Remote garage : Battery powered lighting?

[Marc426]

Hi everyone!

Been following the board for quite some time now and now's the time for me to ask for your precious advice and wisdom

With a couple of friends we recently got our hands on a small garage (supposedly it's a 2car but I live in europe so it's a basically a 1 car for you guys living in the US!).

Problem is it's in a shared parking (it's basically 2 closed spaces) and we have no access to electricity apart from a plug a good 20meters away.
Not willing to pull out the electric cord each time, I'm thinking battery powered LED lighting but I can't seem to find any acceptable solution on the interweb...

My initial idea being whatever 12V light running on a car battery that I'd charge every now and then. A 10-20h running time would be good.

Any ideas?

Thanks by advance!

Marc

 

[HOTFR8]

Solar light ?

 

[Marc426]

 

[Marc426]

:'(((

 

[eljefino]

Get a battery quick connect like this:

and hang it through your car's grill. When you pull into the garage, put a small inverter on it which will run a few hanging T8 flourescent fixtures.

If you want slightly less light-- enough for moving around, maybe not working-- get a couple LED fog lights from a parts store like advance auto and run those directly off 12 volts.

Are you going to be in the garage with the car each time? Will there be opportunity for the car to recharge its own battery? You might want to get a charger and extension cord "Just in case."

 

[Marc426]

Thanks for the input!

I was thinking of something to that effect, quick connect plugs and battery to recharge.

Problem is : I cannot leave the car running while in the garage (I'd be found dead one day!) and the inverter option seems to me as a quite inefficient option... what do you think?
Oh and I thought you couldn't connect any inductance load such as a neon light? Am I wrong?

 

[ForceFed70]

Use 12V florescent lighting. It's very common for RV's and readily available. It's more efficient than LED, it's cheaper than LED, and you won't need an inverter.

Depending on the wattage used, you should be able to get 4-5hrs out of it without needing to recharge the battery.

You could also look into those portable powerpacks that can charge through the vehicle's charging system. No risk of draining the car battery but will still re-charge each time you drive the vehicle.

 

[FluxCore]

Solar with a small bank of deep cycle batteries:

http://www.solarpanelstore.com/lighting.interior-lights.doctorled_12_volt.html

 

[jeff000]

Use 12V florescent lighting. It's very common for RV's and readily available. It's more efficient than LED, it's cheaper than LED, and you won't need an inverter.

Depending on the wattage used, you should be able to get 4-5hrs out of it without needing to recharge the battery.

You could also look into those portable powerpacks that can charge through the vehicle's charging system. No risk of draining the car battery but will still re-charge each time you drive the vehicle.

I think you are mistaken.

LED are DC for starters.
8w 12v florescent might be cheap yes, and 1 watt less then a nice 9w par 30 LED but it has 1/20th the light output....
That makes LED FAR FAR more efficient.

 

[FluxCore]

Marc, your mention of electrical stuff and living in Europe brought back a fond memory of a pit stop 1n 1974 Naples.

I'd met an Italian gal in a bar. She took me home that night. When we got to her up upstairs flat, it was pitch black inside. I found the light switch just inside the door and gave it a twist-still no lights

She laffed and remained in the lighted hall digging coins out of her purse, then held her hand out for more.....Once inside, she made her way to the kitchen and dropped a few coins in a wall mounted meter, then cranked the handle and the lights came on.

She didn't understand my surprize at their pay-as-you go way of buying electricity.

There was one receptical in each room, and one ceiling light per room....The meter was time based, not based on wattage used, but time...The more coins inserted, the longer the electricty remained on...It would 'ding' a few moments before the lights went out.

I was there about an hour when it dinged the first time...at that point she held her hand out for more coins....the second time it dinged, she pulled the covers over our heads

 

[ForceFed70]

I think you are mistaken.

LED are DC for starters.
8w 12v florescent might be cheap yes, and 1 watt less then a nice 9w par 30 LED but it has 1/20th the light output....
That makes LED FAR FAR more efficient.

I never said LED needed AC. I simply said a 12VDC flourescent fixture wouldn't need an inverter. In a different post another member suggested using an inverter and 120VAC flourescent fixtures.

