| 摘要: | 節能減碳是時代的使命，也是每一位地球人的責任。本研究針對校園照明節能減碳，透過LED節能燈具及迴路更改，選擇適當的T8、T5 4尺 LED燈管(14W)及T8 2尺 LED燈管(7W)，評析學校進行節電改善效益，結果顯示改善後節能率達 66.07%，每年可節省電費NTD 709,216元，減少碳排放量 108.5 公噸 CO2e。節能措施導入前，學校經費拮据，雖有心改善校園照明，但無法負擔更換燈具的建置成本，於是透過能源技術服務企業 (ESCO)搭配能源保證績效合同(ESPC) 協助，解決經費不足問題。學校與節能業者雙方原先議定ESPC年限為7年，實際量測資料顯示，由於改善後節能率高達 66.07%，每年可節省電費NTD 709,216元，只需要4.37年，即可由每年節省電費，償還建置成本，也確認ESPC年限 7年是可行的方案。本研究能源保證績效驗證採用國際績效測量和驗證協議(IPMVP)中的選項A，屬部分及短暫量測方法，點燈時數約定為每年1,600 小時。實際選定三間教室，安裝數位電表，監測每日用電狀況，量測一年時間，驗證每年1,600 小時之合理性，實際量測統計資料顯示，三間教室中有兩間教室超過1,600小時，另一間教室因教師在投影機教學時，用燈習慣不同，每年用電時數為1,320小時，雖然驗證有兩間教室符合1,600小時以上，但未來新案場節能減碳，應重新評估合理點燈時數。同樣在這三間教室，更換T8 4尺 LED燈管(10W)及T8 2尺 LED燈管(5W)，研究將整體節能率提升至75%之可行性，量測後統計資料顯示，因改善前T5系列燈具比率偏高(達58%)，三間教室總體節能率為70%，尚無法達到目標75%的節能率，顯示改善後總體節能率與改善前燈具T8、T5系列配置比率有密切關聯，應列入節能措施導入前的評估項目。;Energy saving and carbon reduction are a mission of the generation nowadays and a responsibility of human beings. This study evaluated the benefit of power reduction via lighting improvement for a junior high school, and the results reveal 66.07% power saving which equals the saving of NTD 709,216 electricity bill and reduction of 108.5 tons CO2e emission per year after the implementation. Power saving is achieved via choo-sing energy-efficient LED lighting and modification of the wiring path. Specifically, the current lamps are replaced with suitable 1.2m ,14W, T8/T5 LED lamps and 0.6m, 7W T8 LED lamps. Prior to this eco-project, the school faced the shortage of funding for energy-efficient lighting replacement program. In order to overcome the budget shortage challenges, they collaborated with Energy /Engineering Service Company (ESCO), working together under a project called Energy Saving Performance Contracts (ESPC). ESPC lasts 7 years; however, its return on investment (ROI) is 4.37 years according to the data collected. The verification of Energy Savings Performance for the study is via the option A of International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) in which the saving is measured by the key performance of critical parameters, and the lighting is 1,600 hours per year. We installed digital electricity meters in three classes, and monitored daily power consumption for a year in order to verify whether the 1,600 hours criteria of a year is rational. The results indicated that the power consumption is over 1,600 hours in two of the three classes and the other one is 1,320 hours. Although the power consumptions of two classes are over 1,600 hours in a year, the rational criteria of power consumption should be evaluated for the following cases due to the trend of power saving and carbon reduction. Next, we replaced the lighting with 1.2m, 10W T8 and 0.6m, 5W T8 energy-efficient LED lamps, and kept track whether the overall saving achieved over 75%. The results revealed that the total energy saving of three classes is 70% instead of 75% target, since the proportion of T5 LED lighting is higher (58%) than T8 LED lighting (42%). The overall energy saving is highly related to the proportion between T5 and T8 LED which should be listed as an evaluation item before leading an energy saving project. |
