|摘要: ||ENEE係為宏都拉斯負責管理道路照明設備的政府機構，約占有3%總能源消耗量 。近年來 (Negri de Magalhäes & Morales Udaeta, 2008)，ENEE開始運用水銀路燈，惟許多研究指出水銀路燈不僅對環境有害，照明效率亦不佳。因此，ENEE改採用高效能、更長平均壽命且對環境傷害較少的高壓鈉燈以取代水銀路燈。 本文從技術、經濟及外部性三方面探討以LED取代傳統路燈照明的可行性。道路照明的模擬分析方面，本文利用DIAlux及RETScreen分析方法來比較LED及其他各種照明方式的優缺點，最後並做成本效益、節能及減碳的量化分析。 本文的主要研究發現為： 1. 在初期的設置成本方面，LED雖高於其他傳統照明燈具，但LED在節能及維修保養方面卻優於傳統照明燈具。這確實是LED被許多城市採用來替代傳統照明燈具的重要原因。 2. 本文採用的具體例證也顯示，比較高壓鈉燈LED的能源成本一年可節省23.3萬度、價值美金約38,986元，且其投資回收期為5年、內部報酬率20.5％、效益成本比為1.83，符合經濟可行性評估。此外，溫室氣體每年可減少77.5噸CO2。 總之，以市政能源耗用挑戰、路燈網路支出和城市品質而言，LED路燈提供一個有效且富有成本效益性的解決方案。|
關;The ENEE is a government institute in charge of the management of the roadway lighting in Honduras which is about 3% of the total energy consumption (Negri de Magalhäes & Morales Udaeta, 2008). Over the years, the ENEE began using high intensity discharge mercury lamps which emit a cold light (white), after several studies either environmental or lighting efficiency, they resulted in poor illumination and regarding the environmental issue mercury is harmful to health. After these studies, the ENEE switch to sodium vapor lamps that have a higher efficiency, longer average life and contain a minimum amount of mercury in their bulbs.
This paper performs a feasibility assessment by evaluating the technical, economical an external aspects of the alternative plan. A roadway lighting simulation executed by DIAlux and a RETScreen analysis of the cost and benefits, is being provided in this research in order to estimate the strength and weaknesses of each alternative that satisfied the requirements for retrofitting lighting structures. This type of analyses helped determined the best option to obtain the best approach for the adoption and practice in terms of benefits in costs, energy savings and carbon dioxide reduction.
Findings from the study demonstrate that although the initial costs of retrofitting conventional lighting to LED are high, it was found that energy and maintenance savings are real and these are the main motivations for why many cities conduct LED street light projects. For the proposed case, the fuel saved is 233 MWh, in terms of money the savings ascend to $38,986 (53.3%) annually compared to the high pressure sodium lamps. Financially, this is a viable project, the payback is in 5 years, the NPV is a positive value ($196,689), and there is a high IRR (20.5%) which is an attractive percentage for the investor. Also, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.83, this value being greater than one, making the project acceptable. And the reduction of GHG emission will be 77.5 tCO2 annually.
In conclusion, LED street lights offer an effective and increasingly cost effective solution to the development challenge of municipal energy consumption, street light network expenditures and urban quality.