And Ummm.... Where are you getting your light output numbers from?

It's pretty well known that watt for watt an average inexpensive flourescent fixture is just as efficient (or even more efficient) than an average inexpensive LED fixture. Although there are some LED/Power supply combo's that are slightly more efficient (up to 10% more efficient) but they are VERY expensive.

To be honest: To claim that LED is 20x more efficient than flourescent is simply crazy and WAY out to lunch.

Here's a link to another board where there is an excellent thread explaining LED vs Flourescent Pro's and Con's. They claim made there is that efficiency is actually on the florescent side, but there have been improvements to LED efficiency since 09: http://www.edaboard.com/thread146755.html

Another great breakdown: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/10/prweb8870825.htm

For the record, CFL is not nearly as efficient as proper flourescent fixtures.

 

[ddawg16]

I never said LED needed AC. I simply said a 12VDC flourescent fixture wouldn't need an inverter. In a different post another member suggested using an inverter and 120VAC flourescent fixtures.

And Ummm.... Where are you getting your light output numbers from?

It's pretty well known that watt for watt an average inexpensive flourescent fixture is just as efficient (or even more efficient) than an average inexpensive LED fixture. Although there are some LED/Power supply combo's that are slightly more efficient (up to 10% more efficient) but they are VERY expensive.

To be honest: To claim that LED is 20x more efficient than flourescent is simply crazy and WAY out to lunch.

Here's a link to another board where there is an excellent thread explaining LED vs Flourescent Pro's and Con's. They claim made there is that efficiency is actually on the florescent side, but there have been improvements to LED efficiency since 09: http://www.edaboard.com/thread146755.html

Another great breakdown: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/10/prweb8870825.htm

For the record, CFL is not nearly as efficient as proper flourescent fixtures.

I have to take exception to your statement that FL is more effecient than LED.

I did read the article....and I have issues with his numbers....and it should also be pointed out that he was working with AC bulbs....

First, let me point out that I don't think LED's are the holly grail of lighting...I think the 'perfect' light bulb is still waiting to be found.

The author of the first article you referenced stated the output of the LED at 55 lums/w and FL at 110 lums/w.....a stretch of both in the wrong directions....

While I prefer FL over LED for home lighting....when it comes to low voltage applications....LED has a distinct advantage of FL. Because you don't have to have the sophisticated electronics to convert the AC house voltage to DC (one of the main losses of effeciency), you have an advantage right there. When using FL on a DC source, it has to have a DC to AC inverter....basically, a variation of the standard electronic ballast.

In a nut shell....for low voltage applications...LED's are cheaper and more effecient.

To the OP....look into some of the camping lights available....you can get some common LED lights that should give you plenty of light.

 

[jeff000]

I never said LED needed AC. I simply said a 12VDC flourescent fixture wouldn't need an inverter. In a different post another member suggested using an inverter and 120VAC flourescent fixtures.

And Ummm.... Where are you getting your light output numbers from?

It's pretty well known that watt for watt an average inexpensive flourescent fixture is just as efficient (or even more efficient) than an average inexpensive LED fixture. Although there are some LED/Power supply combo's that are slightly more efficient (up to 10% more efficient) but they are VERY expensive.

To be honest: To claim that LED is 20x more efficient than flourescent is simply crazy and WAY out to lunch.

Here's a link to another board where there is an excellent thread explaining LED vs Flourescent Pro's and Con's. They claim made there is that efficiency is actually on the florescent side, but there have been improvements to LED efficiency since 09: http://www.edaboard.com/thread146755.html

Another great breakdown: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/10/prweb8870825.htm

For the record, CFL is not nearly as efficient as proper flourescent fixtures.

The way you wrote it I got the impression the the DC fluorescent didn't need an inverter like the LED would.

Well lets see 160 lumens per watt(consumer grade average, as 250+ lumens/watt is available) for LED, and fluorescent about 50, 80 on the high side.

20x is an exaggeration, yes.

