利用省電燈泡與間歇照明節省菊花電照成本

Using Energy Saving Bulb and Cyclic Lighting to Save Energy Cost in Chrysanthemum Night-break

本試驗測試慣行之鎢絲燈泡及新型省電燈泡，運用於菊花夜間電照之最低有效照度，並以三種燈泡測試間歇照明法之有效程度。試驗以深夜連續電照或間歇電照4hr，測試對抑制開花之有效性。間歇電照以30min為一循環，每一循環照燈10min，共8循環。以熄燈後始花日數、株高及花下節數作為判斷基準。參試二品種‘舞風車’及‘金風車’於100W鎢絲燈泡在連續電照最低照度15Lux下，可以抑制開花。二種新型省電燈泡（20W及21W）之連續電照下，所需最低照度高於鎢絲燈泡。間歇電照時，僅以鎢絲燈下可以抑制開花，‘舞風車’間歇電照在光度34Lux下，可以抑制開花，太低之光度僅能延遲開花。‘金風車’間歇電照僅能延遲開花，不能有效抑制開花。兩種省電燈泡以間歇電照方式，無法達到抑制開花之目的。不能有效抑制開花之試區，開花時之植株高度低且節數少。二品種依測試結果之最低光量需求不同，在100W鎢絲燈下，‘舞風車’之臨界光量在2720Lux·min以上，低於臨界光量下開花延遲而非抑制；而‘金風車’之臨界光量則需3840Lux·min以上。考慮開花及採收時之一致性，菊花電照之照度與時間必須高於臨界光量之需求。20W及21W省電燈泡之用電量為100W鎢絲燈泡之19.3及23.3%，在相同之照度下，鎢絲燈之效果較省電燈泡佳，利用省電燈泡必須提高燈泡架設密度。100W鎢絲燈泡三分之一時間間歇電照之用電量為連續電照之36～38%，僅適用需光量低之品種。省電燈泡及間歇電照均可節省電費，然必須考慮品種間對光量需求之差異性。 The goals of this study were to determine how to estimate the critical light intensity and to save energy cost by using energy saving bulbs and cyclic lighting in Chrysanthemum night-break flowering inhibition. Three types of lighting bulbs were used in continuous or cyclic lighting systems. Four hours night-break was applied in continuous lighting. A 10 minutes lighting with 20 minutes light-off in a 30 minutes cycle was applied as cyclic lighting. Eight cycles in 4 hours nigh-break was conducted. Two cultivars, Wu-Fong-Cher and Gin-Fong-Cher, were tested in this experiment. Days to flowering, height, and nodes under flower were measured to determine the effectiveness of Chrysanthemum in different lighting systems. From days to flowering, the initiation of flowers was inhibited by continuous lighting of 100W tungsten-filament bulb under a 15 Lux light intensity. The critical light intensities of 20W or 21W energy saving bulbs were higher than that of 100W tungsten-filament bulb. The critical light intensity of Wu-Fong-Cher using cyclic lighting of 100W tungsten-filament bulb was about 34 Lux. When the light intensity was less than critical light intensity, days to flowering was slightly earlier than that of higher light intensity. However, flowering of Gin-Fong-Cher could be only delayed but not inhibited in the cyclic lighting. Gin-Fong-Cher was more sensitive than Wu-Fong-Cher to light intensity. Using 21W or 20W energy saving bulbs for cyclic lighting, both varieties couldn't maintain vegetative growth in early stage for cut flower production. The estimated critical light amounts of 100W tungsten-filament bulb were above 2720 Lux·min for Wu-Fong Cher, and above 3840 Lux·min for Gin-Fong-Cher. Considering the uniformity of flowering and harvest, a light intensity higher than critical light amount was suggested in chrysanthemum commercial production. In respect of electricity consumption, energy could be saved from 19.3 to 23.3% by using energy saving bulbs compared with 100W incandescent tungsten-filament bulb. However, in same light intensity, incandescent tungsten-filament was more efficient than energy saving bulbs. It was needed to increase install density to compensate lighting efficiency when energy saving bulbs were used for night-break. Cyclic lighting consumed 36~38% of light electricity compared with continuous lighting, but it could only be applied for variety with low critical light amount. Results of this work suggest that using energy saving bulbs and cyclic lighting could save electricity, but the diversity of critical light amount among chrysanthemum varieties should be considered.