Power consume: Laser vs Xenon

[Lucas Iaccarino]

Hello,

I have an Inquiry-based on your experiences:

If I replace my Xenon Projector with a similar Laser one, the power consumption considering all the requirements (booth refrigeration, etc) will be less or will be the same or even more? we are having some thoughts about sustainability and the consumption of a Xenon it´s an important issue.

Which are your experiences?

Thanks

[Marcel Birgelen]

A laser-based machine with equal brightness on screen as your current Xenon setup should yield some very measurable increases in power efficiency. This will also reduce the amount of heat produced and as such reduce the need for environmental cooling inside your projection room.

It's hard to throw around with hard numbers, without having al the details obviously.

[Tom Bert]

Some data:

• for a mid-sized projector:
  • 20klm laser projector = 2.1kW (https://www.barco.com/nl/product/sp4k-20#specs)
  • 18500lm lamp projector = 4.5kW (https://www.barco.com/nl/product/DP2k-20C#specs)
• for a small sized projector
  • 8klm laser projector = 1kW (https://www.barco.com/nl/product/SP2k-9#specs)
  • 9klm lamp projector = 2.5kW (https://www.barco.com/nl/product/DP2k-10S#specs)

So a difference of 2x is realistic to achieve, only considering the projector. If you take into account the fact that the exhaust can also be omitted, the gains are even bigger

[Carsten Kurz]

Some laser projectors use external chillers - some manufacturers forget to add their consumption on top of the projector itself. The more recent and smaller models usually do not need an external chiller anymore.
Also, with some projectors (e.g. Barco), you typically use their ICMP-X built-in server, which has a lot less consumption compared to traditional external servers. So, that adds a bit to the projector consumption, but you save the external server consumption completely. Booth HVAC may be necessary both for lamp or laser projectors, depending on circumstances.

[Lucas Iaccarino]

Thanks, all answer seems pretty clear. It´s almost 50% more sustainable.
Regards!

[Dave Macaulay]

We recently replaced a Barco DP4K-32B (6kW xenon lamp) with a DP4K36-BLP laser projector (and installed a nice ATMOS sound system to create a "premium" auditorium).
The 32B's 208V 3Ø 40A breaker was replaced with a 208V 3Ø 16A breaker. That's a decent power saving, we never measured actual power draws but the breaker suggests 40% less.
There is no exhaust fitting on the projector but the original exhaust duct was positioned just open above the cooler radiators to take heat out of the booth (Barco will sell you a metal hood to connect to an exhaust but we didn't get one). Heat from the coolers is moderate at 3D power and not much at all at 2D power. Heat from the rear of the projector (where the 32B LPS heat comes out) is noticeable but a fraction of what it was.
The small Barco laser projectors don't use much power compared to the equivalent xenon models, have no exhaust connections, and are pretty quiet as well.
Economically they seem to make sense. Light source replacement will be expensive of course but I don't know if it will be more or less than xenon lamp replacement would cost over its lifetime. The power saving is considerable but power costs vary widely. Aircon is going to cost less, you don't need to deal with replacing and cooling all the exhausted air and heat load to the booth is reduced compared to xenon. Installing a boothless system with a small or midrange laser projector should be easier - you still need air circulation through the enclosure but not an exhaust to outside.

[Steve Guttag]

For me, the game changer was the SP4K series when Barco went to the laser plate concept. No phosphor wheel to change and the lasers were no longer a large, monumental cost/time consuming event. You just change a thing about the size of a deck of playing cards. Dave, you can price out those plates to see how much they cost. They vary by color and size (not physical size but how many laser elements) but they are not as expensive as you would think. You also only need to change the one that has failed. Now, a complete re-lasing would be a decent price tag but less than a new projector, by far.

With the SP4K, they, generally, cost less than their xenon equivalents on day-1 and they are cheaper to run every day thereafter. It is easier to give an architect the BTU of the projector than to ensure that the there is sufficient exhaust and make-up air...plus putting in dampers so hot-humid air doesn't come back down the stack...hit the booth's airconditioned space...and then condensate. I just don't like laser-light (nor trying to converge a laser projector).

Laser-Phosphor, in my opinion does not bring all of the benefits of the RGB laser machines but, like CFLs, get you some benefits (lower electric) combined with some drawbacks (more expensive, when you factor in the cost of xenon lamps compared to LP parts over the life of the projector...their color is also wrong).

[Leo Enticknap]

One thing I would flag up is that the original enquirer is asking about replacing an existing xenon projector with a laser model, as distinct from buying a new projector for a room that does not yet have one. In this scenario, figuring the total cost of ownership (TCO) becomes a little more complicated.

Assuming that the existing xenon projector is paid off and in good working order, you own the asset, and all you're paying is the running costs. The running costs are significantly higher than those of an equivalent SP4K (or its Christie or NEC equivalent), but you don't have to come up with $30-80k, or borrow it, before you're even up and running. You therefore need to ask yourself to what extent that xenon projector has depreciated, what its running costs are likely to be going forward, and at what point replacing it with a laser makes the optimum economic sense. If it has less than 50k hours on the light engine and is around five years old or younger, it shouldn't need any pricey parts, or more than regular PMs, for a few years, meaning that keeping it in service, while saving to replace it so that there are no borrowing costs when the time comes, may make sense. But if it's a decade-old early Series 2 with 100k hours on the light engine and an ICP on borrowed time, and you're losing 2-3 shows a year to breakdowns, then it would make more sense to replace it now.

It's the same deal, only with much bigger numbers, why, before the pandemic, airlines were keeping 20-30 year old 747s and A330s in the air. They cost more to fuel and maintain than a 787 or A350, but they were owned outright, with no loan or lease payments, which more than offset the higher running costs.

[Stefan Scholz]

Energy cost can make sense, in a country with world's highest electrical costs. But otherwise sustainability is something different.
Somewhere I read, 97% of the total damage to the world's resources in an automobile, is building it. And 3% goes to the fuel consumption over 15 yrs 200 k miles total usage. That's similar to Leo's mentioned aircraft, which by legislation are regularly maintained and refurbished to meet all required safety standards of current operating years. So scrapping an aircraft, just because the newer one uses a percentage lesser in fuels, is really not sustainable.
With a projector, there is more to consider. At first, the Laser uses 50% energy, fine, one factor. The other arguments are more important. You can buy those with High contrast lenses, which looses light efficiency over Hi brightness no contrast. But due to lesser energy consumption you can place the highly improved image quality projector in the same spot the meanwhile ruined image quality projector was installed. Light engines do degrade over time, and after 20k hours, there still is an image, but what kind of image? Can you charge ticket fees for it?
Used aircraft did sell before the pandemic for a price close to the new ex factory purchase price, because all critical part are in best condition. Basically it's been the seat covers and rugs that were deducted.
Projectors are rarely refurbished to meet new condition. So they should be replaced, every 8 years at least. Not only due to significant ageing, but also due to improvements in technology.