You are on page 1of 34

BEE - S & L Program

Distribution Transformers & Fluorescent Tube Lamps

PRESENTED AT THE WORKSHOP


ON
ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS & LABELING

BANGALORE 13, 14 OCTOBER, 2004


Shri. S. Ramaswamy, GTZ
1

Distribution Transformers
S & L Program

Technical Committee
Mr. K. Venkata Narayana

: CPDCAP

Mr. P.N. Gopinath

: NDPL

Mr. Tirupathi

: TNEB

Mr. Alok Kr. Chattopadhyay

: WBSEB

Mrs. Rajani Menon

: E.R.D.A.

Mr. Vijay Kolambekar

: E.R.D.A.

Mr. A.B. Bhatia

: Crompton Greaves Ltd

Mr. D.J. Ramesh

: Vijai Electricals Ltd

Mr. Nitin Nayak

: El-Tra Equipment Co.

Mr. K.V.S.S.R. Venugopal

: ABB Ltd.

Mr. Manoj Mishra

: ABB Ltd.

Mr. Y.S. Shingne

: Danke Products

Dr. H.M. Gupta

: IIT, Roorkee

Mr. Mayur Karmarkar

: ICPCI

Mr. Avinash Barve

: IEEMA

Mr. S. Ramaswamy

: BEE

CONSUMERS
Testing Institution

Manufacturers

Technical Committee: Responsibilities

Identify technical parameters


Study & validate test procedures for adoption
Define criteria for Laboratories (NABL)
Identify & recommend Laboratories for testing ?
Decide on label rating plan ?
Decide parameters on label ?
Design label
Decide on enforcement mechanism and work out protocol
Carry out economic analysis for MEPS
Recommend MEPS
4

Recommendation
Reduce temperature rise limits
Due to frequent overloading in service, life
deteriorates.
Contributes to poor reliability.
The current temperature rise limits 50/550C over the
ambient of 500C of top oil and winding respectively.
Temperature rise limits revised to 35/400C over the
ambient of 500C of top oil and winding respectively.

Implication on cost average of 3%.


Similar changes helped GEB to reduce failure rate
from 27% to 20%.
5

Basis for Star rating plan


Case

Basis of losses (Total at 50% Load


Condition)

Base case Star 1 Current purchasing practice (IS 1180 Max


Losses)
Star 2

Some utility purchase specs like AP, NDPL

Star 3

Losses from TOC design (Moderate)

Star 4

Losses from lowest TOC design

Star 5

High efficiency design


6

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


Optimum eff Vs cost for various designs - 100 kVA

180000

160000

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Limits at 100% load


Star 3 -100 kVA
3000.0

Total Losses at respective load in Watts

2500.0

M3Al

2000.0

M4Cu
M3Cu
M5Cu

1500.0

ZDMHCu
ZDMHAl
AMTCu

1000.0

AMTAl

500.0

0.0
120% 115% 110% 105% 100% 95% 90% 85% 80%

75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50%

45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20%

15% 10%

5%

Loading

Recommendation
Star rating plan
The star rating represents the loss level and will
represent the efficiency status.
Star 1 is current IS level and Star 5 will be
lowest loss specifications.
Star rating will represent total losses at 50% &
100% loads and at 750C.

Recommendation

kVA Star Rating


16

25

Max
Losses
at 50%
(Watts)

Max Losses at
100% (watts)

200

555

165

520

150

480

135

440

120

400

290

785

235

740

210

695

185

655

160

615
10

Recommendation 3

kVA

Max
Losses
at 50%
(Watts)

Star Rating
63

100

Max Losses at 100%


(watts)

490

1415

430

1335

380

1250

330

1170

280

1100

700

2020

610

1910

520

1800

440

1700

360

1600

11

Recommendation 3

kVA

Star Rating

160

200

Max
Losses
at 50%
(Watts)

Max Losses
at 100%
(watts)

1000

2800

880

2550

770

2200

670

1950

570

1700

1130

3300

1010

3000

890

2700

780

2400

670

2100

12

Existing & Proposed efficiency levels


0.9950
0.9900

0.9850

IS - 100%
BEE 100%

0.9800

IS 50

0.9750

BEE - 50

0.9700
0.9650
16

25

63
kVA

100
13

2500

Comparison with international standards


2000

National Standads of
China GB/T 6451 - 1999

1500

EU HD 428

1000

Australian Standards AS
2374.1.2 Part XX (MEPS)