As already mentioned, your links are highly biased and imo incorrect.
I do a lot of LED upgrades, lots of store coolers going LED inside over fluorescent, and the LED fixtures are 1/5th the wattage, and when done are an easy 2-4x brighter, a large part of that is the high end LED replacing a bare tube without reflector too though.

 

[ForceFed70]

I have to take exception to your statement that FL is more effecient than LED.

I did read the article....and I have issues with his numbers....and it should also be pointed out that he was working with AC bulbs....

First, let me point out that I don't think LED's are the holly grail of lighting...I think the 'perfect' light bulb is still waiting to be found.

The author of the first article you referenced stated the output of the LED at 55 lums/w and FL at 110 lums/w.....a stretch of both in the wrong directions....

While I prefer FL over LED for home lighting....when it comes to low voltage applications....LED has a distinct advantage of FL. Because you don't have to have the sophisticated electronics to convert the AC house voltage to DC (one of the main losses of effeciency), you have an advantage right there. When using FL on a DC source, it has to have a DC to AC inverter....basically, a variation of the standard electronic ballast.

In a nut shell....for low voltage applications...LED's are cheaper and more effecient.

I will not claim the FL is more efficient as that's a blanket statement that simply isn't true in many cases. BUT, the fact of the matter is that the efficiencies are quite comparable. It depends on the application.

The LED fixtures that are more efficient than comparable FL fixtures have anything but a simple power supply. Even in a DC application. Efficient LED is not as simple as applying 12V and you're done.

Your nutshell statement is actually completely wrong. For a low voltage application you can have EITHER cheap (show me a LED solution for cheaper than a FL as I haven't seen it, but some are cheap or at least comparable) OR more efficent. The simple and cheap ones are less efficient, the expensive ones are slightly more efficient at 10x the cost. I challenge you to prove me wrong on this if you won't believe me.

Most of the unbiased articles that you'll find basically say "The efficiencies are about the same but LED lamps last longer" I even argue that point as many are finding that their LED lamps/fixtures are lasting nowhere near as long as their advertised lifespan. They also don't mention the cost of replacement lamps...LED lamps being many times more expensive to replace. There is also the issue of LED lighting dimming over time which nobody seems to ever take into consideration.

 

[ForceFed70]

Well lets see 160 lumens per watt(consumer grade average, as 250+ lumens/watt is available) for LED, and fluorescent about 50, 80 on the high side.

20x is an exaggeration, yes.

As already mentioned, your links are highly biased and imo incorrect.
I do a lot of LED upgrades, lots of store coolers going LED inside over fluorescent, and the LED fixtures are 1/5th the wattage, and when done are an easy 2-4x brighter, a large part of that is the high end LED replacing a bare tube without reflector too though.

I'd like to see where you are getting your efficiency numbers from. The numbers I've seen show nowhere near that type of spread. Can you point us to any published numbers, etc that show this?

LED's in coolers are one application where it makes sense. It comes down more to directional light required, and the situation (the fact it's in a cooler) that drives this. You cannot compare residential lighting to lighting in special applications.

Here's a question for you: Why is it that new buildings being built today are still using flourescent? If LED is so much more efficient, then why isn't it being used? Sure you'll stumble across the odd installation, but high output LED's have been redily available for 10 years now. If it really was significantly more efficient, we'd be seeing them all over the place by now. Especially in comercial buildings where the lights are on for much longer and efficiency return on investment would occur much sooner than in a residential setting.

LED lighting certainly has it's applications, especially in some speciality settings. But for typical overhead lighting, FL is still king.

 

[ForceFed70]

According to wikipedia:

T8 with electronic ballast: 80-100 lumens per watt.
Most efficient LED application listed (there are a bunch): 101 lumens per watt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

Overall. Like I've been trying to get across: The efficiencies are comparable and what is MOST efficient depends on the exact application and technology.


Some quick pricing research:
6000 lumen t8 fixture (dual 32W lamps) cost is approx $30-40 with lamps
6000 lumen (Initial. LED's dim over time) LED in t8 retrofit package (cheapest I could find with comparable efficiency to T8) $250-$300

 

[jeff000]

I'd like to see where you are getting your efficiency numbers from. The numbers I've seen show nowhere near that type of spread. Can you point us to any published numbers, etc that show this?

