lamps: (a) Block diagram (b) Digital, real picture. Figure 24: Equipment setup with the straight reflector configuration (the tape roll was used as a weight to keep
v

PAGE
4 5 6 9

    

9 10 11 12 12

             

13 14 15 16 16 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 22

23

    

  

       

the board/reflector straight). Figure 25: Reflector (conical) mounted above the LED light. Figure 26: The three reflector configurations: straight (left), conical (middle) and rounded (right) Figure 27: Block diagram of battery charging system Figure 28: Battery model and characteristics of Simulink NiCd Battery Figure 29: Mask layout for the NiCd battery as obtained from MATLAB Simulink with the function block representing the characteristic inputs to determine the voltage Figure 30: Discharge Characteristics of the 12V, 2.4Ahr NiCd Battery as simulated in MATLAB Simulink (E0 = Constant Voltage in V, K = Polarisation Voltage in V, R = Battery's Internal Resistance in ohms, A = Exponential Voltage in V and B = Exponential Capacity in Ahr-1) Figure 31: NiCd battery as built on PSim using the mask layout of the battery model in Simulink, with the characteristic inputs to determine battery voltage. Figure 32: Circuit to measure the discharge characteristics of the battery when connected to an LED (constant current source) that draws 0.25A. Figure 33: Circuit in PSim to determine the characteristics of the solar panel I-V and P-V curves Figure 34: PV panel simulation model characteristics Figure 35: NiCd battery connected to the 5W solar panel to determine the voltage (VP1) across the battery as SOC varies so as to establish the NiCd charge curve Figure 36: Graph to depict the spread of light of the 1.5W LED Lamp with different reflector configurations Figure 37: Graph to depict the spread of light of the 3W LED Lamp with different reflector configurations Figure 38: Graph to compare the spread of light of the 3W, 1.5W LED Lamp with rounded reflector and 7W CFL lamp Figure 39: Graphical representation to show the spread of light of CFL, LED and paraffin lamp types Figure 40: Illustration of light getting reflected by an uneven surface (the bump is the crease in the foil) Figure 41: Characteristic I-V and P-V graphs for the 5W solar module for both 1000W/ m2 and 381 W/ m2 insolation inputs Figure 42: Graph simulated in MATLAB Simulink to determine the charging pattern of the NiCd battery Figure 43: Graph simulated in MATLAB Simulink to determine the discharging pattern of the NiCd battery at 0.2C
vi

24 24 25 25 26

26

27

27

29 29 30

31 32 33 34 35 37 38 39

  

Figure 44: Block diagram of the solar lantern life cycle assessment (a) solar model (b) generic LCA process Figure 45: LCA results for the new model and GS7 models (a) Energy input (b) GWP Figure 46: Amount of LED chip manufacturers by year

41 45 47

List of Tables
TITLE
  Table 1: Characteristics of CFL versus LED lamps Table 2: Table of luminous flux data collected from experimentation with the 1.5W LED lamp (using different reflector configurations) at varying distances from the lamp Table 3: Table of luminous flux data collected from experimentation with the 3W LED lamp (using different reflector configurations) at varying distances from the lamp Table 4: Table to show an overview of the varying luminous flux and efficacies of the different lamps and their respective reflector configurations. Table 5: Current, Voltage and Power results for the 5W solar module, Table 1(a) used 1000W/ m2, while table 1b (right) used 381W/ m2 in simulating the results. Table 6: Breakdown in costs to compare the GS7 and new solar lantern model

PAGE
7 31

32

34

36

46

vii

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Advances in science and technology have made the running of our daily lives easier and more efficient, but consequently, resulted in the rise of several complications, the nature of which are mainly environmental. One such complication is the energy crisis the world is currently experiencing due to the vast reliance on and usage of fossil fuels. As a result, fossil fuel levels have dropped drastically over the last few decades, consequently increasing fuel prices, hence the need and research on renewable energy sources. One such energy which is at the forefront of research and development is solar energy, with its low pollution and thus low environmental impacts, as well as its availability in abundant amounts. In Africa, most rural households (approximately 81%) do not have access to the grid supply [1]. As a result, most activities (social, academic or financial) that residents undertake are done during day time. Lighting at night is provided by dry cell battery run torches or kerosene lamps [1]. Torch bulbs provide unidirectional light, covering a small area, which is not useful if one wants to work in a wider area. Torch batteries also have a short life span and are expensive to replace. Kerosene lamps on the other hand provide a much better lighting circumference but since the lighting is dimmer [2], require one to strain their eyes so are not good for one's eyes in the long term, hence causing potential health problems. They are run on kerosene which is expensive to buy and can pose a potential fire hazard if not handled properly. Also, the fumes produced by the burning of kerosene are a health hazard especially since rural homes are not properly ventilated and are congested and small, creating a 'hot box' effect. Most of the time students who return home have to help with house duties such as cooking or farming or help in family businesses such as making arts and craft ornaments for sale. By the time they complete their duties it is dark and so cannot continue with their studies, which inhibits their overall academic and professional growth [3], and bolstering poverty as a whole. The dim lighting or small radial focus is also not good as a security measure as snakes or other harmful creatures may still get into houses unnoticed and pose a potential hazard. Solar lanterns have been used as a prospective solution to all these problems. There are several models for solar lighting devices in the global market. One such device, developed by Practical Action Consulting (PAC) and its manufacturing partner Sollatek, is the Glowstar Solar Lantern (GSL). The GSL is a robust and cost effective (in the long term) substitute for the kerosene lamps as it only involves a onetime equipment purchasing cost. It is a multipurpose unit that can be charged by renewable means (solar panels), cutting the cost of constant battery replacement or purchase of kerosene fuel. When charged, the lantern's auxiliary power output can be used to power small systems such as a small radio, hence the multipurpose aspect to its operation or use [4].
1

1.1 Glowstar Solar Lantern (GSL). Weighing at around 3.3kg and accepting a charge input of 12V, the GSL is composed primarily of a battery, light source and body. The outer body is moulded from tough glass-filled polypropylene while the lamp diffuser is made from clear and scratch resistant Acrylic and this is illustrated by the figure in appendix 1[4]. The light source used is a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) that can have ratings of 5W, 7W or 9W. The CFL is preferred to incandescent bulbs as they are more efficient and have a much longer lifespan, 7500 to 10000 hours for a CFL as opposed to 750 to 1000 hours for an incandescent bulb [5]. The battery used is a sealed lead acid rechargeable battery. This battery consists of lead plates and an electrolyte with a diluted acid and operates by converting electrical energy from the charging input (solar panel in this case) to stored chemical energy and then back to electrical energy for the output (lighting up the lamp). The rating of the battery currently used is 6.5Ahr which is a measure of the battery storage capacity or the amount of usable energy it can store at a nominal voltage [6]. In terms of power, the 6.5Ahr battery produces about 78Whr of power which is equal to 280.8kJ of energy. Assuming a 7W lamp, the battery should be able to power the lamp for 11 hours in an ideal condition (practical tests by PAC showed 8 hours of battery life). The battery can be recharged by the solar panel or even using power from the connected grid. The main problem with the GSL is that it costs around 10,500 Kenyan Shillings (Ksh) which is approximately equivalent to $150 US (@ Ksh 70 per $1 US) [7]. According to data from UNICEF (up to 2007), 20% of Kenya's population is below the international poverty line of $1.25 US per day [8]. This would mean that to purchase the GSL it would cost 120 days worth of income, a cost that is too high for the average person to afford, even if it is a onetime investment. According to a study conducted by Humboldt State University, it costs $0.25 US to light up a lantern a day, which is approximately 20% of the income of a family per day. This would mean in 120 days, $30 US will have been spent and $150 US worth of kerosene in 600 days. So buying the GSL set would cost 600 days worth of kerosene which is a very steep price to pay, hence the need to reduce the cost of the GSL system.

2

2.0

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

Aim: To determine the specifications and design for a next generation solar lantern model that would better address the need for rural lighting in terms of cost and functionality in Kenya, and Africa as a whole. Objectives: To reduce the price of the solar lantern requires the replacing of expensive components with cheaper and more efficient components. To achieve this, the following objectives would have to be met: 1. Make an assessment of the current lamp design in terms of its operation and cost. 2. Design an appropriate layout for the implementation and direct replacement of the compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) with light emitting diodes (LED). 3. Make a prediction of where LED technology may be heading to in the future using past and present financial and technological trends. 4. Ascertain an appropriate design to replace the lead acid battery with a NiCd battery taking into account individual characteristics of the battery and behavior when charged by solar panels. 5. Determine appropriate power electronics that would be required to improve the charging efficiency of the battery. 6. Choose an appropriate solar panel to maximise efficiency and minimise cost of overall system. 7. Determine the marketability of the new model solar lantern in terms of feasibility and appropriateness to rural situations and lifestyles.

