LEDs – The Future of Lighting? - Efficiency Vermont Contractors

Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
LEDs – The Future of Lighting?
Jeff McCullough, LC
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
February 14, 2008
1
Today’s Topics
• Introduction
• LEDs “101”
– Along the way we will “bust” some myths
about LEDs
• DOE’s SSL Commercialization Strategy
– Lighting for Tomorrow® Design Competition
– ENERGY STAR® Criteria
– CALiPER® Program
2
1
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
“Solid State Lighting is the
most disruptive technology
to hit the lighting industry in
50 years…”
3
U.S. Buildings Energy End-Use
Breakdown, 2001
Site Electricity Consumption
Computers
3%
Ventilation
4%
Total Primary Energy (all fuels)
Ventilation
3%
Space Heating
10%
Appliances
7%
Electronics
6%
Appliances
7%
Electronics
9%
2390 TWh
Refrigeration
8%
Lighting
30%
Refrigeration
11%
Space Cooling
17%
Computers
2%
Space Heating
27%
37.6 quads
Space Cooling
12%
Water Heating
14%
Water Heating
9%
Lighting
21%
4
Source: Building Technology Program Core Databook, August 2003. http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/frame.asp?p=tableview.asp&TableID=509&t=xls
2
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
DOE Solid-State Lighting
5 Thrust – Total Program
Guiding technology advances from laboratory to marketplace
5
Accelerated R&D for White Light SSL
200
Efficacy (lumens per watt)
175
White Light SSL
Laboratory
150
White Light SSL
Commercial
125
Conventional Lighting
Technologies
T-12 ES
Potential Growth
for Conventional
Light Sources
Metal Halide
Pulse start
100
T-8 lamp
75
T-12 fluorescent
50
Mono
LED
25
0
1970
Mono
OLED
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
SSL Laboratory and Commercial Curves, revised May 2006
6
3
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
White-Light LED Efficacy Targets
180
160
140
Efficacy (lm/W)
120
100
80
60
Laboratory Projection- Cool White
Commercial Product Projection - Cool White
Commercial Product Projection- Warm White
Laboratory
Foreign Competition- Laboratory
Commercial Product- Cool White
Foreign Competition - Commercial Product, Cool White
Commercial Product, Warm White
Foreign Competition - Commercial Product, Warm White
40
20
0
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
Note: Efficacy projections assume CRI=70 → 80, Color temperature
= 5000-6000°K, 350ma drive current, and
Year
lamp-level specification only (driver/luminaire not included), reasonable lamp life.
7
What’s an LED you ask?
8
4
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
How does an LED make Light?
9
LED Types
Indicator
Illuminator
Courtesy: Lumileds
10
5
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
What do LEDs look like?
Cree XLamp
Philips Lumileds K2
GE Lumination Vio
LED Devices
11
What do LEDs look like?
Lamina Titan
Osram OSTAR
LED Packages or Light Engines
12
6
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
What do LEDs look like?
Mule Lighting
Lighting Sciences Group
Enlux
LED Drop-in Replacements
13
What do LEDs look like?
Color Kinetics iW Blast
Lighting Services Inc LumeLEX
Integrated LED Systems
14
7
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
15
16
8
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
17
Top 5 Reasons not to own
BrightFeet™ Lighted Slippers
#5. They're not machine washable which means they will
never be cleaned during their useful life........ Ewuuuu!!!
#4. Do they come with parental controls to prevent your
children from using them as flashlights..... outside?
#3. Gee.... that's neeeat..... but do they keep your feet
warm?
#2. Do they come with a strap so that they can be warn on
your head for night reading?
…. and the #1 reason not to own BrightFeet Slippers:
Is it really a good idea to wake up your pet Doberman when
all he can see are two "beadie" eyes staring him down???
18
9
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Myth #1:
LEDs create no heat
19
Power Conversion for “White” Light Sources
Incandescent† Fluorescent†
(60W)
(Typical linear CW)
Metal
Halide‡
LED
Visible Light
8%
21 %
27 %
15-25 %
Infrared
73 %
37 %
17 %
~0%
Ultraviolet
0%
0%
19 %
0%
81 %
58 %
63 %
15-25 %
(Conduction +
Convection)
19 %
42 %
37 %
75-85 %
Total
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
Total Radiant
Energy
Heat
†
IESNA Lighting Handbook –
‡
Osram Sylvania
10
9th
Ed.
20
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Light Output vs. Junction Temperature (Tj)
21
Anatomy of an LED
22
11
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Myth #2:
LEDs last 100,000
hours
(or forever depending on whom you ask!)