Australian Standards AS
2374.1.2 Part XX (High
Efficiency)

500

NEMA TP-1 2002

Proposed MEPS (BEE)

Losses @ 50% Load (Watts)

Canadian Standards
Association C802.1-00

100

200

300
kVA

400

500
14

Impact of star 3 on cost & material


kVA

Star 1

Star 3

Design
Material

Ex-works
price (Rs)

Design
Material

Ex-works
price (Rs)

25

M6Al

18,382

M3Al/M4Cu 20,941

63

M5Al

32,904

M3Al/M4Cu 41,400

100

M6Al

47,149

M3Al/M4Cu 60,236

160

M4Al

68,100

M3Al/M4Cu 85,572

200

M4Al

82,182

M3Al/M4Cu 102,164
15

PAY BACK PERIOD


Pay-back Period for 100 kVA
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2

M3Cu

ZDMHCu

M3Al

ZDMHAl

M4Cu

M5Cu

AMTCu

AMTAl

ZDMHCu

M3Cu

ZDMHAl

AMTCu

AMTAl

ZDMHCu

0
AMTCu

Years

STAR - 3 LEVEL

Star 3

Star 3

Star 3

Star 3

Star 3

Star 3

Star 3

Star 4

Star 4

Star 4

Star 4

Star 4

Star 5

Star 5

Star 5

Pay Back Period at 30% Load

Pay Back Period at 50% Load

Pay Back Period at 100% Load

16

Energy saving potential in 1st year


Transform
% Of
er
Total Sale
size(kVA)
upto
200kVA
Purchase
s
25
6%
Purchase
63
25%
s of year
100
44%
2001160
3%
2002
200
14%

Annual
Sales
(MVA)

Average
No Load
Losses
(W)

Average
Load
Losses
(W)

Effective
Load
Factor

Annual
Energy
Losses
(kWH)

Annual
Loss per
kVA
(kWh)

Annual
loss
(Million
kWh)

863
3760
6667
398
525

86
173
250
395
425

620
1180
1710
2370
2960

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

1808
3510
5081
7406
8738
Total

72.30
55.71
50.81
46.29
43.69

62.39
209.49
338.77
18.42
22.94
652.01

Energy
Saving in
1st Year
(Million
kWh)

Conservat
ion case
with Star
3

25
63
100
160
200

6%
25%
44%
3%
14%

863
3760
6667
398
525

66
141
218
259
311

571
951
1201
2035
2304

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

1566
2841
3887
5758
6653
Total

62.63
45.09
38.87
35.99
33.26

54.05
169.54
259.14
14.32
17.46
514.51

8.35
39.95
79.63
4.10
5.47
137.50

Conservat
ion case
with Star
5

25
63
100
160
200

6%
25%
44%
3%
14%

863
3760
6667
398
525

75
114
157
229
283

335
659
804
1359
1542

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

1191
2091
2685
4266
5014
Total

47.63
33.18
26.85
26.66
25.07

41.10
21.29
124.77
84.71
179.01
159.76
10.61
7.81
13.16
9.77
368.65 17283.35

Recommendation

Energy efficiency labels


Manufacturers would conduct the test as per the
approved procedure register with BEE &
display label on the transformer.
Label will display rated capacity, star rating and
maximum total losses at 50% and 100% loads.
No positive tolerance on the displayed label
value.
18

Sample DT label

19

Recommendation 5
Utility purchases
Utility to improve MEPS from star 1(IS-1180)
to Min star 3.

20

Fluorescent Tube Lights


S & L Program

21

Lighting industry in India


Total lighting market : Rs. 18,000 M ; Growth : 12% p.a.
Lamps
: Rs. 10,800 M : Growth : 10% p.a.

GLS
Tube lights
HID
CFL

: Rs. 4,500 M (435 M units) ; Growth : 5% p.a.


: Rs. 4,200 M (136 M units) ; Growth : 10% p.a.
: Rs. 1650 M ( 4 M units) ; Growth : 20% p.a.
: Rs. 450 M ( 1 M units) ; Growth : 15% p.a.