3

3.0

LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Light Sources There are many types of light sources available in the market such as compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), light emitting diodes (LED) and the common incandescent lamp. Individual characteristics and differentiation between the aforementioned types will be made in the next three sub-sections. 3.1.1 Incandescent Lamps

The incandescent lamp, one of the earliest known battery types, operates on the principle that providing energy (electric) to a metal will cause its temperature to rise and at a point give off light. The physical makeup of the incandescent lamp can be seen in the figure below:

Figure 1: Physical properties of an incandescent light bulb [9]. In this case the filament is the metal that gets heated by electricity and produces light. Incandescent bulbs have the advantage of providing light to large area and are also very cheap to purchase. The main drawback however, is that they are relatively inefficient. This means that a lot of the electrical energy is converted to heat as opposed to light and so more energy is required to satisfy a certain light requirement which means a much larger bulb, hence incandescent bulbs were not considered for use with the new GSL system. 3.1.2 CFL Lamps

CFL lamps operate on the principle whereby electricity is used to excite a vapor which in turn produces the light. For instance if mercury was used as a vapour, the electrons would collide with the atoms of mercury, resulting in the release of ultra violet (UV) light photons. The UV light is then converted to visible light when the UV

4

photons pass through a phosphorous coating in a glass tube. The general physical makeup of an incandescent lamp can be seen in the figure below:

Figure 2: Physical properties of a CFL Lamp [10]. CFL Lamps are more energy efficient than incandescent lamps and can directly replace them as the screw base sizes for both are the same. The main energy loss is during the conversion from electrical to visible light which is less than the direct conversion of electrical to visible light in an incandescent lamp. They also provide much better lighting be it directional or area lighting. The trade for this advantage comes with the slightly higher cost, but the advantage are significantly higher, hence their use in the current GSL system. One other important drawback is the mercury used in the lamp system, even though it is a small amount, as it can pose a health hazard and so disposal becomes an issue 3.1.3 LED Lamps

LED lamps use semiconductor light sources (LEDs) in their operation, such that when the LED lamp is switch on, the LED is in the forward biased mode and so holes and electrons recombine to yielding photons as a form of energy. The colour of the light emitted depends on the energy gap of the semiconductor material. The physical makeup of a typical LED can be portrayed by the figure below, with many LEDs being placed together to form an LED lamp.

5

Figure 3: Physical makeup of an LED [11]. The LED lamp is the most efficient of the mentioned light source types, meaning money can be saved on an electricity bill due to the requirement of lower power to produce the same amount of light as a CFL or incandescent lamp, or money can be saved on light replacement due to the greater life cycle of the LED lamp. One of the main drawbacks is its one directional lighting (low light dispersal for area lighting). This means that it is mainly used in applications such as torches and design has to be changed to allow for area lighting. The current purchase cost is another major con, but this is a temporary disadvantage as the technology for LED lamps is still immature. In time, as the technology gets more mature, the LED should replace CFL bulbs as they will get cheaper. These advantages are the main reason behind the research (in this thesis) in using LED bulbs as potential light source replacement of the CFL lamp currently used in the GSL lamps. LED technology is known to have an impact on any system in terms of the impact on power electronics. Inductive switching such as switch bouncing or sudden power cuts to the main circuit, can cause high inverted voltages at the LED terminals. This could be harmful to the LED component and so protection is needed from these inductive transients. An example of a protection scheme used is to clamp the supply voltage at an acceptable level. LED's are also known to have a low dynamic response resulting in fast input transients and hence high input peak currents. This could pose a serious problem for the LED and so fast input supply rejection capability must be a characteristic of the LED driver circuitry. All these additional circuitry and protection results in higher costs overall. 3.2 Light Source Characteristics Comparing the operations of different light sources requires comparisons of their luminous efficacy (measured in lumens per watt or lm/watt), colour rendering index
6

(CRI) and colour temperature. In this case comparisons will be made between CFL and LED light sources; one of the key areas focused on in this thesis. 3.2.1 Luminous Efficacy:

Luminous efficacy of a light source is its ability to produce a visual response from its power or in more mathematical terms, the ratio between the emitted luminous flux (measure of the perceived power of light in lumens) to the input electrical power [9]. When measuring two different light sources we determine how many watts it will take per light source to produce the same amount of luminous flux. Comparing the characteristics of a CFL and high power LED of the same model type (GU10) as an example, as evident in table 1:
POWER RATING (Watts per lamp) CFL LED 7 3 LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens per lamp) 160 240 LIFE SPAN (hours) 10000 50000 AVERAGE COST ($ US per lamp) 7.71 15

Table 1: Characteristics of CFL [13] versus LED [14] lamps. Ratio of LED to CFL in terms of lumens is 2(LED) : 3(CFL) which is equivalent to the ratio of 1 : 1.5. So in terms of lumens, to get the same effect of 1 LED lamp, one will require 1.5 CFL lamps, hence the LED lamp being better. Considering the purchase costs ratio of LED : CFL, taking into account the number of LEDs to provide the same number of CFL in terms of lumens, is $ US 15 : 11.57. Thus, it is $ US 3.43 more expensive to replace a CFL lamp with an LED lamp to provide the same amount of light (short term expense), but the difference in cost is not substantial compared to the price of the overall GSL system. However, looking at the replacement of the CFL with the LED with a long term point of view, the ratio of the life span of LED : CFL is 1 : 5. The cost ratio equivalent is therefore $ US 15 : 38.55, which implies a saving of $ US 23.55 in terms of lamp replacement cost. If it is assumed that one CFL lifetime is 1 year, then that would mean a $ US 23.55 saving would be made in 5 years, which equates to an annual saving of $ US 4.71. Thus, it would take approximately 0.73 years or 266 days, to payback the higher initial purchase cost of the LED compared to the CFL. Looking at the comparison in terms of saving power, it can be seen that 2 LED : 3 CFL has a power ratio of (2 x 3)W : (3 x 7)W = 6W : 21W = 2W : 7W. So, for the same lamp power, a saving of 56% in power (cost) is made by replacing the LED with the CFL. This is particularly useful if the lamp gets charged from the mains supply as it would save costs on electricity use to charge the battery. In terms of using renewable energy, a lower power requirement would imply that a lower power source rating would be required. This would mean that savings would be made on the battery side. Since the battery is charged by a solar panel, and now a lower rating battery is
7

needed, that would also mean a lower power (smaller) solar panel would be required to charge the battery, hence more savings on solar panel purchase as well. 3.2.2 CRI and Colour Temperature.

The CRI is a measure of how well a particular light source can reproduce the colours of objects when compared to an ideal light source and is measured out of 100 (which depicts a perfect or ideal reproduction of colour by the light source) [15]. Currently, both CFL and LED have comparable CRI of around 80 for the 7W light sources [13], [14]. This means that both sources can reproduce the colours of objects to about 80% as that from an ideal source. Colour temperature, measured in degrees Kelvin (K), is a measure of the temperature of a light source. It is derived from the black body radiation principal, whereby, when the black body gets increasingly hotter it changes colour from black to red to yellow to white and then blue [15]. When measuring the CRI of sources, the temperatures of both sources must be equal for a valid comparison. In the above comparison of CRI for both LED and CFL, both sources were considered to operate around 3000K. 3.3 Rechargeable (Secondary) Batteries

A rechargeable battery is a group of electrochemical cells (single vessels comprised of electrodes and electrolytes for current generation) whose electrochemical reactions are electrically reversible. The battery capacity of a rechargeable battery is measured in milliampere-hours (mAh), while the total capacity (C) is a measure of the total current a battery can supply in an hour. A total capacity of 1C implies CmA can be supplied for the duration of 1h, while a capacity of 2C implies the same current can be produced but in half the time (30 minutes). Batteries are also distinguished by their energy densities, which are of two main types. Gravimetric energy density is the measure of how much energy a battery contains with respect to its weight. Thus, a high gravimetric energy is representative of a lighter battery without sacrificing run time. Volumetric energy density is the measure of the energy a battery contains in comparison to its volume. Therefore, a high volumetric energy implies a much lower space occupied by a battery to produce the same energy output as a battery with lower volumetric energy density. Hence a desirable battery will will be one with a high volumetric and gravimetric energy density characteristic. Figure 1 epitomises the energy densities of different types of rechargeable batteries

8

Figure 4: Volumetric and gravimetric energy density comparisons of different types of rechargeable batteries (each battery type has its own sub-divisions or sub-types, hence the regions of energy densities) [16]. Another important characteristic of a battery is its charging. During charging the positive active material is oxidized to produce electrons, while the negative material is reduced which consumes electrons. This is shown in figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Illustration of the charging of a secondary cell battery. [17] In this case, a solar charger produces the energy needed to carry out the charging process and produce current flow from the cathode to anode. The general charge/discharge curve for a secondary battery is illustrated in figure 6 below.

9

Figure 6: Charge/discharge curve for a general rechargeable battery [18]. The mid-point voltage (MPV) or nominal voltage is the measured voltage when the battery has discharged half its total energy, with the maximum and minimum values of the MPV being important characteristics to consider when choosing a battery. The lower the range between the maximum and minimum, the flatter the discharge curve and so the battery will have to tolerate less voltage variation, hence better battery life and efficiency [18]. The end of discharge voltage (EODV) is the lowest voltage point that the battery voltage should fall to, implying a fully discharged battery. Should the voltage fall beyond the EODV, the battery will fall to 0V very quickly. Discharging batteries fully can cause serious damage to the battery and reduce life time significantly due to the occurrence of reverse charging. When a battery comprising of several cells is discharged, every cell has a different rate of discharge and so one of the cells will reach zero before the others. Further discharging after this point causes will cause the live cells to apply a reverse current to the dead cell reducing the life of the affected cell significantly, and the battery as a whole. In extreme cases, the battery may catch fire or emit smoke. There are several types of secondary batteries as depicted in figure 1 above, such as the nickel metal hydride (NiMh), lead acid (LA) and nickel cadmium (NiCd) batteries. The individual characteristics, advantages and disadvantages are explained in the following two subsections. 3.3.1 Lead Acid Battery (LA) vs Nickel Cadmium Battery (NiCd).

The GSL currently uses a lead acid battery which is one of the oldest rechargeable battery types. Compared to newer battery chemistries, they are the cheapest option for applications where the batteries are required as a buffer or standby system as they have a slow self discharge and also have limited charge and discharge cycles. The GSL however, is assumed to be a lighting device that will be used daily, hence the need to replace the LA batteries with another battery that would provide a better and
11

more efficient service. In this case, the nickel cadmium (NiCd) battery will be used as a replacement for the LA battery as it has mare advantages in this type of implementation.