23
Traditional Lamp Life Rating
Typical lamp mortality curve
• Lumen depreciation
vs. failure
• LED life definition
– L70 for general
illumination
• IESNA LM-80 test
procedure in process
24
12
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Light Output over Time
Courtesy: LRC
25
Myth #3:
LEDs are “White Light”
Sources
26
13
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
27
The Visible Spectra
28
14
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
29
CIE 1931 x,y Diagram
30
15
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Daylight Spectra
31
3000K Fluorescent Spectra
32
16
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
5000K Fluorescent Spectra
33
How do LEDs make white light?
Courtesy: Lumileds
17
34
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Myth #4:
LEDs are more efficient
than Fluorescent
35
• “Nichia delivers 92 lm/W at 350 mA”
Nov 2006
• “Philips Lumileds shatters 350 mA
performance records with 115 lm/W LED”
Jan 2007 (R&D result)
• “Cree achieves 1000 lumens from a single
LED” [ 52 – 72 lm/W]
Sep 7, 2007 (R&D result)
• “Seoul Semiconductor to launch 420
lumen LED next quarter” [52 lm/W]
36
Sep 19, 2007
18
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Interpreting Industry Announcements
• R&D result or commercial product?
– “25/25” testing
– R&D to market typically 12-24 months
• What drive current is assumed?
– High output devices are 350 mA to more than 1 Amp
– Lower current devices usually ~20 mA
• How much total luminous flux per device?
• Luminous efficacy in lumens per watt (lm/W) is
for LED device only, not including driver or
thermal effects
• Chip size varies
– Makes apples to apples comparison difficult
37
Terms
Lamp Efficacy =
Rated Lamp Lumens
Lamp Input Power
System Efficacyfluor =
Rated Lamp Lumens x BF
Ballast/Driver Input Power
Luminaire Efficacy =
Luminaire Light Output
Ballast/Driver Input Power
38
19
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Candela Curve
0
340
350
150
10
20
330
100 W Incandescent
30
320
40
100
310
50
300
60
290
70
50
280
80
0
270
90
260
100
250
110
240
120
230
130
220
140
210
150
200
190
170
160
180
39
Candela Curve
0
340
350
150
10
20
330
100 W Incandescent
Z-LED P4
30
320
40
100
310
Luxeon Batwing
Luxeon Side Emitting
50
300
60
290
70
50
280
80
0
270
90
260
100
250
110
240
120
230
130
220
140
210
150
200
190
170
160
180
40
20
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Luminaire Efficacy
35 lm/W
41
LED energy efficiency is a function of:
LED device efficacy
+
Thermal management
+
Luminaire design
+
Driver/power supply efficiency
42
21
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Efficiency & Quality Trade-offs
Color Temperature*
Efficacy
Color Temperature*
Efficacy
CRI*
Efficacy
Heat
Efficiency / Output
Heat
Life / Durability
* Phosphor-converted LEDs
43
2007 SSL Competition
44
22
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
2007 SSL Competition
•
Niche applications
–
–
–
–
•
Undercabinet and in-cabinet
Portable desk/task
Outdoor porch, path, step
Recessed downlights
LED luminous efficacy – min requirements
– 40 lm/W for < 5000K
– 50 lm/W for 5000K +
45
2007 Grand Prize Winner
•
LR6 by LLF Inc
– 11 watts, 600 lumens, 54 lm/W
– 2700 K, 92 CRI
46
23
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Winner – Undercabinet
•
PLS Undercabinet by Finelite
– 8 watts, 344 lumens, 43 lm/W
– 3500 K, 71 CRI
47
Winner – Portable desk/task
•
PLS Task by Finelite
– 10 watts, 430 lumens, 43 lm/W
– 3500 K, 71 CRI
48
24
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Winner – Outdoor
•
Strata by Progress
Lighting
– 5 watts, 125 lumens
– 25 lm/W
– 3200 K, 70 CRI
49
Honorable Mention
•
Wall sconces by
Justice Design Group
50
25
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
ENERGY STAR® v1.0
51
Activities to Date
1st Draft released December 20, 2006
Stakeholder meeting February 8, 2007
2nd Draft released April 9, 2007
Final Criteria released September 12, 2007
ENERGY STAR Lighting Partner Meeting in
Phoenix February 25-27, 2008
• Effective date set for September 30, 2008
