1. Luminaires per capita The simple crude number I remember is that there are ten people per one streetlight in our country. A possible source of that memory: Hollan, J. (ed), "Mapování světelného znečištění a negativní vlivy osvětlování umělým světlem na živou přírodu na území České republiky" (Mapping the light pollution and negative influences of artificial lighting on the living nature on the territory of the Czech Republic). Final report of R&D project VaV/740/3/03 of the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic, 2004. Available (in Czech) at http://amper.ped.muni.cz/noc/ The basic number is 570 GWh yearly consumption for public lighting in 1996/97, , as sold in a special (cheap) tariff established by the regulatory office for this purpose. This means some 14 W per capita. The average wattage of a luminaire used to be well over 100 W in those years, I vaguely remember that it was given (by J. Kotek?) as 135 W. So, my remembered number seems to be OK (still, the number for your table may be 0.11 rather than 0.10). There is little difference for Slovakia, 0.9 is my bottom guess. 2. Lamp types In both cases, the proportion of HPM is surely lower. Mercury lamps are very rare in towns, and may comprise some one third in villages. I'd say there is one or two fifths of MV lamps here. The rest of streetlighting is HPS. As for Austria, linear fluorescents are very common in Vienna (one third or more), and they are also very common at least in Lower Austria, as I'm seeing on occasional trips to Vienna and back (I live just 100 km north). I like them because they are not glaring. And they produce decent amounts of light (surely below the current EN standard; this is, IMHO, very wise). 3. Electricity price Another issue, electricity price. It's incredibly cheap, for ``lighting of public places'' (everything where public can go, including parking lots by hypermarkets): since 2001 it is some 4.5 eurocents / kWh or even a bit less. Bad for efficiency efforts... A better situation is in Slovakia, where the real payment per kWh for public lighting approaches perhaps 7 eurocents (this is but a result of my quick search). The other issues concern mainly the recommendations, which should be in the Chapter 6 and further: giving some vision for the EU future. 4. Dimming I wonder, why the simplest, central dimming is not considered at all? It's so widespread already. In Brno, all major radial streets on the periphery (mostly with permitted speeds of 60 km/h or even 80 km/h) are dimmed. The Brno engineers do it with phase-cut technology, originally making a cut in the centres of waves, now cutting one edge of them, so that the frequency remains roughly the same and original capacitors compensate tolerably well. But simple voltage reduction with an autotransformer is OK too, at least one Italian manufacturer makes it in a novel, reliable way (adding the opposite voltage to the lighting grid) so that failure of the autotransformer does not mean failure of the lighting system. Any existing installation with magnetic ballasts may be dimmed this way -- lamp life is not compromised, on the contrary: it is slightly extended, or even much extended (up to twice), if overvoltage is avoided this way. The only lamp which cannot be dimmed (or, rather, I know of no possibility how to do that) is LPS. 5 LPS future LPS are to be powered in a sophisticated way, as overvoltage kills them soon. When not killed by overvoltage, they survive even 4 years. Voltage stabilisation of the whole lighting grid is one possibility, the other are electronic ballasts. They EXIST for all wattages! Philips itself has not only 36W, but also 55W one (and promotes its use in its current Outdoor Newsletter). Going to (fake) philipsligting.com I noticed a link (yes, its China, as you predict) http://www.besncn.com/eng/ which offers all wattages, up to 180 W. And even in our country one producer (I know him years) makes ballasts for up to 66W tubes. ( Philips newsletter has a horrible address, e.g. http://www.lighting.philips.com/in_en/architect/applications/outdoor/newsletter/2006juillet/index.php?main=gb_en&parent=1_8&id=in_en_outdoor_lamps&lang=en -- LPS is the last item of the September 2006 issue.) I also recommend the text by two most renowned experts from Lighting Research Center, School of Architecture, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, * Rea, M. S. and J. D. Bullough. 2004. In defense of LPS. Lighting Design and Application 34(9): 51-55. URL: http://www.iesna.org/PDF/Archives/2004_09.pdf If I am not mistaken, the worse result for LPS against HPS in your analysis is not caused by a need to replace lamps more often, but rather by that assumed lower UF (0.33 for LPS, 0.54 for HPS). This is of course a matter of luminaire and its positioning. UF does not need to be so small. The luminaire can be fully shielded and even contain a grid, like that common by the indoor fluorescent sources. UF can be well over 0.5 even for LPS over category A roads. 