Figure 7: Cross sectional layout of the physical make-up of a NiCd battery [19]. The NiCd battery normally has a total capacity of around 0.1C (the discharge current that can be taken from a cell to discharge it fully in 10h), with an on-load voltage of 1.2V (the average value for the total discharge period) and a fully discharged voltage rating of around 0.9V. It can accommodate substantially more cycles of charge or discharge before any cell failure occurs and is also very rugged as it can be left in an overcharge state for longer periods of time, hence longer battery life and a long term saving due to battery replacement [20]. In LA batteries overcharging will cause oxidation of the plates resulting in cell damage. In cases where the battery is left for a few days with greater than 80% discharge, permanent damage may occur. If they are left fully discharged, sulphation of the cell plates may occur which increases their internal resistance and may even cause the plates to short circuit, leaving the battery 'dead' (unable to charge) [20]. With NiCd batteries, however, when discharged below 0.9V, the voltage will fall rapidly to zero but provided the discharge is less than or at the 10h rate, no real damage to the cell plates will occur. This is particularly useful if users forget to charge the batteries, or if they leave their household and come back after a few days to find that they do not have to replace their batteries. The NiCd is being considered in this newer model of the solar lantern because it has excellent available capacity at temperatures between the 20 to 40°C range. This means that while batteries in general retain approximately 80% of their charge when fully charged, the available capacity for the NiCd battery in that temperature range is better than 90%. This means that NiCd batteries would be suited for applications in Kenya whereby the probability of the temeperature range being within 20-40°C is
11

very high, hence optimum usage of a battery yields optimum output. Figure 8 depicts the capacity of the NiCd battery at different temperatures.

Figure 8: Available capacity of the NiCd battery at different temperatures [21]. The LA battery on the other hand does have a much slower self discharge than the NiCd battery but this may not be a factor that has great affect as it is assumed that the lamps will be used daily and so self discharge is not a major concern as lamps are not left idle. They are used (discharged) during the night and charged during the day. NiCd batteries may be more expensive to purchase but are cheaper in terms of cost per cycle as they have longer life span, hence economical in the long run. An overview of the differences between LA and NiCd batteries can be seen in Appendix A. Taking into account the charge and discharge curves for LA and NiCd, figure 9 below clearly exemplifies the superior charge/discharge curve of the NiCd as opposed to the LA as it has a much flatter region between the maximum and minimum MPV, hence lower voltage variation and less complicated charge control.

Figure 9: Typical charge/discharge characteristics of various secondary battery systems of equal weight discharging under the same conditions [22]. The NiCd battery used in this application will require to be charged at a slow rate due to its low power application, also known as float charging. Float charging implies
12

maintaining full battery capacity by charging the battery at a similar rate to its self discharge rate. In the case of a NiCd battery, the self discharge rate is approximately 10% per month. A float charger is used in this case, which senses when the battery is at the appropriate float voltage and then stops the charging. When the voltage drops, it senses this and resumes charging. In this way it always tops up the battery and this can be done for an infinite amount of time. The float charger also has over charging protective circuitry. It is important to prevent overcharging so as to protect the life of the battery. If the negative electrode is overcharged, hydrogen gas is produced, and oxygen gas is produced if the positive electrode is overcharged. These gases will inhibit the reactions of the electrolyte with the electrodes and thus reduce the efficiency of the battery. One of the major misconceptions associated with NiCd batteries (sintered plate types mainly) is the "memory effect". The memory effect as described by Pensabene and Gould [23], involves the repeated discharge of the battery to levels such as 25% depth of discharge (DoD), and then fully charging the battery again (without overcharging). According to their results, after many cycles, a voltage step (at the negative electrode) was noted during a continuation of the discharge past the 25% DoD, and so the residual capacity was available but at a reduced voltage. According to their findings, a significant difference in crystal size was recorded for the cadmium active material. The associated discharge curves for affected and non-affected cells are portrayed in figure 10.

Figure 10: Discharge characteristics of affected (red) and non-affected (blue) cells [23]. Crompton [24] discussed issues relating to contact points being lost between the current carrying substrate and active material. He mentioned the formation of intermetallic compounds formed between cadmium and the nickel substrate that build up and cause 'memory'. A voltage drop is experienced by the cell when a
13

complete discharge is carried out using the cadmium from the compounds, hence the primary mechanism for the memory effect. Unlike in sintered cell NiCd batteries, in other plate types, the presence of a small nickel substrate means no compounds form, thus it is difficult to separate the memory phenomenon with the crystalline effect. Experiments conducted by Sato et al proved it was difficult to set up the memory effect after he failed in inducing memory with 50 partial discharge cycles (closely controlled). Thus true memory is restricted to sintered cell type NiCd and since none of the batteries sold into the stationary market feature such design, none will exhibit the memory effect, which can be observed in [25]. 3.3.2 Nickel Metal Hydride Battery (NiMh) and Other Battery Types. NiMh batteries have superior energy storage capacities and power than the LA or NiCd batteries and are environmentally friendly in contrast to LA and NiCd, while their cell performance is similar to that of NiCd batteries. They have much higher volumetric energy densities and thus better capacities than the LA or NiCd as portrayed in figure 4. The main problem, however, is that because NiMh are a relatively new technology, their technology is currently immature and are very expensive. As such, NiCd batteries have been chosen over the NiMh due to this reason as one of the main aims of this research is to reduce the cost of the GSL. The other battery types are also not considered for use in this application due to their very high purchasing costs. 3.4 Solar Cells (Photovoltaic Cells)

Solar cells are devices that convert solar energy to electrical energy using the field of technology known as photovoltaics, hence the term photovoltaic (PV) cells. Such cells are made of semiconductor materials such as silicon, whose property is to knock electrons loose when they absorb energy, in this case, solar energy [26]. The PV cells also have one or more electric fields whose purpose is to force the loose electrons in one direction, similar to how a diode functions, hence the formation of a current. This current can then be used externally using metal contacts at the top and bottom of the PV cell as can be seen in the figure below.

Figure 11: Basic components that make-up a PV cell [26].
14

A PV Cell, in circuital terms, can be modelled as a diode connected in series to a constant current source and in series to a resistance, known as the shunt resistance. However, for the sake of providing ideal simulation results, a 12V voltage source is implemented instead of this circuital design. There are six properties that describe the behaviour of light shining on a PV cell as illustrated in figure 12 [27]: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. Reflection and absorption at top contact; Reflection at cell surface; Desired absorption; Reflection from rear out of cell – weakly absorbed light only; Absorption after reflection; Absorption in rear contact;

Figure 12: Behaviour of light shining on a PV cell. [27], [28] In a practical system, one PV cell will not be able to provide sufficient energy. Thus, several cells are grouped together to form a PV module, and several modules are grouped together to form a PV array [28]. This combination of cells is what allows for a larger percentage of solar power to be absorbed due to a larger area of PV cells, and thus more current and voltage to be produced at the output. The solar PV array or module used has to be carefully designed to produce the right amount of power to charge the battery and also has to be designed to adhere to the charging characteristics of the battery as much as possible so as to minimize losses. Figure 13 below epitomizes the formation of the PV module and array from the PV cell.

15

Figure 13: PV module and array formation from PV cells [26]. A solar cell can be modeled as a current source which is parallel to a diode and an equivalent resistance. The equivalent resistance is comprised of a shunt (Rsh) and Series resistance (Rser). Figure 14 typifies the general make up of a solar cell.

Figure 14: General circuit representation of a solar cell. The series resistance factors in all the losses due to the resistive semiconductor material that the cell is made of, the resistance of the contacts, and other series losses. The shunt resistance is due to localized shorts in the silicon wafer that is the primary material of the cell. [29] Generally, the series resistance is very small, and the shunt resistance is very large, making these losses almost negligible. Upon observation of the IV characteristics of a commercial solar panel such as the SQ150, it can be seen that changes in irradiance bring about significant changes in the panel short circuit current but barely affect the open circuit voltage. In effect, the short circuit current is approximately proportional to the irradiance. [29] proposes that the current source used in the solar cell model be one that is dependant on a voltage; this voltage in turn
16

is representative of the irradiance condition. Thus, the cell’s characteristics can be made to vary with irradiance in a way that mimics the variations in the IV profile of a practical solar cell. A solar panel can be constructed out of series and parallel connections of the solar cell model given above. But, keeping in mind that the objective of the modeling process was to simply obtain a system whose IV characteristics are identical to that of a solar panel, another method was used: It was found that the open circuit voltage of the solar cell model is roughly proportional to the number of series-connected diodes that are in parallel to the short-circuit current source. Thus, by adding more diodes and increasing the short-circuit current, the characteristics of the solar cell become more and more like that of a panel.

Figure 15: Cell model with double the Isc and two diodes A photovoltaic panel is constructed out of several cells in series and parallel combinations. This allows a panel to output an utilizable voltage and current. The figure below illustrates the typical Current-Voltage (I-V) characteristics of a PV panel.

17

Figure 16: I-V characteristics of a PV panel [30]. The curve shows how the current supplied by a PV panel varies with its voltage. The point of maximum power occurs at the knee of the curve and is called the maximum power point (MPP). The maximum power is given by Pmpp = Vmpp x Impp

Figure 17: PV output power characteristics [30] In order for the PV panel to supply maximum power, it should supply a load of resistance(Rmpp): Rmpp = Vmpp / Impp If the load resistance as seen by the panel is below this value, the bias point would move to the left of the MPP, and to the right if the resistance is above this value.

18

Figure 18: Bias points for various load resistances [30]. The electrical characteristics of a PV panel vary with irradiance, cell temperature, and air mass. The information in the figures below is for the Shell SQ150 PV module, and is a clear illustration of the changes in the I-V curve when irradiance and/or temperature changes.