•
•
•
•
•
52
26
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Scope
• Excludes OLEDs… for now
• Limits coverage to LED systems for “white light”
general illumination only
• Both commercial and residential
• Luminaire efficacy key metric
• Establish 2-category specification:
– Category A: prescriptive specifications for near-term
lighting applications
– Category B: performance specification for all
applications (long-term)
53
Compact Fluorescent Lighting in America:
Lessons Learned on the Way to Market
•
Valuable lessons
– Be aggressive about dealing with
technology failures that affect main
benefit claims
– Know and admit technology limitations
– Don’t introduce inferior products; first
impressions are long lasting
– Accurate incandescent equivalency on
packaging is critical
– Manufacturers and energy-efficiency
groups should coordinate to establish
minimum performance requirements
•
•
Use to avoid “CFL Part II”
Apply to SSL commercialization path
54
27
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Transitional Two-Category Approach
• Approach recognizes rapidly changing
technology
• Allows early participation of limited range of
SSL products for directional lighting
applications (Category A)
• At some point (~3 years), Category A will be
dropped entirely; Category B then becomes
basis of criteria
Lighting industry is learning the unique issues of
applying SSL to general illumination. Going slow
allows industry and DOE to learn, and adjust
55
Significant Standard and Test Procedure
Activity
• Photometric measurements (IESNA LM-79)
– In final ballot
• Chromaticity (ANSI C78.377a)
– In final committee Review/Approval cycle
• Lumen Depreciation (Life) (IESNA LM-80)
– First draft under development
• Driver Standard (ANSI C82.XX1)
– In first committee review
• Definitions (IESNA RP-16)
– In second draft and currently in working group review
• UL “Outline of Investigation”
56
28
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Category A: Overall Approach
• Establish minimum luminaire efficacy
– Benchmark to fluorescent
• Consistent with current ENERGY STAR lighting
criteria
– Use IES recommendations wherever possible:
Handbook, RP-33-99, etc.
– Use ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 Lighting subcommittee consensus system efficacy for CFL
• 58.8 lm/W
• 50 lm/W (lower wattage applications and E* min.)
57
Overall Requirements
• Luminaire
– CCTs: 8 nominal CCTs
–
–
–
–
Color Spatial Uniformity: 4-step
Color Maintenance: 7-step
CRI: ≥ 75 for indoor, silent on outdoor
Off-state Power prohibited
• Exception for integral controls, limited to 0.5W
– 3 Year Warranty
– Thermal Management
58
29
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
59
ANSI C78.377A DRAFT 3.3 (Nov. 22, 2006)
Seoul
CIE 1931 x,y Chromaticity Diagram - with existing ANSI, "proposed" SSL, LumiLeds' old
and new color bins for white light
0.46
2500 K
0.44
4000 K
"Proposed"
SSL
0.42
Cree
5000 K
0.40
0.38
6000 K
y
Seoul
ANSI
0.36
7000 K
0.34
OSRAM
LL Old
Bins
LumiLeds
New Bins
0.32
Seoul
Iso-CCT line: ±0.02 Duv
Seoul
0.30
0.28
Planckian locus
D65
K
Nichia
0.26
0.26
Illuminant A
Daylight Locus
K
60
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
x
30
0.40
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.50
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Overall Requirements (cont.)
• Modules/Arrays
– Lumen depreciation (L70)
• Residential Indoor ≥ 25,000 hours
• Residential Outdoor and all Commercial ≥ 35,000 hours
• Residential Outdoor Luminaires
– Attached to buildings and > 13 watts requires
photo-control
• Power Supplies
– Power Factor
• ≥ 0.7 Residential
≥ 0.9 Commercial
– ≥ 120 Hz Output Operating Frequency
61
Category A: Niche Applications
• Directed light applications
– Energy efficiency potential due to directional
light source
– minimize fixtures losses
• Source relatively close to illuminated
surface
• Relatively modest illuminance
requirements
• Current fixtures ≤ 60% fixture efficiency
62
31
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Category A: Niche Applications
