Fuel-Based Lighting in the Workplace
Fuel-Based Lighting in the Workplace
IAEEL recently reported on the use of fuel-based lighting in homes in developing countries (see IAEEL 2/99). According to our current estimates, the household energy used for lighting by the two billion people without electricity is approximately 43% of that used to provide the 535 TWh of electricity consumed for residential electric lighting globally. Below, Evan Mills' photo essay from Asia provides a vivid picture of the people who work by fuel-based lighting.
While data remain too sparse to attempt an estimate of fuel-based lighting energy used outside the home, a tour through four Asian countries (Bhutan, Cambodia, India, and Vietnam) revealed widespread use of fuel-based lighting in non-residential settings such as marketplaces, tailor shops, barbershops, and retail stores. We observed ordinary kerosene lamps, pressurized kerosene lamps, propane lamps, yak-butter lamps, and even candlelight routinely being used in businesses. We also observed some examples of photovoltaic lighting taking the place of fuel-based sources.
Nighttime walks through areas that officially have electricity reveal that power outages are quite commonplace, necessitating the use of fuel-based lighting sources. Even locations intended for tourists had to rely on fuel-based sources during frequent power outages in some areas. We also saw some shops with electric light and others using fuel-based light, all within "electrified" districts. This is probably due to the prohibitive cost of grid hookups. At night markets (very common throughout Asia) electricity is not even available, and candles or kerosene lamps are the norm.
THE COST OF LIGHT
Kerosene lamp light output varies from about 10 to 100 lumens, depending on the type of lamp and wick. The corresponding energy services (lumens) provided range from 1/7th to 1/70th of that from 60-watt incandescent lamps, and the discrepancy in actual energy services in total lumen hours provided per household are of course far higher (about 10 times) given the greater number of lamps per household. Depending on kerosene lamp efficiency and energy prices assumed, the operating costs per lumen-hour are 30 to 300 times higher for a kerosene lamp versus an "inefficient" incandescent electric lamp, and 150- to 1500-times higher compared to a compact fluorescent lamp.
The people we interviewed reported widely varying kerosene costs, ranging from $0.13/liter in Bhutan to $0.33/liter in Cambodia. Electricity costs varied equally widely.
In Cambodia, each kerosene lamp was reported to provide 20 hours of light per liter. For comparison, a 60-watt incandescent lamp run for the same time would consume 1.2 kWh at a cost of about US$0.36, making the kerosene option more costly per hour. It is remarkable that the per-household cost of fuel-based light is higher than that of even such expensive electricity (generated in this case using diesel fuel).
In peoples' markets in Sandrup Jonkar - on the frontier of Bhutan and Assam, India - a pressurized kerosene lamp costs 125 Rs ($2.70). For comparison, the cost of a basic pressurized propane set - with much higher efficiency and light output - is 1350Rs ($30) and the cost of a fuel fill is 80 Rs ($1.70). One fill lasts for 36 hours, for an operating cost of 2 Rs/hour ($0.04/hour). For comparison, a 100-watt incandescent lamp providing about the same light output costs 10Rs ($0.21), while running this lamp would cost $0.01/hour for electricity priced at $0.10/kWh. The cost of photovoltaic-based lanterns is not much higher than that paid for these LPG sets .
In addition to poorer service levels, fuel-based light sources are unsafe in terms of fire risk, indoor air quality, and pollution from kerosene handling. Also, the quality and quantity of light produced result in visual strain and reduced ability to read and do other visual tasks. People (typically women) in remote areas must often walk long distances to obtain fuel.
The images give a sense of the non-economic aspects of fuel-based lighting. While sometimes beautiful, the quality and quantity of light are clearly inferior and harder to work by than that provided by modern lighting systems.
Evan Mills
All photos were taken by the author.