Figure 19: Electrical Characteristics of the SQ150 at Standard Test Conditions (STC) [9]

19

Figure 20: Temperature Coefficients of the SQ150 [9]

Figure 21: IV curve of the SQ150 at various irradiance levels [31]

Figure 22: I-V curve of the SQ150 at various cell temperatures [31] As shown by the above figures, higher irradiance gives rise to a higher power output from a panel, but a higher cell temperature causes the power output to drop. Thus,
21

the optimum power of the SQ150, i.e. 150W, can only be obtained if the panel is exposed to high irradiance and its temperature is kept low. There are, however, drawbacks in using solar cells. One problem is that for the solar cell to constantly provide energy, a constant amount of sunlight is required. However, this is not possible as there are days when the amount of light available could be reduced due to the presence of clouds. The figure in appendix 2 illustrates the monthly variation in solar radiation for four different regions in Kenya. Another big problem is that the PV cells consist of semiconductor materials which are prone to heat and radiation, hence power loss. Therefore, research has been carried out over the years to determine the best way to reduce the loss of energy due to radiation and irregular supply of solar energy. One method that has been discovered as a solution to irregular solar radiation is known as maximum power point tracking (MPPT). MPPT is an algorithm used to calculate the maximum power provided by a photovoltaic module [32]. Many authors in the past have described several variations of the MPPT algorithm, however, most of these methods are based on trial and error algorithms also known as "hill-climbing" methods, where the voltage is increased until the maximum power is reached [32], [33]. Other MPPT algorithms compare the presently sampled voltage and current with the previously sampled current and voltage to determine which state produces the maximum power [34]. Implementing MPPT in a solar PV system would greatly improve the efficiency of the system, but the drawback is that it also comes at a higher cost.

21

4.0

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.2 PART 1 – LED Vs. CFL This thesis required the implementation of LED lamps as a light source as opposed to CFL lamps which are used in the current GSL lamp. Testing was conducted to determine the plausibility of replacing the CFL in terms of how different the light characteristics (luminous efficacy and light spread) of the LED are compared to the CFL. The general setup of the overall testing apparatus is portrayed by figure 23a and b below.

Power Source 12V, 0.25A

Lamp

Luminous Flux Reader

(a)

(b) Figure 23: Equipment setup to determine difference between light characteristics of CFL and LED lamps: (a) Block diagram (b) Digital, real picture. The lamps were connected to a power source and the light meter readings (in lumens per square meter, also known as lux) were taken from distances away from the lamps. This was done to determine the spread of light from the lamp so as to get a good idea of how well the light source could light up an area. The power source for the LED was an external power source that provided the rated voltage of the lamp.

22

The CFL lamp used, however, was that of the current GSL system and so the power source was the lead acid battery that powered the CFL lamp. After the spread of light was measured, since it is known that the LED has only unidirectional lighting, ways to improve the area lighting from the lamp were tested. In this case, a reflector was used to try and reflect the light in an area. Three main reflector configurations were used: straight, conical and rounded reflectors. Once again the spread of light was measured with the same distances away from the light source. The difference between the spread of light was then determined so as to get an idea of which configuration provided the best spread of light (without much light degradation), which should have been comparable to that of the CFL source. Figure 24 and 25 below depicts the setup of the equipment with the conical reflector configuration, while figure 26 epitomises the different reflector configurations used (all reflector configurations used the same setup).

Figure 24: Equipment setup with the straight reflector configuration (the tape roll was used as a weight to keep the board/reflector straight).

23

Figure 25: Reflector (conical) mounted above the LED light.

Figure 26: The three reflector configurations: straight (left), conical (middle) and rounded (right). Two types of LED bulbs with different power ratings were utilized to determine the effectiveness of using different wattage lamps on the spread or intensity of light. In this case 1.5W and 3W LED bulbs were used to compare with a 7W CFL which is in the current setup. Additionally, all testing was conducted in a dark environment to ensure accuracy of results were as high as possible as limited environmental light would affect the light readings from the light meter. 4.2 PART 2 – Solar Powered Battery System This part of the thesis was simulation based using PSim or MATLAB Simulink software. Both software were used as the PSim software could model a PV system correctly but was not able to show the charge and discharge characteristics of the battery as the version had a limit on the time frame to show simulations (0.06s which is too short). The MATLAB software, however, could not model the panel characteristics correctly as diodes are assumed ideal switches, but could model the charging and discharging characteristics well. Charging characteristics were determined for a NiCd battery system using a PV input. A block diagram of the system is illustrated by figure 27.
24

Solar PV 5W, 12V

Battery

Figure 27: Block diagram of battery charging system. 4.2.1 Sizing the Battery

Assuming light provision to be for 6 hours, the battery should be sized to provide power for the 6 hour duration. The battery has to be a 12V battery to provide 12V to the lamp. So now the Ahr rating of the battery must be determined (keeping in mind the maximum depth of discharge, DOD, for the battery is 80%). To do this the formulae below were used: (Ahr of battery × max DOD) ÷ (Battery current) = Lamp operating time Lamp current = 3W ÷ 12V = 0.25A Therefore, battery rating = (6hrs × 0.25A) ÷ (80%) = 1.875Ahr Thus, a 12V, 2.4Ahr battery was deemed appropriate for use in this application. In the simulations of the NiCd battery, the model used was from MATLAB Simulink software of a NiCd battery found under the SimPowerSystems Library. The figures below represent the battery model and mask layout of a 12V, 2.4Ahr battery.

Figure 28: Battery model and characteristics of Simulink NiCd Battery.

25

Figure 29: Mask layout for the NiCd battery as obtained from MATLAB Simulink with the function block representing the characteristic inputs to determine the voltage.
Nominal Current Discharge Characteristic at 0.2C (0.48A) 14
Voltage

12 10 8 0 0.5 2 2.5 Ampere-hour (Ah) E0 = 12.458, R = 0.125, K = 0.038017, A = 1.44, B = 3.125 1 1.5 3

Discharge curve Nominal area Exponential area

3.5

14
Voltage

12

10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Ampere-hour (Ah) 2.5 3 3.5

Figure 30: Discharge Characteristics of the 12V, 2.4Ahr NiCd Battery as simulated in MATLAB Simulink (E0 = Constant Voltage in V, K = Polarisation Voltage in V, R = Battery's Internal Resistance in ohms, A = Exponential Voltage in V and B = Exponential Capacity in Ahr-1). The battery was then built in PSim software using the mask layout of the battery in MATLAB Simulink. Figure 31 illustrates the layout of the battery.

26

Figure 32: NiCd battery as built on PSim using the mask layout of the battery model in Simulink, with the characteristic inputs to determine battery voltage. Since the LED can be assumed as a constant current source, the discharge characteristic of the battery was attained by placing the LED across the battery and by measuring the voltage across the battery using different states of charge, a discharge curve of V against SOC was determined. The discharge rate used was 0.2C. The circuit to accomplish is exemplified in figure 33.

Figure 33: Circuit to measure the discharge characteristics of the battery when connected to an LED (constant current source) that draws 0.25A. 4.2.2 Sizing the PV Panel

To attain the characteristics of the PV panel, firstly, the total charge (in Ahr) used by the 12V, 3W LED lamp, over 6 hours, was calculated as:
27

(3W × 6hrs) ÷ 12V = 1.5Ahr According to the mean monthly solar irradiance data in appendix 2, it is evident that Nairobi (with latitude of 1.17° S and longitude of 36.45° E) experiences the least peak hours of sun in the month of July. According to data acquired from the NASA website [35] the least average daily solar insolation in July is approximately 381 W/m2 which is equivalent to 4.57 peak sun hours, with the sun shining for approximately 12 hours in a day. The total current drawn by the battery to charge it was determined, taking into consideration that the energy supplied to the battery is not all used due to energy loss, hence a factor of 0.8 being used. 1.5Ahr ÷ (0.8 × 4.57 peak sun hours) = 0.41A A small 5W PV panel was assumed to be appropriate because 5W of PV is greater than 3W of the lamp if directly connected and so essentially the 5W of PV panel should be able to supply enough power for the 3W LED lamp. Thus current and voltage ratings used were assumed to be those of a 5W panel. The characteristics of the panel required for the simulations were taken from the 5W monocrytalline 12V, 5W PV Panel supplied by Maplin Electronics [36]: Nominal voltage Vnominal = 12V Peak voltage Vmpp = 16.8V Peak current Impp = 390mA Rated Power Prated = 5W Rated current Irated = 5W ÷ 12V = 417mA Open-circuit voltage Voc = 18.5V Short-circuit current Isc = 0.4A Calculating the theoretical charging time for the battery: (381W/ m2 ÷ 1000W/ m2) × 417mA = 0.159A (1.5Ahr × 0.159A) = 9.44hrs 9.5hrs charging time From solar theory, it is known that the maximum insolation in any given day is at noon (12pm) as this is when the sun's zenith angle (see appendix 3 for further clarification) is at its minimum. According to information from [37] taken on December 22nd in Nairobi at 12 noon, the Zenith angle (Z) is 22.5°. Thus, the maximum insolation (I) can be calculated as: I = 1000W/m2 × Cos Z = 923.9 W/m2 However, this data is taken for the month of December and one can roughly estimate that in the month of February, which is the month with the greatest solar irradiance levels. So it can be assumed that the maximum theoretical insolation level of 1000W/ m2 is available, as Nairobi is very close to the equator and so the sun would be approximately at right angles to Nairobi (Z = 0). Depending on the characteristics of the solar module, the charging time can be determined for the case of the 1000W/ m2
28

insolation, as it is assumed that fastest charging will occur at this point and thus a good measure to determine whether the current produced at this point will damage the battery. The simulation setup can be observed from figure 24 and 25 whereby an ideal battery was used to simulate the characteristic output.

Figure 34: Circuit in PSim to determine the characteristics of the solar panel I-V and PV curves.