1. Undercabinet Kitchen
2. Undercabinet Shelf-mounted Task
3. Portable Desk/Task
4. Recessed Downlights (Res./Com.)
5. Outdoor Wall-mounted Porch
6. Outdoor Step
7. Outdoor Pathway
63
Assumptions for Establishing
Luminaire Efficacy
CFL
Typical
Calculated
System
Fixture
Luminaire
Efficacy Efficiency
Efficacy
Niche Application
Under-cabinet Kitchen
58.8
40%
24
Under-cabinet Shelf-mounted Task
58.8
50%
29
Portable Task
58.8
50%
29
Recessed Downlight (residential)
58.8
60%
35
Recessed Downlight (commercial)
58.8
60%
35
Outdoor Wall-mounted Porch
58.8
40%
24
Outdoor Step
50
40%
20
Outdoor Pathway
50
50%
25
64
32
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Under-cabinet Kitchen
• Minimum Light Output
– 125 lumens per lineal foot
• Zonal Lumen Density
– Min. 60% in 0-60° zone
– Min. 25% in 60-90° zone
Min. 25%
• Luminaire Efficacy
– ≥ 24 lm/W
Min. 60%
• CCTs limited to: 2700,
3000 and 3500K
65
Category A: Under-cabinet Lighting
Philips SSL Solutions
Osram
66
33
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Under-cabinet Shelf Mounted Task
• Minimum Light Output
– 125 lumens per lineal foot
• Zonal Lumen Density
Min. 25%
– Min. 60% in 0-60° zone
– Min. 25% in 60-90° zone
• Luminaire Efficacy
Min. 60%
– ≥ 29 lm/W
• CCTs Limited to
– 2700K, 3000K, 3500K,
4000k, 4500K and 5000K
67
Portable Desk Task Lamps
• Minimum Light Output
– 200 lumens
• Zonal Lumen Density
– Minimum 85% of total
light output within 0-60°
zone
• Luminaire Efficacy
Min. 85%
– ≥ 29 lm/W
• CCTs Limited to
– 2700K, 3000K, 3500K,
4000k, 4500K and 5000K
68
34
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Category A: Portable Desk/Task Lighting
6 Watt LED Desk Lamp
Halley LED Desk Lamp
69
Recessed Downlights
• Minimum Light Output
– ≤ 4.5˝ Aperture 345 lm.
– > 4.5˝ Aperture 575 lm.
• Zonal Lumen Density
– Minimum 75% total light
output within 0-60° zone
• Luminaire Efficacy
Min. 75%
– ≥ 35 lm/W
• Residential CCTs
limited to:
– 2700K, 3000K and 3500K
70
35
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Category A: Recessed Downlights
Renaissance
Progress
Prescolite
71
Outdoor Wall-mounted Porch
• Minimum Light Output
– 150 lumens
• Zonal Lumen Density
– Minimum 85% of total
light output within 0-90°
zone
Min.85%
• Luminaire Efficacy
– ≥ 24 lm/W
72
36
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Category A: Outdoor Porch
“Lakeland” by Progress Lighting
73
Outdoor Step
• Minimum Light Output
– 50 lumens
• Luminaire Efficacy
– ≥ 20 lm/W
Min.85%
74
37
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Category A: Outdoor Step
75
Outdoor Pathway
• Minimum Light Output
– 100 lumens (initial)
• Zonal Lumen Density
– Minimum 85% of total
light output within 0-90°
zone
Minimum 85%
• Luminaire Efficacy
– ≥ 25 lm/W
76
38
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Category A: Outdoor Pathway
77
Category B: Efficacy Based
Performance
• Aggressive efficacy requirement: 70 lm/W
• Simpler; no total flux or zonal lumen
requirements
• Allows for non-directional lighting applications
• Manufacturers able to qualify under Category
B approximately three (3) years after the
effective date
• Serves as future target for manufacturers
78
39
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
In Situ Testing Requirement
• Life (lumen depreciation) determined by in situ
temperature measurements of:
– Module, Array or “Light Engine”
– Power Supply/Driver
• Testing may be conducted at the same time as
UL 1598.
79
UL 1598 Environments
80
40
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Temperature Measurement Point (TMP)
• Manufacturer designated TMP correlating
to LM-80 test report or power supply
warranty
– Module/Array
• Case Temperature Tc
• Board Temperature Tb
– Power Supply
• Case Temperature Tc
• Could also be Tb for integral Power Supplies
81
Lumen Depreciation Qualification
• Option 1: Component Performance
– Applicable if:
• Module/Array has a current LM-80 test report
• Module/Array has a designated TMP
• TMP is accessible for in situ measurement
– Otherwise manufacturer must use Option 2
• Option 2: Luminaire Performance
– Entire luminaire subjected to LM-80
82
41
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Lumen Depreciation Passing Criteria
A luminaire passes if the L70 threshold (≥ 25,000
hours for indoor residential and ≥ 35,000 for all
others) …
– if the in situ measured drive current is the same or
lower
AND
– if the in situ measured TMP for the module/array is
the same or lower
… than the LM-80 test report provided for the
module/array.