Luminaires
: Rs. 7,200 M ; Growth : 15% p.a.
(Ballasts, fixtures & accessories)
Unorganised sector accounts for 35% of the total lighting market (value
terms)
Around 440 unorganised players
Around 20 organised players
Lighting accounts for 17% of total electricity consumed in India

22

VISION OF S & L PROGRAMME


Work on BEE S & L programme on FTL was initiated on
08 September 2002.
ELCOMA was requested to spearhead the BEE S & L
Programme.
T-8 ( 36W ) & T-5 ( 28 watt ) Triband offers lumen
efficacy of 85 lumen per watt

Lighting industry should strive to improve lumen efficacy


of over 70 lumens per watt in about 5 years time.

23

VISION OF S & L PROGRAMME


( CONTINUED)
In order to create market pull, the government could
buy only star rated products, i.e. the highest energy
efficiency products.
The standards should be futuristic since there is also
a time frame required for phasing out old products
and introduction of efficient products. A time frame of
2-3 years was suggested.
Labeling would be the first activity to be taken up in
these products.
24

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

25

Tasks of Technical Committee


The task of Technical Committee is to finalise:
a.

Testing protocol

b.

Technical parameters along with weightages for


labeling

c.

Label design

d.

Test laboratories

e.

Challenge & Check testing protocol.

26

FTL Technical Committee Recommendations


For energy labeling 3 parameters should be considered which
would provide efficacy from both efficiency as well as life:
Lumens at 100 hrs.(initial lumens) Lumen/watt
Lumen depreciation @ 2000 hours Lumen/watt
Lumen depreciation @ 70 % life (3500) hours Lumen/watt.
Test Procedure: relevant BIS test procedures including
amendments
meet all the minimum requirements of BIS to qualify for labelling
BIS certification or a quality control certification, a
prequalification for labelling

27

FTL Technical Committee Recommendations


( Continued)
The 3200 lumen output lamps (Triband) was also
included for testing and BIS has also agreed to go in for
the standards in the last meeting
For 18W we have considered 940 lumens in place of 1015
lumens in BIS since this has been agreed in the last
meeting of the BIS.
Based on the visit of the technical team to the four
Laboratories, the recommendations of the technical
committee is to go for testing at NPL & ERDA after
ascertaining Proficiency testing in both the Laboratories.
Accreditation of NPL with NABL is under process.
28

FTL Technical Committee Recommendations


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

There were certain differences in the optical


measurements in the three laboratories but these are with
in the z score of proficiency testing.
Since the measurements are against a standard
reference lamp, it was felt necessary to ensure the
quality of reference lamp. BEE to take up with NPL
The lighting industry had agreed to align with ERDA
laboratory

29

Revised Star rating Plan


( This would need another meeting with stakeholders)

Star
100 hrs
levels efficacy
Lumens/W

2000 hrs
efficacy
Lumens/W

>47 & < 54

>40 & =<46

3500 hrs
efficacy
Lumens/W
>38 & =<43

>54 & = <60

>46 & = <51

>43 & = <48

>60 & = <69

>51 & = <59

>48 & = <55

>69 & = < 85

>59 & = < 72

>55 & = < 68

> 85

> 72

> 68

30

Basis
Values for the 100 hours efficacy was worked out taking into
consideration that all Wattages and their energy efficacy is
reflected the star rating plan.
The values of IS with permissible tolerances for different
wattages were used to arrive at the boundaries.
Efforts were made to differentiate 20 W & 18 W, 40 W & 36
W and halo phosphates and Tri phosphates
Star rating plan would ensure efficiency purchases.
The cut off % for these categories have been fixed in such a
way the categories of lamps operating with good quality
control as well as above the minimum threshold would fall in
the appropriate levels.
31

Energy Label

32

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
MEPS CURRENT INDIAN STANDARD
Lamp type

Minimum average lamp efficacy (lm/W)


India
( Lamp only)

India
( Lamp &
ballast)

Australia

Canada

USA

Korea

600mm - 20 W

51

36

70

64

64

55

600 mm - 18W

56

42

600 mm - 18 W HL

72

59

1200mm - 40 W

61

47

75

75

75

66

1200 mm 36 W

67

51

1200 mm - 36 W HL

90

81

MEPS ALSO TALKS OF LUMEN MAINTANANCE AT 70% OF LIFE

33

Thank you!!!

34