Figure 35: PV panel simulation model characteristics. The characteristics of the module were obtained by changing the battery voltage and measuring the current produced. By the module at that voltage. Thus, it can be said that if a 12V battery was placed across the module, then it will fix the voltage produced by the panel at 12V, which in turn will fix the current produced by the panel
29

depending on the insolation level. In this case, the insolation level was taken to be 381W/ m2 to account for the lowest possible insolation and thus the system would be able to charge the battery even at the lowest insolation levels (worst case). The highest insolation level was assumed to be the ideal 1000W/ m2 and current measurements for different voltage levels were also simulated and recorded. Once the solar panel characteristics were established, the charging characteristics of the battery were simulated next. This was done by replacing the ideal battery with the NiCd battery equivalent and by varying the SOC value from 20% to 100%, the charging curve was ascertained. The circuit that was used is displayed in figure 36.

Figure 36: NiCd battery connected to the 5W solar panel to determine the voltage (VP1) across the battery as SOC varies so as to establish the NiCd charge curve.

31

5.0

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

5.1 PART 1: LED Vs. CFL The tables showing the data collection of each individual lamp with its respective reflector configuration are presented in appendix 4. An overview of the results obtained from experimenting with the 1.5W LED lamp can be observed in table 2, and figure 37 illustrates the spread of light using the tabulated data.
LUMINOUS FLUX / lumens REFLECTOR TYPE None Straight Conical Rounded DISTANCE / mm 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 25 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 50 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.33 100 5.00 57.33 6.33 46.33 150 4.67 54.00 7.00 70.33 200 4.67 41.00 7.00 61.67 250 4.00 28.33 6.67 52.67 300 4.00 20.00 6.33 39.00 350 4.00 16.00 6.00 27.00 400 4.00 11.33 5.00 18.67 450 3.67 8.00 5.00 13.33 500 3.67 8.00 5.00 11.00

Table 2: Table of luminous flux data collected from experimentation with the 1.5W LED lamp (using different reflector configurations) at varying distances from the lamp.

80 70 Luminous Flux (Lux) / Lumens 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

Comparing spread of light for 1.5W LED Lamp with all reflector configurations

100 No Reflector

200 300 400 distance from lamp along plane (mm) Straight Reflector Conical Rounded

500

Figure 37: Graph to depict the spread of light of the 1.5W LED Lamp with different reflector configurations. Table 3 below contains the same data as in Table 2 (above) but the experiment was conducted using a 3W LED lamp. Figure 38 is a graph representation of the data in Table 3 to epitomize the spread of light given by the 3W LED lamp using different reflector configurations.
31

LUMINOUS FLUX / lumens REFLECTOR TYPE None Straight Conical Rounded

DISTANCE / mm 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 25 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 50 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.33 100 5.33 89.33 7.67 57.33 150 5.67 79.00 7.33 81.67 200 5.67 57.67 7.33 71.33 250 5.67 45.67 7.00 61.33 300 5.33 31.33 7.00 49.33 350 5.00 21.67 7.00 34.33 400 5.00 11.67 7.00 24.67 450 5.00 10.00 7.00 19.00 500 5.00 10.00 6.67 18.33

Table 3: Table of luminous flux data collected from experimentation with the 3W LED lamp (using different reflector configurations) at varying distances from the lamp.

100 90 Luminous Flux (Lux) / Lumens 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

Comparing spread of light for 3W LED Lamp with all reflector configurations

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

No Reflector

distance from lamp along plane (mm) Straight Reflector Conical Rounded

Figure 38: Graph to depict the spread of light of the 3W LED Lamp with different reflector configurations. It is evident from figure 37 and 38 that the reflector configuration that gave the best overall light spread was the rounded reflector. In figures 37 and 38, it is observed that the straight reflector gives the best light intensity (luminous flux) in the first 125 to 150mm, after which the rounded reflector provides the better luminous flux for the distances beyond 150mm. During the data collection of the 7W CFL lamp, it was noted that the casing for the GSL lamp provided a shadow effect for the first 100mm and this was incorporated with the results of the LED tests, depicted by the low luminous efficacy until the 100mm mark. This means that the advantage for the straight reflector having a higher luminous flux for the first 150mm becomes almost null and void, hence the rounded
32

reflector configuration showing better spread of light. Data for the 7W CFL can be viewed in appendix 4. A graphical comparison between the LED with a rounded reflector and CFL lamp can be viewed in figure 39.

100 90 80 Luminous Flux (Lux) / Lumens 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

Comparing spread of light of 7W CFL, and 1.5W and 3W LED lamp with rounded reflector.

50

100 CFL 7W

150

200 250 300 350 distance from peak along plane (mm)

400

450

500

LED 1.5W Rounded Reflector

LED 3W Rounded Reflector

Figure 39: Graph to compare the spread of light of the 3W, 1.5W LED Lamp with rounded reflector and 7W CFL lamp. It is observable from figure 39 that the GSL provides greater intensity of light over distances greater than 200mm radius, and thus it provides the better spread of light compared to the LED lamp. The 3W LED lamp, as would be expected, provided a better spread of light than the 1.5W as it was a higher power rated lamp. The above graph portrays the CFL lamp as providing the better spread of light than the 3W LED lamp with a reflector. Considering the 3W LED and 7W CFL, a comparison can be made with a paraffin lamp which is similar to the kerosene lamps used in rural areas. A table of values for the paraffin lamp can be noted in Appendix 4. Figure 40 depicts the differences between the 3 lamp types.

33

100 90 80 Luminous Flux (Lux) / Lumens 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

Comparing spread of light of 7W CFL, 3W LED lamp with rounded reflector and paraffin lamp.

50

100

150

200 250 300 350 400 distance from peak along plane (mm) CFL 7W

450

500

Figure 40: Graphical representation to show the spread of light of CFL, LED and paraffin lamp types. It is apparent from figure 40 that the intensity and spread of light for the LED is significantly better than the paraffin lamp up until 350mm, after which they are comparable. This goes to show that the CFL lamp produced better results in terms of spread of light followed by the LED light and then the paraffin lamp. A tabulated overview of the results of each lamp type with each reflector configuration can be seen in table 4:
LAMP CFL 7W REFLECTOR None LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens) 80.84 LUMINOUS EFFICACY (lumens/W) 11.52

LED 1.5W

None Straight Conical Rounded

3.95 17.56 5.63 27.70

2.64 11.71 3.76 18.47

LED 3W

None Straight Conical Rounded

5.15 24.58 6.94 35.19

1.72 8.19 2.31 11.73

PARAFFIN 830W

None

20.27

0.034

Table 4: Table to show an overview of the varying luminous flux and efficacies of the different lamps and their respective reflector configurations.
34

The results presented regarding the LED and other light sources shows the effectiveness in terms of use of the LED as opposed to its other light counterparts. The LED has higher luminous efficacy which means that it produces higher lumens per watt. Thus, theoretically, the LED should provide better light intensity, if the light is directed radially. The reasons that the theoretical results and practical results were not in agreement could have been due to the errors associated with the experimental setup. The experimental setup for the LED test could be improved to provide better and more accurate results. The current system used kitchen foil as a reflective surface which incorporated a fairly large amount of error to the data collected. This was due to the material surface not being smooth when molded into a rounded shape. This problem is better illustrated by figure 41.

Light from Lamp Reflected Light Figure 41: Illustration of light getting reflected by an uneven surface (the bump is the crease in the foil). Figure 41 exemplifies the problem of using foil as a reflective surface. When the foil is made into a rounded reflector shape, there are "creases" that form, which make the reflective surface uneven. This surface will not reflect the light in the desired direction but instead reflect the light in several directions. This would mean that less light would be present in the desired direction, hence a lower luminous flux when using the LED lamp at a further distance. Thus, a reflective surface which would form the required shape configuration while maintain a smooth surface would be ideal and should provide results that agree with theory. Another problem that added to the inaccuracy of results was that the foil was shiny when untouched, but lost its shine when the foil was touched (during shaping). This meant that there was less light being reflected as the surface was less shiny, yielding lower luminous flux results. This problem, however, is less major in comparison to the lack of a smooth surface but would still add to the inaccuracy of results quite significantly as a shiny surface would reflect more light. Overcoming these problems will definitely produce much better results that would portray the LED as being a more effective 360 degree light source when used with better reflective material. 5.2 Part 2: Solar Powered Battery System The simulated results of the 5W solar module characteristics with the high and low insolation levels is evident in Tables 5a and 5b below.
35

Insolation = 1000 W/ m2= 12 kWh/ m2/day Voltage (V) / Current (I) / Power (P) / Volts A W 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.399 0.399 0.397 0.393 0.384 0.361 0.304 0.165 -0.171 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.389 4.788 5.161 5.502 5.76 5.776 5.168 2.97 -3.249

Insolation = 381 W/ m2 = 4.57 kWh/ m2/day Voltage (V) / Current (I) / Power (P) / Volts A W 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.151 0.149 0.146 0.136 0.113 0.057 -0.081 0.000 0.152 0.304 0.456 0.608 0.760 0.912 1.064 1.216 1.368 1.520 1.672 1.812 1.937 2.044 2.040 1.808 0.969 -1.458

Table 5: Current, Voltage and Power results for the 5W solar module. Table 1a (left) used 1000W/ m2, while Table 1b (right) used 381W/ m2 in simulating the results. Table 5a and 5b epitomize the current that will be produced by the PV to charge the 12V battery. In this case, for the 1000W/ m2 insolation, 0.399A of current will be produced while for the lower 381W/ m2 insolation, 0.151A would be produced to charge the battery. The results above are illustrated in the graph in figure 42 below (without the negative current and power values).