83
Sample LM-80 Test Report
L70
Courtesy of LRC
84
42
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Quality Assurance Testing
• Products selected both on a random basis and
through a product nomination process.
• (3) samples of each luminaire purchased
through normal market channels.
• Products tested for:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Total Luminous Flux
Luminaire Efficacy
Correlated Color Temperature
Color Rendering Index
Steady State Module/Array Temperature
Maximum Power Supply Case/TMP Temperature
85
Commercially Available LED
Product Evaluation and
Reporting (CALiPER)
Program
86
43
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Purposes of CALiPER
• Provide objective, high quality performance information
• Know performance of market available products
– To support R & D planning
– To support ENERGY STAR
• Inform industry test procedures and
standards development
• Discourage low quality products
• Reduce SSL market risk due to buyer
dissatisfaction from products that
do not perform as claimed
87
Testing Program Scope
Commercially-available
SSL products for the
general illumination market
• Luminaires and replacement
lamps (white light)
• Indoor and outdoor
• Residential and commercial
88
44
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
SSL Luminaire Testing
SSL energy efficiency is a
function of:
•
•
LED device
efficacy
+
•
Thermal
management
Must measure luminaire
as a complete system
Uses ‘absolute
photometry’ rather than
‘relative photometry’
Based on IESNA draft
standard LM-79
– Photometric testing
methods under
development
•
Luminaire
design
+
Driver/power
supply efficiency
+
Stakeholders are not all
familiar with these new
testing paradigms
89
Testing Program Quarterly Process
• Product selection & acquisition
• Multiple independent test labs
• Assembly and analysis of results
– Courtesy sharing of results with
manufacturers
– Retesting options
• Publication of results
– Summary reports
– Detailed test reports
– Analyses and studies
• “No Commercial Use” Policy
90
45
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Testing Rounds 1-4 Results
• 70+ products tested
• Focus: overall
luminaire
performance
• Wide range in
products & results
91
SSL Downlight Performance
Correlated Color
Temperature (CCT)
600
2650-3000K
400
3200-3500K
200
4000-4500K
0
5900-8000K
2”
ø
4” 3W
ø
6” 6W
ø
-9
R
30 W
R 9W
30
-9
6”
W
ø
6” 11W
ø
R 12W
30
6” 14W
7.
ø
5"
x7 15
W
.5
"R 16W
30
PA
-1
6
R
30 W
-1
7"
x7 7W
"15
6”
W
ø
Tr - 31
ac
W
k
-4
0W
Output (Lumens)
Range of Output and CCT of SSL Downlight Products
800
Tunable
– Different sizes and
configurations
– Different color
temperatures
– Outputs
• From 29 to 719 lumens
• 389 lumens on
average
– Efficacies
• From 11 to 61 lm/W
• 28 lm/W on average
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Best = 61 lm/W
Average = 28 lm/W
– CRI
ø
30
-1
2W
-1
4W
6”
7.
ø
5"
x7 15
W
.5
"R 16W
30
PA
R 16W
30
-1
7"
x7 7W
"15
6”
W
ø
Tr - 31
ac
W
k
-4
0W
• Maximum = 95
• Average = 76
• 3 RGB products
R
ø
30
-9
W
-1
1W
6”
6”
-9
W
-9
W
R
ø
30
R
6”
ø
-3
W
-6
W
Worst = 11 lm/W
4”
ø
2”
Efficacy (lumens/W)
Range of Efficacy of SSL Downlight Products
92
46
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Downlight Benchmarking
Downlight Comparison:
Luminaire Output vs Efficacy for Different Sources
Light Output (lumens)
1200
Incandescents & Halogens
1000
SSL Downlight Fixtures and
Retrofits, 3-40W
CFL
SSL
800
SSL R30 Replacement Lamps, 917W
600
Downlights with Incandescent BR
and A-lamps, 45-75W
400
Downlights with Halogen PAR38
(FL and IR) Lamps, 50-60W
200
Downlights with CFLs (spiral, pin, &
reflector), 9-21W
0
0
20
40
60
80
Efficacy (Lumens/Watts)
--Values for SSL downlight products are from CALiPER testing.
--Values for CFL and incandescents are assembled from CALiPER testing, earlier photometric testing and product catalogs.
--Fixture efficiencies are applied to replacement lamp values (factor depends on lamp type).
