About IAEEL Lighting Crossroadsl Meeting and Events IAEEL newsletter IAEEL search IAEEL home



IAEEL newsletter 3/93

Light from Glasnost



Increased communication and cooperation between the former Soviet Union and the West could help further the progress of energy-efficient lighting for both parties. Guest Author Julian Aizenberg (of the All-Russian Lighting Research Institute, VNISI) writes with IAEEL Newsletter Associate Editor Evan Mills.

Only a few years ago, it was a severe crime for Soviet citizens to share information about industrial matters with the West. This veil of secrecy certainly included lighting, with the result that this important energy end-use largely remained a mystery outside the former Soviet Union (FSU). Now, energy and lighting researchers in the West have the opportunity to exchange information with their new-found Soviet colleagues.

THE LIGHTING SITUATION
The lighting industry of the former Soviet Union is large by international standards. Each year 2.5 billion lamps, 85 million luminaires, and 48 million ballasts are manufactured in the FSU. There are 600 varieties of incandescent lamps, 85 varieties of fluorescent lamps, and 110 varieties of high-intensity discharge lamps. These technologies are produced in 20 major lamp factories, 35 luminaire factories, and 6 ballast factories, and by numerous small manufacturers of products for the household market.

Efficient light sources are produced in the FSU in relatively small numbers-only 150 million fluorescent lamps, 13 million HID lamps, and 6 million tungsten-halogen lamps are manufactured each year. Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) are indeed (much to the surprise of most in the West) manufactured in Russia. About half a million CFLs were produced in the city of Saransk in 1990 and new factories are being planned for Ryazan and Poltava (in Ukraine). Meanwhile, three-quarters of all luminaires in the FSU are equipped with incandescent light sources. As a result, the overall efficiency of Soviet lighting is at the most 30 lumens/watt versus about 40 lumens/watt in Great Britain or Japan.

Unfortunately, light levels do not always meet the guidelines (which are low compared to Western standards). Surveys of schools in 30 towns showed that 70% of the premises were severely under-lit. This is one of the causes of reported vision problems among the young. This situation also complicates the estimation of total lighting savings potential-it is unclear to what extent light levels (or the use of lighting) might be increased in response to lower operating costs.

In the FSU about 175 000 workers are needed to maintain existing lighting systems, including installation, lamp exchanges, cleaning, and other forms of maintenance. This is more than the number of workers employed in the manufacture of lamps and luminaires! Proper maintenance is seldom achieved, especially in dirty industrial environments.

LIGHTING KNOW-HOW
The FSU has considerable lighting technical capability and human resources. For example, 200 students graduate from universities each year with specialized training in lighting engineering. Eighty books on lighting have been published within the last decade. Before the breakup of the Soviet Union, circulation of the journal Svetotekhnika (now published in English as Light and Engineering) was 10 000 copies, and up to 350 articles were published annually.

Basic lighting research, development, and product testing historically has been based at the All-Union Research Lighting Institutes in Moscow (VNISI) and in Saransk (VNIIIS). The National Academy of Science and the Academy of Medicine address certain lighting and associated vision issues. The State Committee on Architecture and various trade union organizations also work with lighting issues. Organized in 1990, the FSU's Lighting Engineering Society comprised 26 sections and committees. However, government sponsorship of lighting research in the FSU has almost halted and the lack of competitive forces hampers in-house innovation by the producers.

Although there is no doubt that the West can do much to help the FSU enhance its lighting infrastructure, especially in energy efficiency, it also appears that benefits can flow in the opposite direction. Decades of research on luminaire design, for example, have put the FSU in a leadership position in designing hollow light guides that conduct centrally-produced light for distances at least 30-times the diameter of the guide. This type of configuration makes it possible to distribute light to hard-to-reach areas and thus simplifies maintenance needs.

Light guides also facilitate heat recovery, the use of daylighting, and multi-lamp installations enabling variable operation to counteract lumen depreciation or to achieve stepped lighting levels. There are today some 45 000 light guide installations around the FSU. Interesting applications include explosion-risk or sub-freezing areas (lamps and ballasts can be located remotely), subways and tunnels, swimming pool areas, street lighting, and high-bay industrial lighting. The economic viability of such systems in the West deserves further study.

LIGHTING THE FUTURE
Our estimates indicate a 50% savings potential in the FSU for all lighting uses combined. Here is one example of this potential: converting 30% of incandescent sockets to CFLs would generate 50 TWh/year of savings, equal to the output of 10 "Chernobyls".

The breakup of the Soviet Union has important implications for lighting, and could hamper the achievement of increased energy efficiency. Previously, single factories were often the exclusive source of specific lighting technologies for the entire USSR. Following the breakup, many of the new states have had to import these products.

The post-cold-war era promises to be an exciting one for East-West lighting cooperation. There are many opportunities for Western firms to participate in the establishment of more energy-efficient lighting capacity and market formation in the FSU. Examples include improved luminaire optics (e.g. light guides, specular reflectors), discharge light sources (e.g. through improved phosphors), and advanced ballasts, controls, and daylighting systems. Luminaires less prone to dirt depreciation and longer-lived light sources could help to reduce labor requirements. Potentially productive inter-governmental cooperation could emphasize issues such as conversion of military industrial capability to improved energy efficiency for lighting and other end-uses.

But it is not enough to simply manufacture the right kinds of lighting equipment. Widespread implementation and cost-based pricing of energy are essential to achieve noticeable energy savings. Among the innovative possibilities are:

  • Financial incentives for building managers who achieve energy savings

  • Shared-savings or loan systems, in which the investment costs for better lighting equipment can be repaid from the energy savings

  • Utility rebates to manufacturers for shifting their production mix toward more efficient technologies

  • Creation of joint ventures, daughter companies, or other vehicles for linking Western manufacturers with the Soviet market


Raising the energy-efficiency of lighting in the FSU offers at least three forms of benefits for the West. First, climate change and nuclear safety issues associated with electricity production (for lighting and other purposes) in the former Soviet Union are of global concern. Second, the West is already discussing the possibility of infusing large sums of money into the FSU in an effort to make safety improvements to the dangerous reactors. If instead, money is spent on large-scale end-use efficiency improvements, correspondingly less capital will be needed. Lastly, the potential Soviet (and nearby Asian) markets for efficient lighting technologies are immense.

(See also Rays of light for the former Soviet Union, IAEEL 1/93, and Moscow: a word from the street (IAEEL 2/93)

Julian Aizenberg
Evan Mills

Lighting of global importance
Lighting energy use in the former Soviet Union is of global importance. In 1990, approximately 13% of all electricity (220 billion kwh/year or 40,000 megawatts) in the FSU was used to power the approximately 1.5 billion light sources installed there. This electricity production corresponded to about 140 MT of carbon dioxide emissions annually-more than the total emissions of either Bulgaria, Hungaria, or the Netherlands.
Viewed another way, this electricity demand roughly equals the annual power produced by the remaining 40 or so dangerous nuclear reactors. In economic terms, the electricity used for lighting has a value of ~US$11 billion annually at Western European wholesale prices.

Top of page