36

Characteristic Curves for the 5W Solar Module with Ideal (1000W/m2) and Realistic (381W/,2) Insolation
0.45 0.4 0.35 5 0.3 Current (I) / A 0.25 0.2 0.15 2 0.1 0.05 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Voltage (V) / Volts 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 0 4 3 Power (P) / W 7 6

I-V Curve: 1000W/m2

I-V Curve: 381W/m2

P-V Curve: 1000W/m2

P-V Curve: 381W/m2

Figure 42: Characteristic I-V and P-V graphs for the 5W solar module for both 1000W/ m2 and 381 W/ m2 insolation inputs. The charging times of the battery can be calculated using the simulated results. For 1000W/ m2 @12V, current = 0.399A so the charging time is thus the charge used to run the battery for 6 hrs divided by the current produced by the PV module for charging the battery: 1.5Ahr ÷ 0.399A = 3.76 hours. So if the battery was charged at a constant insolation of 1000W/ m2, then the battery would get charged in 3.76 hours. This would be comparable to a charge rate of approximately 0.3C. According to information from [38], a fast charge rate is considered to be between 0.5C and above (for NiCd batteries), whereby special considerations have to be taken into account. Batteries undergoing a fast charge will not be able to tolerate overcharging for a significant amount of time as opposed to slower charge rates. Thus a maximum charge rate of 0.3C is considered acceptable to accommodate for overcharging of the battery. This value however, is not practical as 1000W/ m2 insolation only occurs at most about 2 hours a day (around noon when the sun is directly above) and so in practice, it would be smaller overall. For 381W/ m2, 0.151A of current was produced by the PV at 12V. So the time to charge the battery is about 9.93 hours which is equivalent to 10 hours of charging.
37

The charging characteristics of the battery were simulated in MATLAB simulink using the circuit in figure 43.
Charging characteristics of NiCd Battery
80
X: 3.602e+004 Y: 79.95

70

60

50

SOC / %

40

30

20

10

0

-10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2 Time / Secs

2.5

3

3.5 x 10

4
4

Figure 43: Graph simulated in MATLAB Simulink to determine the charging pattern of the NiCd battery. It can be observed from figure 43 that the time it takes to charge the battery from 20% to 80% of the battery capacity is 10 hours. This figure therefore, further proves that the theoretical and simulated values for the charge time are similar. According to the sunrise and sunset values provided by the NASA website [35] it can be noted that since Kenya, and in this case Nairobi, is located close to the equator, 12hrs of sunlight are available on average per day. Charging for 10 hours is therefore an acceptable charging time frame given the hours of light available in a day. The charge rate in this case is approximately 0.1C which is the typical slow charging rate for batteries whereby, for NiCd batteries, overcharging tolerance is high. The charging time in hours in this case is the most possible charging time given that insolation is at its lowest constantly throughout the day, and so in practice would be a much higher value overall, yielding shorter charge time. Comparing the theoretical charging time value of 9.5 hours and the simulation based calculation of 9.9 hours, the similarity in the charge times proves that the model and sizing of the solar PV system can be deemed accurate. The figure below portrays the discharge characteristics of the battery with the lamp assumed as a constant current source drawing 0.25A.
38

Discharging characteristics of NiCd Battery
80

70

60

50

SOC / %

40

30
X: 2.178e+004 Y: 19.99

20

10

0

-10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2 Time / Secs

2.5

3

3.5 x 10

4
4

Figure 44: Graph simulated in MATLAB Simulink to determine the discharging pattern of the NiCd battery at 0.2C. From figure 44 it is evident that the battery takes 21780secs to discharge from 80% of its capacity to 20%, which is the minimal battery capacity for longer life battery. This translates to 6 hours of discharge time with a current of 0.25A being drawn from the battery, hence correct operation of the battery in terms of powering the light source for the required 6 hours. It is also apparent from figure 44 that the discharge curve has a relatively flat band up until the 7.5Hour mark. This flat band is a useful characteristic because it shows that for the duration of the battery discharge, the LED lamp will exhibit close to its full brightness throughout the discharge time cycle. This is an appealing characteristic of the NiCd battery over the LA battery as it means that the battery will produce close to its optimum luminous flux for the duration of discharge, but with a LA battery the brightness would decrease with time, hence the lamp gets dimmer. The 12V battery across the PV panel fixes the current to be produced by the PV for charging. In the practical case of 381W/ m2 of insolation, the current produced by the battery will always be 0.151A which is not the peak current. This means that the module is not operating at maximum power point. Changes in temperature cause larger changes in voltage production, but minute changes in current, as temperature affects voltage and not current. This means that given the temperature variation does not cause open circuit voltage of the PV to drop below 12V, a valid assumption given the characteristic curve of the PV module, the current drawn will always be about 0.15A or a little higher. This would mean that the charge rate would more or less remain at the 0.1C rate or just a little higher, which is an acceptable charge rate. This
39

is important as temperatures vary across Kenya due to elevation of the land and so this module can be used in majority of the rural areas in Kenya. Comparing the powers at 12V and the maximum power point voltage (14V) for the low insolation (381W/m2), it can be calculated that there is approximately a 10% loss in power in running the panel at 12V. However, with this configuration, there is no need for a DC-DC converter to step up or down the voltage as 12V is charging the battery. Thus, there is a significant financial savings made from the omission of the converter. Noting that the target market for this lamp is the poor population of Kenya who do not have access to the electric grid, the DC-DC converter or an inverter is not required. Implementing a DC-DC converter in the system would mean power would have to be used to run the converter as well. This power would be similar to that lost due to running the battery at 12V and so the loss in power in both situations is the same. The only difference is that there is a financial savings made in not using a DCDC converter.

41

6.0

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

A life cycle analysis (LCA) is a detailed examination of the life of a certain product from the mining of its raw materials, to its production and distribution, to its end of life (disposal or recycling). This is a recent concept that was developed in response to increased environmental awareness on the social and political fronts. Figure 45 is a block diagram of the components in a solar lantern.

(a)

(b) Figure 45: Block diagram of the solar lantern life cycle assessment (a) solar model (b) generic LCA process [39]. A functional unit is required as the basis on which to compare readings. In this case, the functional unit is that there should be 6 hours of usage of the lantern per day per household, while measurements will be estimated for 10 years.
41

The current GSL model that is focused on is the GS7, which has the following characteristics: Light Source = CFL 7W Battery = LA battery, 12V, 7.2Ahr Running Time = 6 hrs Weight = 3.3Kg (Battery = 2.3Kg, Frame = 1Kg) PV Panel = 12V, 10Wp mono-crystalline (7 hr battery charge time) New model solar lantern has the following characteristics: Light Source = LED 3W Battery = NiCd battery, 12V, 2.4Ahr Running Time = 6 hrs Weight = 3.3Kg (Battery = 0.68Kg, Frame = 1Kg) PV Panel = 12V, 5Wp mono-crystalline (10 hr battery charge time) a) Frame The frame is made of polypropylene and was approximately measured as 1Kg. The data for the energy input and emissions was obtained from a study conducted by Thiriez and Gutowski regarding the process in the the formation of polypropylene, known as hydraulic injection molding [40]. The data presented indicated that the total energy input in forming the frame was approximately 244.7MJ per Kg of propylene material (199.2MJ for polypropylene production and 45.5MJ for hydraulic injection molding process). This study, in tandem with information obtained from Boustead [41], quantified the total emissions from the frame process as 6.38Kg of CO2 per Kg of material (4.08Kg of CO2 for polypropylene production and 2.30Kg of CO2 for hydraulic injection molding process). b) Batteries The life cycle of a battery can be summarized by two main processes of the raw material production and manufacturing. During the production stage, both renewable and non-renewable energy sources are utilized. The LCA of both the new model and current GS7 model will be determined to draw comparisons between the two models. i. GS7 – LA battery

The current lead acid battery has an approximate life of 500 charging cycles. Assuming that 1 charging cycle is used per day, then 500 cycles equates to 500days lifetime of the battery. Thus, if the functional unit of 10 years is used, then that would mean 7.3 batteries would have been used in the 10 year span. The data for both energy and emissions was obtained from [42] and [43]: Total energy input = raw material production + manufacturing = 158.6 + 11.7 = 170.3MJ per battery .
42

So the total energy input for 10 years = 170.3 x 7.3 = 1243.3MJ. Total CO2 emissions = 21.33Kg CO2 per battery = 21.33 x 7.3 = 155.7Kg CO2 in 10 years ii. New Model – NiCd Batteries Data for the NiCd life cycle assessment was obtained from Rydh and Kalstrom's study of the life cycle inventory of NiCd batteries (rated approximately 1500 cycles) [44]. It was determined that of the total energy input, 3.1% could be attributed to renewable energy, 32% to raw material production and 65% to manufacturing. Additionally, from the total CO2 emissions, 55% was attributed to the manufacturing process, 44% raw material production and 0.8% transportation or distribution of material. The overall data for energy and emissions was calculated as: Total energy input = 5.08MJ per 25g battery = 138.18MJ for this battery model. So for a ten year lifetime, 1500 cycles = 1500 days, hence 2.4 batteries are required. Therefore, total energy input for 10 years = 2.4 × 138.18 = 331.62 MJ Total CO2 emissions = 0.37Kg CO2 per 25g battery = 10.06Kg CO2 for this battery model and for the 10 year period = 24.15Kg CO2 c) PV Panel The data acquired for the PV panel LCA was from research conducted by Dave from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [39]: Total energy input = 41MJ per Wp of PV Total CO2 emissions = 45g CO2 per kWh The Wp rating of a PV panel is considered an ideal rating and so normally as the rule of thumb, to get an estimate of the optimal power produced by the PV (considering losses), the Wp rating is multiplied by a factor of 80%. The two models of solar lanterns can now be compared based on the PV module that would be required to run the solar system. i. New Model

It was determined from the tests carried out in this thesis that the new model would utilize a 5Wp solar panel resulting in: Total energy input = 41 x 5 = 205MJ for the PV used Total kW rating = 0.8 x 5 = 4W = 0.004kW of max power Total kWh rating = charging time x 0.004kW = 10 x 0.004 = 0.04kWh Total CO2 emissions = 45 x 0.04 = 1.8g CO2 for the PV used.