LED's in coolers are one application where it makes sense. It comes down more to directional light required, and the situation (the fact it's in a cooler) that drives this. You cannot compare residential lighting to lighting in special applications.

Here's a question for you: Why is it that new buildings being built today are still using flourescent? If LED is so much more efficient, then why isn't it being used? Sure you'll stumble across the odd installation, but high output LED's have been redily available for 10 years now. If it really was significantly more efficient, we'd be seeing them all over the place by now. Especially in comercial buildings where the lights are on for much longer and efficiency return on investment would occur much sooner than in a residential setting.

LED lighting certainly has it's applications, especially in some speciality settings. But for typical overhead lighting, FL is still king.

28 floor office tower that was just completed here, has huge numbers of LED lights. Most all the non tenant space actually.
Government building here, almost all the lighting they are putting in is LED....

I don't know where you are getting that major installations are not going LED.

Campuses across the city and shopping centers are going LED street/parking lighting

Every single bid that comes across my desk has LED lighting, some only 20% of the lights, but more and more are 100%.

Your view is skewed because the US has no money.

According to wikipedia:

T8 with electronic ballast: 80-100 lumens per watt.
Most efficient LED application listed (there are a bunch): 101 lumens per watt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

Overall. Like I've been trying to get across: The efficiencies are comparable and what is MOST efficient depends on the exact application and technology.


Some quick pricing research:
6000 lumen t8 fixture (dual 32W lamps) cost is approx $30-40 with lamps
6000 lumen (Initial. LED's dim over time) LED in t8 retrofit package (cheapest I could find with comparable efficiency to T8) $250-$300

Wikipedia is hardly a reference, please.
Do some research on Cree and Luxeon and get back to me.

I find it funny you list that LED dim with time, but fail to note how much they dim, and fail to compare it to how much a fluorescent dims.
An LED has a 95% lumen maintenance over their 50k hour lifespan.
A T8 has a 90% lumen maintenance over their 30k hour life span.

(And most T8 have a lifespan of only 20k hours, I was nice and used the more expensive and harder to find 30k hour tubes for the comparison).
They test the lumen maintenance over 6k hours as that is when almost all the loss occurs by. All lighting options dim as they age. some more then other.

T8 retrofit are generally less efficient then specific LED fixtures by about 20%. But the retrofit is about 20% cheaper.

 

[ForceFed70]

My father owns a local mid-sized electrical company that does almost exclusively commercial work. I asked him about LED and he said they are only installing in specialty applications (coolers, cabinet lighting, strip/decorative lighting, etc). They did have one install (new hospital) that went LED overhead but only because they were forced to meet the government mandated "Gold" energy standard and their lights remain on 24/7.

Against my better judgement, I did research Luxeon and Cree:

Here's a link to the Luxeon Rebel line specifications which is their premier LED for overhead lighting and efficiency.
http://www.philipslumileds.com/products/luxeon-rebel/luxeon-rebel-white

What I see is that these LED's are rated at anywhere between 63 lumens/watt and 135 lumens per watt depending on the color temp and CRI. The most efficient of all of them is listed at 135 lumens/watt with a HORRIBLE CRI of 70. Their most efficient LED suitable for general overhead lighting (a CRI of over 80) is down to 111 lumens/watt. So you may get 20% better efficiency but nowhere near the 2000% or 500% or whatever you are now claiming. Or you could go as high as 30-40% more efficient if you don't actually care about the quality of the light.

And surprise surprise... right in the data sheet: Average 70% Lumen maintenance at the end of it's lifespan. Whereas the "Standard" Philips T8 lamp has a 95% lumen maintenance at the end of it's expected lifespan. At approx 25,000 hrs (and a $5 lamp change for the T8) the T8 and LED have roughly the same efficiency. After 25,000hrs the T8 becomes more and more efficient vs the LED lamp until the LED lamp is changed. In other words, the LED lamps are only more efficient for 1/2 of the lifespan and in the end, it evens out. And they make other T8 lamps with even better specs. Yes, I know that your average T8 lasts 20k hrs whereas LED is 50k. But, a replacement T8 lamp costs $5. A replacement LED lamp of the same output is a minimum 20x more expensive at $100 and I'm being generous with that cost.