5. ULOR and geometry in general 6.1.4. -- well, this is... (can, often, may...). With excellent design, FCO perform in no respect worse. And as regards skyglow, such a claim is just absurd. This part contradicts scientific knowledge completely (Cinzano's papers, at the first place). Zero (more precisely, 0.1 per cent at most) ULOR is the prerequisite for restoring nature-near conditions far from urbanised sites. (As an example, some frogs need less than 1 mlx to travel over an open space -- what is available just under overcast natural sky.) Your thorough analysis indicates that, apart from dimming, the UF boosting is the most promising way of reducing power consumption by lighting. For reducing the pollution of the night environment, this approach is even more important. The fact is, that current luminaires seldom do a good job. They even cannot do a very good one: to illuminate a narrow strip, perhaps to long distances (with poles 5 or 6 heights apart), two narrow beams are needed (just one one might be in principle employed for highways, for no-glare installations, in analogy to a ski slope). Two sufficiently long reflectors of proper construction might do the job, for just one bulb this is a difficult task, perhaps achievable with very large luminaire, but impossible with any conventional which is shorter along the road then perpendicularly to it. This is of course an excellent case for LEDs. The current best Luxeons cost just 3 cents per lumen, that's not so much anymore. 2lx lighting is well conceivable with current technology already. At least there, where there are any living houses along the street (no lights should be visible from them). Outdoor lighting should be a public service, not a public nuisance. 6. Light intensities: the needed way to Kyoto target and beyond The current metrics, based on averages, is deadly for any efficiency. The visually relevant photometric parameters are the minima: if some luminance or illuminance is enough (or is it not?), why should be more light elsewhere? If there is more light elsewhere, the visibility in minima is worse, not better. Proper metrics is to state minima (maybe even those which are implied by the current EN) and limiting averages and maxima to as close to minima as technically possible. So, if 0.6 lx is enough for S6, the only further parameter should be an upper limit, something as having no more than 2 lx at any spot (and not achieving 2 lx as an average). This would lead to development of excellent luminaires (LED, HID). Demanding any lower limit for averages prevents producers from blocking (unneeded, in fact counterproductive for visibility and damaging in respect of more pollution) bright light spots below luminaires -- this way the averages would drop, even if visibility would be better... The other horrible issue are no limits for glare in some categories. People can see they way at night even in desert, with no glare around. Luminaires with luminous intensities much below 30 cd when visible closer than 15 degrees to horizon, are the key for that. FCO are but a small, but necessary first step in that direction (combining the CIE and IES limits, it may be demanded that they have <30 cd/klm at 80 degrees, together with the standard <= 0.5 cd/klm at 90 degrees). For city beautification, 10 cd is a plenty of light, it's 10x brighter than a candle! Current light levels are meant for very glaring environments (e.g., with no limits at all to billboards, directly visible lights illuminating them etc.). In glare-free environment, much lower values are OK. In the Czech standard, which can still be used for categorising streets, 0.1 lx is a minimum demanded for pedestrian paths. That's plenty of light: like from a full moon in September. With strict glare limits and upper limits for averages and maxima, this would be a good value for the future EN standard too. Not enough light for cars, of course, but these have their headlights. With such nature-akin intensities, up to several lux, LEDs are the today's most energy-efficient source already, for illuminating narrow streets from low poles. 7. A small case for electronic ballasts if discharge sources are used As in indoors lighting, >20 kHz frequency would give more comfort to pedestrians and drivers, reducing eye fatigue. And, it would be kind toward epileptics, who are known to suffer from the 100 Hz signal from old-type discharge lighting. If an environmental risk is known and can be easily avoided, it's stupid not to do it.