43

ii. GS7 – LA battery The GS7 makes use of a 20Wp solar panel, which is the recommended PV panel rating, and this yields: Total energy input = 41 x 20 = 820MJ for the PV used Total kW rating = 0.8 x 20 = 0.016kW of max power Total kWh rating = charging time x 0.016kW = 8 x 0.016 = 0.128kWh Total CO2 emissions = 45 x 0.128 = 5.76g CO2 for the PV used. d) Lamp The data for the LCA of the CFL lamp was acquired from research conducted by Dave from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [39]. The functional unit required 10 years time span with 6 hours usage per day, yielding 21900 hours of usage in the 10 year period. i. GS7 – CFL Lamp

The CFL lamp used in the GS7 was a 7W, 12V lamp that has a life of 10000 hours which equates to 2.19 bulbs utilized in the 10 year period. From the experiments conducted regarding the CFL, the CFL had a luminous efficacy of approximately 11.52lumens/W. From data gained from [39], during the utilization phase, the CFL consumed 420kWh and 0.38kWh during the production stage, yielding a total of 420.38kWh or 1513.4MJ of energy. Thus in 10 years time the total energy consumption would be: Total energy consumption in 10 years = 2.19 × 1513.4 = 3314.3MJ The data also showed that the emissions for the CFL was 1.11g/lumen. So for the 7W CFL this equated to 89.53g CO2. Thus for the 10 year period: Total emissions in 10 years = 2.19 × 89.53 = 1.96kg CO2 per lamp ii. New Model – LED Lamp The LED lamp used was a 12V, 3W lamp with a lifetime of approximately 30000 hours, hence 0.73 lamps used in the 10 year period at 6 hours per day. The luminous efficacy for the 3W lamp was determined as 11.73 lumens per watt. According to [39], the LED consumed 365kWh during the utilization phase and 15kWh during the production stage yielding 380kWh or 1368MJ of energy. So the total energy in 10 years was calculated as: Total energy = 0.78 × 1368 = 1067.04MJ in 10 years The LED emitted 3.29kg CO2/lumen = 115.78kq CO2 for 3W lamp. Therefore given the functional unit:
44

Total emissions in 10 years = 90.3kq CO2 per lamp Now combining all the data to give an overview of the two solar lamps in terms of energy required in production and their respective global warming potential (GWP) in kg of CO2, the figures below are produced.

Energy Input in MJ of the new model and GS7
6000 5000 Energy Input (MJ) 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 New Model 1 GS7 Model 1848.36 5622.3

(a)

GWP in kg CO2 of the new model and GS7
180 160 Emissions (Kg CO2) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 New Model 1 GS7 Model 120.8318 164.04576

(b) Figure 46: LCA results for the new model and GS7 models (a) Energy input (b) GWP.

45

7.0

COST

The costs comparison between the new solar lantern model and the current GS7 moel can be made using the main parts of the lantern that are affected by change in material or parts. Table 6 shows the cost breakdown of the different parts of the two models.
LAMP New Model PARTS COST (US $)

3W, 12V LED 12V 2.4Ahr NiCd battery 5W PV module Polypropylene

15.08 84.62 76.93 0.65 177.28

GS7

7W, 12V CFL 12V, 7Ahr LA battery 20W PV module Buck converter Polypropylene

9.15 38.66 150 16.42 1.3 215.53

Table 6: Breakdown in costs to compare the GS7 and new solar lantern model. The price for the polypropylene outer body used was a rough estimate based on the volume of the batteries used. The NiCd battery has dimensions of 87mm × 53mm × 53mm, while the LA battery has dimensions of 151mm × 93.5mm × 65mm. Thus the LA battery had a volume 37.5times greater than the NiCd. An assumption of half the material of propylene used for the NiCd lantern was deemed appropriate for the sake of argument. For all prices quoted, some sources gave their prices in british pounds (GBP) and so a conversion factor of 1 GBP = 1.5386 US was used. Overall, it can be seen from the table that the new solar model is cheaper than the GS7 by about US $40, a significant reduction taking into account the savings made from a better life expectancy of the system as well. Thus the short term and long term financial benefits point towards the newer solar lantern model proving to be more affordable. However, considering the earnings of the poor, the lantern still appears quite expensive for a one off payment even though the long run will prove cheaper. The one factor that could possibly have an effect on the price of the lantern is the future trend of the technology used. LED technology is relatively new compared to CFL technology and is a work in progress. As more research is carried out, the price of the LED is bound to drop in price as more are produced. This is evident from a report
46

by LEDinside on China's LED chip whereby the increasing number of chip manufacturers is given (figure 46).

Figure 46: Amount of LED chip manufacturers by year [45].

8.0

CONCLUSION

This thesis has presented the design of a new model solar lantern that is cheaper and more affordable to the poorer communities of Kenya, who cover about 80% of the population. The new solar lantern model replaced the LA battery with a smaller sized NiCd battery, while at the same time replacing the CFL with a lower wattage LED light source. The system's lower power requirements led to a lower rating PV panel being required and hence a reduction in the overall lantern cost. The lantern, however, did not achieve the goal of providing 360 degree light as effectively as the CFL based lantern. As such its use as a wide area lantern is not practical, but its use in a small area such as lighting up a table is more practical. Thus, as far as aiding the poverty in Kenya, this lamp can be used by students who wish to study later into the nights and will therefore help in developing the younger generation to become more educated. The lantern is also a better replacement to the kerosene based lanterns currently being used but the one off-cost is still an issue. From an environmental point of view, it was apparent from the LCA analysis that the new model solar lantern would require less energy input in its overall life cycle while at the same time showing an improved carbon footprint. This would help in bringing down the cost further as the newer model will be considered more desirable due to its better eco-friendly characteristics and so with more lanterns being produced and sold, the price of the product should reduce. Improvements to the new model solar lantern can be made by using better reflective material that should be able to provide more accurate results in regard to the spread of light from the light source. Research can be carried out to determine how to reduce the size of the PV module so as to operate around the maximum power point and implement a MPPT tracker to maximize power usage from the PV. Additional
47

research would have to be conducted that would aim at further decreasing the cost of the overall system, for instance by using effective, yet cheaper substitute battery or light source forms. An investigation into using nickel metal hydride batteries from a long term view would be helpful for the future.

9.0
[1]

REFERENCES
Taub. E. A., "Lighting Up the Darkness in Rural Africa", New York Times, March 31, 2009, [Online]. Available: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/ lighting-up-the-darkness/ [Accessed: Mar. 24, 2010]. Blake. H., "Solar Powered Lights in Kenya", Global Envision, Feb. 26, 2010, [Online]. Available: http://www.globalenvision.org/2010/02/26/solarpowered-lights-kenya [Accessed: Mar. 22, 2010]. Bourne. J., Producer, SunNight Flashlights. [Videorecording]. New York, USA: Green Gadgets conference, 2009. "illustrated guide", Practical Action, Apr. 11, 2007, [PDF]. Available: http://www.practicalaction.org/?id=solar_power [Accessed: March 29, 2010]. Goldwasser. S. M. and Klipstein. D.L., "Compact Flourescent Lamps", 1996, [Online]. Available: http://members.misty.com/don/cf.html [Accessed: Mar. 23, 2010]. Wentzel. C.V., "How Lead Acid Batteries Work", Jan. 22, 2008, [Online]. Available: http://www.vonwentzel.net/Battery/00.Glossary/ [Accessed: March 22, 2010]. Fearnon. K. and White. C., "Developing the Next Generation of Glowstar Solar Lantern", in EWB-UK National Research Conference, 2010, pp. 1. UNICEF, "Kenya – statistics", UNICEF, March 2, 2010, [Online]. Available: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/kenya_statistics.html#69 [Accessed: March 30, 2010]. Wikipedia Foundation. Inc, "Incandescent Light Bulb", Wikipedia, [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb #Construction. [Accessed: March 23, 2010]. EE Times Design, "How to Dim CFLs", EE Times Group, [Online]/ http://www.eetimes.com/design/ industrial-control/4013593/How-to-dimCFLs . [Accessed: March 23, 2010].
48

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

Crystal Blue LED's, "LED Basics", Crystal Blue LED's, [Online]. Available: http://www.crystalblue-leds.com/led_basics. [Accessed: March 23, 2010]. Emanuele and Musiari. F., "Luminous Efficacy", Scribd, Apr. 16, 2008, [Online]. Available: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2784183/Luminous-Efficacy [Accessed: March 29, 2010]. "Phillips 7W CFL GU10 Reflector Bulb", John Lewis, [Online]. Available: http://www.johnlewis.com/230439663/Product.aspx?source=54527 [Accessed: March 30, 2010]. "3W, GU10 High Power LED Spotlight Customer First, Good Quality, Attractive Price", Alibaba.com, [Online]. Available: http://www.alibaba.com/productgs/225836651/3W_GU10_High_Power_LED_Spotlight.html [Accessed: March 29, 2010]. Ohno. Y., "Colour Rendering and Luminous Efficacy of White LED Spectra", in proc. of SPIE vol. 5530, Fourth International Conference on Solid State Lighting . (Bellingham, WA, 2004), pp. 88-98. Quest Batteries, "Comparisons of Applications Overview", Harding Energy, Inc, Jan. 15, 2004, [PDF]. Available: http://www.hardingenergy.com/pdfs/1%20 Comparison%20of%20Applications.pdf. [Accessed: April 1, 2010]. Wikipedia Foundation. Inc, "Rechargeable Battery", Wikipedia, [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery. [Accessed: March 24, 2010]. Simpson. C., "Characteristics of Rechargeable Batteries", National Semiconductors, [PDF]. Available: www.national.com/appinfo/ power/files/f19.pdf. [Accessed: June 18, 2010] Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Electrochemical cells", Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, [JPG]. Available: http://www.britannica.com /EBchecked /topicart/183010/100926/Nickel-cadmium-cell-of-jelly-roll-construction. [Accessed: April 16, 2010]. "Isco Nickel-Cadmium and Lead-Acid Battery Comparisons", Teledyne Isco Inc., Apr. 1994, [PDF]. Available: http://www.isco.com/WebProductFiles/ Applications/201/Nicad_vs_LeadAcidBatteries_TechBulletin.pdf [Accessed: July. 3, 2010].

