Tilley lamp energy efficiency

Well I think we can all agree that most of the energy goes to heat, with a little noise too...

That link also shows that 230v is more efficient than 110v. Also of note is that flourescent tubes (now obsolete in the EU/UK) are not far behind LED in terms of efficiency, but I guess that the quoted figures may not take account of the ballast consuming power even when not in use. Interesting !

 

I believe it is actually already accounted for, when considering the luminuous efficacy instead of the luminuous efficiency.
The same applies for other energy sources besides electricity. In such calculations, the total energy input would be used as the denominator for the ratio.

 

Yes - it mentions ballast - but having been involved in decisions to migrate to LED office panels I was amused to learn that our 1200 odd Flourescent tube fittings all consumed 24W all day and all night, light on or off. So I am unsure if they did account for 24hr ballast consumption.

 

The ballasts can be either the traditional inductive chokes or the electronic types for later ones.
There shouldn't be any losses due to either of the above when the lamps are switched off. The additional heating(I²R), magnetic, iron/core, eddy current, hysteresis losses, etc would only take place when there is electric current through the devices.
The traditional choke/inductive coil ballasts would incur more of these losses as compared to electronic ones.
The fluorescent tubes are actually pretty efficient on their own. Not too far behind LEDs.
Fluorescent tubes are getting scarcer these days. You might have some trouble finding replacements later.