Cree LED's are worse. Only 74 lumens/watt and with the same L70 rating. Here's where you can find their product info and datasheets: http://www.cree.com/led-components-and-modules/products/

Here's where you can find specs for Philips T8 lamps: http://www.ecat.lighting.philips.ca/l/en/professional-lamps/fluorescent-lamps/t8/29514/cat/#

I think perhaps it's time you did some research?

 

[jeff000]

My father owns a local mid-sized electrical company that does almost exclusively commercial work. I asked him about LED and he said they are only installing in specialty applications (coolers, cabinet lighting, strip/decorative lighting, etc). They did have one install (new hospital) that went LED overhead but only because they were forced to meet the government mandated "Gold" energy standard and their lights remain on 24/7.

Against my better judgement, I did research Luxeon and Cree:

Here's a link to the Luxeon Rebel line specifications which is their premier LED for overhead lighting and efficiency.
http://www.philipslumileds.com/products/luxeon-rebel/luxeon-rebel-white

What I see is that these LED's are rated at anywhere between 63 lumens/watt and 135 lumens per watt depending on the color temp and CRI. The most efficient of all of them is listed at 135 lumens/watt with a HORRIBLE CRI of 70. Their most efficient LED suitable for general overhead lighting (a CRI of over 80) is down to 111 lumens/watt. So you may get 20% better efficiency but nowhere near the 2000% or 500% or whatever you are now claiming. Or you could go as high as 30-40% more efficient if you don't actually care about the quality of the light.

And surprise surprise... right in the data sheet: Average 70% Lumen maintenance at the end of it's lifespan. Whereas the "Standard" Philips T8 lamp has a 95% lumen maintenance at the end of it's expected lifespan. At approx 25,000 hrs (and a $5 lamp change for the T8) the T8 and LED have roughly the same efficiency. After 25,000hrs the T8 becomes more and more efficient vs the LED lamp until the LED lamp is changed. In other words, the LED lamps are only more efficient for 1/2 of the lifespan and in the end, it evens out. And they make other T8 lamps with even better specs. Yes, I know that your average T8 lasts 20k hrs whereas LED is 50k. But, a replacement T8 lamp costs $5. A replacement LED lamp of the same output is a minimum 20x more expensive at $100 and I'm being generous with that cost.

Cree LED's are worse. Only 74 lumens/watt and with the same L70 rating. Here's where you can find their product info and datasheets: http://www.cree.com/led-components-and-modules/products/

Here's where you can find specs for Philips T8 lamps: http://www.ecat.lighting.philips.ca/l/en/professional-lamps/fluorescent-lamps/t8/29514/cat/#

I think perhaps it's time you did some research?

When was I talking about CRI?
Lots of LED fixtures use two or more color temp LED's to overcome there CRI limitations. The LED "Emperor has no clothes" syndrome has long been a problem. Marine aquaria lighting has been the first to overcome this, generally by using 5 colors of LED. They are also the ones that need specific wavelength that T5 and MH can only keep for 5-10 months.
CRI is a more heated topic then religion at all the lighting conferences. The last of which had cree and philips show off their 270 lumen/watt LED's.

Your replacement costs are wrong too. You have to do it over at least 5 years, and add labor cost. Walmart relamps t8 every year, but their LED showcase lights they don't relamp like they used to have to with T8.
LED companies don't give a rats behind about residential consumers yet really. They want to change all these T8's to LED. They might sell a lot of tubes, but only make pennies compared to the margins on LED.

Your fathers company only does specialty LED lighting because there is less money being spend in construction in the states. As soon as things start to pick up things will change, as they have here already. Couple large projects have went from normal pots spec'ed to now having LEDs, T8 going LED, etc. Being looked at as being "green" is often worth the cost here.
Almost all industrial explosion proof fixtures have been LED for a couple years.

I'm not going to reply to this post anymore.