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

49

[21]

Storage Battery Systems, "Electrochemical cells", Storage Battery Systems, Inc Online, [JPG]. Available: http://www.sbsbattery.com/PDFs/nicdTechData.pdf. [Accessed: June 17, 2010]. Crompton. T. R., "Battery Reference Book", 3rd ed. Woburn, MA, USA: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd, 2000, pp. 100, 122. Pensabene S. F. and Gould J.W., "Unwanted Memory Spooks Nickle-Cadmium Cells", IEEE Spectrum, Sept 1976. Crompton. T. R., "Battery Reference Book", 3rd ed. Woburn, MA, USA: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd, 2000, pp. 19/11-12. Screw Fix, "DeWalt DE9075 12V 2.4Ah NiCd Battery?," Screw Fix Online, [Htm]. Available: http://www.screwfix.com/prods/67100/PowerTools/Batteries-Chargers/DeWalt-DE9075-12V-2-4Ah-NiCd-Battery. [Accessed: April. 29th 2010]. Knier. G, "How do photovoltaics work?," Science@NASA, [Htm]. Available: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/solarcells.htm [Accessed: Mar. 29th 2010]. Akhter. R. "A New Technique of PWM Boost Inverter for Solar Home Application", BRAC University Journal, Vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 39-145, 2007. Akhter. R, Hoque. A, “Analysis of a PWM Boost Inverter for solar home application”, CISE 2006, International Conference, Enformatika, Volume 17,Dec. 2006, ISSN 1305-5313, pp.212-216. Castaner, Silvestre, Modelling Photovoltaic Systems using PSpice, Wiley, 2002. T. Esram, Patrick L. Chapman, “Comparison of Photovoltaic Array Maximum Power Point Tracking Techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 439-449, June 20. Shell SQ150 Datasheet. Ortiz-Rivera. E. I, "Maximum Power Point Tracking Using the Optimal Duty Ratio for DC-DC Converters and Load Matching in Photovoltaic Applications", University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez Journal, Vol. 4. Kuo. Y. C. et al, "Novel Maximum Power Point Tracking Controller for Photovoltaic Energy Conversion System", IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 48, no. 3, Jun. 2001.
51

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29] [30]

[31] [32]

[33]

[34]

Hua. C, Lin. J, Shen C, “Implementation of a DSP-controlled photovoltaic system with peak power tracking” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 45, Issue 1, Feb. 1998 Page(s): 99 – 107. Russell G. L., "Insolation at Specified Location", Apr. 27, 2010. [html]. Available: http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/srlocat.html. [Accessed: July. 13th 2010]. Maplin., "5W Solar Panel Kit", Maplin Electronics. [html]. Available: http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=96861. [Accessed: July. 4th 2010]. "Earth-Sun Geometry and Insolation", [html]. Available: http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/heywood/geog101/LABS/SunAngle/SunA ngle.htm. [Accessed: July. 5th 2010]. Vorkoetter S., "NiCd (andNiMh) Battery Care", Kiona Publishing, July. 19, 2010, [html]. Available: http://www.stefanv.com/rcstuff/qf200109.html. [Accessed: August. 4th 2010]. Dave S., (June 2009), "LCA of Off-Grid Lighting Applications:Kerosene Vs. Solar Lanterns", Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Final Year Project. Thiriez A. and Gutowski T., "An Environmental Analysis of Injection Molding", Cambridge, MA. Available: http://web.mit.edu/2.810/www/Thiriez_ISEE _2006.pdf. [Accessed: May. 20th 2010]. Boustead I. "Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry", PlasticsEurope, March 2005. Norgate T.E. and Rankin W. J., "An environemental assessment of zinc and lead production processes", Available: http://www.minerals.csiro..au.sd.CSIRO_Paper_LCA_PbZn.pdf. [Accessed: June. 24th 2010]. Yang C., Shimizu A., Hishinuma T. and Genchi Y., "Energy and environmental analysis of batteries for electrical load leveling using LCA method. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan. Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan. Nov. 27th 2007. Rydh J. C. and Karlstrom M., "Life cycle inventory of recycling portable nickelcadmium batteries", Resources, conservation and Recycling, Vol. 34, 2002, Page(s): 289-309.
51

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

Ivan., "LEDinside: 2010 Report on China's LED Chip", TrendForce Corp., Sept. 2nd 2010. Available: http://www.ledinside.com/China_LED_Chip, [Accessed: Sept 2nd 2010].

52

10.0 APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Comparison of LA and NiCd Batteries: [20]

53

Appendix 2: Varying Insolation Levels for East Africa

Monthly mean daily insolation levels (in peak sun hours) for East Africa (KE – Kenya, UG – Uganda, TZ – Tanzania) [27].

Appendix 3: Zenith angle explanation

54

Appendix 4: Tabulated results for the spread of light experiment. a) CFL 7W
LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens) Distance/ mm Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 AVG 0 1 1 1 1.0 0 25 2 3 2 2.3 3 50 4 5 5 4.6 7 100 11 12 12 11.6 7 150 40 40 39 39.6 7 200 69 70 69 69.3 3 250 83 84 83 83.3 3 300 88 88 88 88.0 0 350 84 84 85 84.3 3 400 79 79 80 79.3 3 450 73 73 74 73.3 3 500 65 65 65 65.0 0

b) LED 1.5W – No Reflector
LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens) Distance/ mm Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 AVG 0 1 1 1 1.00 25 2 3 2 2.3 3 50 4 4 5 4.3 3 100 5 5 5 5.0 0 150 4 5 5 4.6 7 200 5 5 4 4.6 7 250 4 4 4 4.0 0 300 4 4 4 4.0 0 350 4 4 4 4.0 0 400 4 4 4 4.0 0 450 4 4 3 3.6 7 500 4 3 4 3.6 7

c) LED 1.5W – Straight
LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens) Distance/ mm Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 AVG 0 1 1 2 1.3 3 25 2 3 2 2.3 3 50 4 4 5 4.3 3 100 57 57 58 57.3 3 150 54 54 54 54.0 0 200 41 41 41 41.0 0 250 28 28 29 28.3 3 300 20 20 20 20.0 0 350 16 16 16 16.0 0 400 12 11 11 11.3 3 45 0 8 8 8 8.0 0 50 0 8 8 8 8.0 0

d) LED 1.5W – conical
LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens) Distance/ mm Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 AVG 0 1 1 2 1.3 3 25 2 3 2 2.3 3 50 4 4 5 4.3 3 100 6 6 7 6.3 3 150 7 7 7 7.0 0 200 7 7 7 7.0 0 250 7 7 6 6.6 7 300 6 7 6 6.3 3 350 6 6 6 6.0 0 400 5 5 5 5.0 0 450 5 5 5 5.0 0 500 5 5 5 5.0 0

55

e) LED 1.5W – Rounded
LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens) Distance/ mm Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 AVG 0 2 1 2 1.6 7 25 5 6 6 5.6 7 50 12 13 13 12.6 7 100 46 46 47 46.3 3 150 70 71 70 70.3 3 200 62 62 61 61.6 7 250 53 53 52 52.6 7 300 40 38 39 39.0 0 350 27 27 27 27.0 0 400 19 18 19 18.6 7 450 14 13 13 13.3 3 500 11 11 11 11.0 0

f) LED 3W – No Reflector
LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens) Distance/ mm Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 AVG 0 1 1 1 1.0 0 25 3 3 3 3.0 0 50 4 4 5 4.3 3 100 5 6 5 5.3 3 150 5 6 6 5.6 7 200 6 6 5 5.6 7 250 6 6 5 5.6 7 300 5 6 5 5.3 3 350 5 5 5 5.0 0 400 5 5 5 5.0 0 450 5 5 5 5.0 0 500 5 5 5 5.0 0

g) LED 3W – Straight
LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens) Distance/ mm Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 AVG 0 1 1 1 1.0 0 25 3 3 3 3.0 0 50 4 4 5 4.3 3 100 90 89 89 89.3 3 150 79 79 79 79.0 0 200 58 58 57 57.6 7 250 46 46 45 45.6 7 300 32 31 31 31.3 3 350 22 22 21 21.6 7 400 11 12 12 11.6 7 450 10 10 10 10.0 0 500 10 10 10 10.0 0

h) LED 3W – conical
LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens) Distance/ mm Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 AVG 0 1 1 1 1.0 0 25 3 3 3 3.0 0 50 4 4 5 4.3 3 100 8 7 8 7.6 7 150 8 7 7 7.3 3 200 7 7 8 7.3 3 250 7 7 7 7.0 0 300 7 7 7 7.0 0 350 7 7 7 7.0 0 400 7 7 7 7.0 0 450 7 7 7 7.0 0 500 7 7 6 6.6 7

56

i) LED 3W – Rounded
LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens) Distance/ mm Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 AVG 0 1 1 1 1.0 0 25 3 3 3 3.0 0 50 4 4 5 4.3 3 100 57 57 58 57.3 3 150 82 82 81 81.6 7 200 71 72 71 71.3 3 250 62 61 61 61.3 3 300 49 50 49 49.3 3 350 35 34 34 34.3 3 400 24 25 25 24.6 7 450 19 19 19 19.0 0 500 18 18 19 18.3 3

j) Paraffin Lamp
LUMINOUS FLUX (lumens) Distance/mm 0 25 50 100 150 200 300 400 500 Reading 1 0 0 0 42 46 42 33 23 14 Reading 2 0 0 0 51 55 53 43 29 19 Reading 3 0 0 0 65 73 61 46 31 20 AVG 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.67 58.00 52.00 40.67 27.67 17.67

57