93
Round 4 Replacement Lamps
•
T8: Look for direct comparisons with fluorescents in troffers in Round 5
•
MR16: not quite competing with 20W Halogen MR16 Flood (40° beam angle)
–
•
Respectable performance (42 lm/W), but misleading manufacturer literature
–
↑ Efficacy: SSL-MR16 @ 16-27 lm/W > 20W Halogen flood @ 9-19 lm/W
–
↓ Output: SSL-MR16 @ 75-133 lm < 20W Halogen flood @ 200-450 lm
–
↓ CBCP: SSL-MR16 @ 59-283 cd << 20W Halogen flood @ ~500 cd
Candelabra: Low wattage level, advantage or disadvantage?
–
No comparably small wattage incandescent products
–
CFL 5W candelabra rated at 200 lm (40 lm/W), Halogen 25W rated at 280 lm (11 lm/W)
Replacement Lamps
Power
Output
Efficacy
CCT
CRI
SSL T8
07-56
25
1058
42
3494
75
SSL MR16, CBCP=283
07-53
3
82
27
3007
74
SSL MR16, CBCP=220
07-59
9
133
16
3338
89
SSL MR16, CBCP=59
07-64
3
75
26
3458
74
SSL Candelabra
07-57
2.2
28
13
2855
71
94
47
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
SSL Task Lamp Performance
Task lamps tested
50
EFFICACY (lm/W)
CFL & Halogen Task Lights
• 6 SSL
undercabinets, 11
SSL desk lamps
• 3 fluorescent tube
undercabinets, 2
CFL desk lamps
• 1 halogen desk lamp
40
30
SSL undercabinets
20
• Perform as well or
better than
fluorescent
undercabinets
10
0
Measured
Luminaire
Efficacy
Effective
Efficacy
3 hours on/day
SSL Undercabinets
SSL Desk Lamps
60
50
EFFICACY (lm/W)
SSL Task Lights
60
40
30
20
10
0
SSL desk lamps
Measured
Luminaire
Efficacy
• One SSL desk lamp
rivals CFL energy
star desk lamp
• Off-state power use
ranges from 0 W to
2.6 W, reducing
efficacy
Effective
Efficacy
3 hours on/day
Fluorescent Undercabinets
CFL Desk Lamps
Halogen Desk Lamps
95
Round 4 Direct Comparisons
Same Recessed Wall Fixture, Different Sources
Halogen (20W)
174
8
CFL (13W)
199
16
LED (12W)
154
10
CCT
3085
3956
5166
CRI
Power Factor
98
0.99
77
0.97
73
0.97
Luminaire Output (lm)
Luminaire Efficacy (lm/W)
Manufacturer Published Values
Manufacturer
Brochure Output
“Lumens”
Efficacy Calculated
from Manufacturer
IES files
(lumens/W)
CALiPER Measured
Luminaire Efficacy
(lumens/W)
Halogen (20W)
350
8
8
CFL (13W)
900
19
16
LED (12W)
195
5
10
Recessed Wall
Fixture
96
48
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Rounds 1-4 Key Conclusions
• Results include a wide range of products with a
wide range of performance.
– Be careful not to generalize.
• Product literature not always consistent, not always
reliable
– Be informed. Request luminaire testing results.
Round 1-4 products designed from 2005-2007, showing some
now clearly rival traditional sources
Great promise for upcoming
generation of SSL luminaires
97
More Info on CALiPER
• Via website
– Summary reports
– Detailed reports
• Must be requested via web
form
• Requestor’s contact information
must be provided
• Must agree to adhere to ‘No
Commercial Use Policy’
http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/comm_testing.htm
PNNL-SA-58822
49
98
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Questions YOU Should Ask if you are
considering LED Lighting
• Show me the lumens!
• Ask for test reports (LM-79,
LM-80, etc.)
• Is blue is the new white?
• Ask how they manage heat
• Is your product ENERGY
STAR® labeled?
• You want how much for that
thing?
99
DOE Solid-State Lighting Website
• Current information
on SSL program,
progress, and events
• SSL publications:
roadmaps, reports,
technical fact sheets
• Solicitations
• Register for ongoing
SSL UPDATES at:
www.netl.doe.gov/ssl
100
50
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
DOE
Fact
Sheets
101
Fact Sheets
• Application series:
– Recessed
– Undercabinet
– Portable desk/task
• Luminaire efficacy
• SSL Standards
• What other topics
would you like to
see?
102
51
Kelly Gordon
PNNL
January 17, 2006
Questions?
Jeff McCullough
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(509) 375-6317
[email protected]
DOE SSL Website: www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/
103
52