6

SSl Large-Scale Deployment

INTRODUCTION

The widespread adoption of solid-state lighting (SSL) will necessitate further technological and scientific advances to improve product quality and reduce costs and also require greater dissemination of product information to support consumer purchases. This chapter identifies the barriers faced by industry to the widespread deployment of SSL products and analyzes the role that governments and partnerships can play in bringing reliable and competitively priced SSL products1 to market. Consideration is also given to the time line and the quantifiable benefits for the commercialization of SSL products as replacements for current incandescent and halogen lamp (i.e., light bulb) technology.

Consumers need assurances that the SSL products they purchase will meet their lighting needs as advertised to avoid some of the early deployment problems associated with the introduction of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Problems encountered during the introduction of CFLs are discussed in Chapter 2 and again later in this chapter, as are the lessons learned for the introduction of SSL products.

Also examined in this chapter is the role of support for consumer purchases in the form of financial incentives (or giveaways) by utilities and state energy efficiency programs and the establishment of more stringent lighting requirements in new construction and building retrofits to stimulate market demand to support SSL industry development in the United States. To avoid problems experienced with the introduction of CFLs, government and industry both have a role to play in helping achieve scientific breakthroughs, developing standards, supporting consumer purchases with financial incentives, and having a viable disposal plan in place to address safe disposal of end-of-life SSL products to support adoption, as discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

SSL costs must come down in all major cost categories, including materials use, yield, wafer processing, assembly, and packaging to reduce the cost of SSL products at the point of purchase. This chapter further discusses those categories of cost along the value chain that need to be addressed to improve the value proposition of higher quality light, longer product life, and overall lower life-cycle cost compared to current lighting products on the market.

SSL products to date have been successful in penetrating the vehicle and traffic signal lighting markets, retail and refrigerated displays, and electronic and entertainment markets. However, the performance of SSL products needs to improve, and costs need to come down to further penetrate the residential, commercial, and industrial lighting replacement market, which is the largest potential market for SSL. The cost of organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) must be substantially reduced before OLED lighting products penetrate the lighting market. The replacement markets also hold the most promise for the greatest energy savings and environmental benefits from SSL use, consistent with the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) SSL program objective and funding priorities.

SSl Industry and Markets

At this time, the United States is lagging behind other countries in SSL manufacturing volume, and most manufacturing is located in the Far East.2 The SSL lighting industry is intertwined with the electronics industry, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are used not only for general lighting but also in many other applications, including backlighting of liquid crystal display (LCD) TVs, laptop computers, and handheld devices. One analysis of the LED market revenues for all such applications approached $10 billion globally in 2010, and sales of packaged LEDs rose 55 percent in 2010 with sales of 81 billion units (Young, 2011). LEDs fabricated of gallium nitride (GaN) were principally responsible for this

________________

1 Including those based on light-emitting diodes (LEDs), organic LEDs (OLEDs), and, potentially in the future, semiconductor lasers.

2 Market shares are as follows: United States and Europe, 23%, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China, 72% (Young, 2011).



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 85
6 SSL Large-Scale Deployment INTRODUCTION and packaging to reduce the cost of SSL products at the point of purchase. This chapter further discusses those categories The widespread adoption of solid-state lighting (SSL) will of cost along the value chain that need to be addressed to necessitate further technological and scientific advances to improve the value proposition of higher quality light, longer improve product quality and reduce costs and also require product life, and overall lower life-cycle cost compared to greater dissemination of product information to support con- current lighting products on the market. sumer purchases. This chapter identifies the barriers faced SSL products to date have been successful in penetrat- by industry to the widespread deployment of SSL products ing the vehicle and traffic signal lighting markets, retail and analyzes the role that governments and partnerships and refrigerated displays, and electronic and entertainment can play in bringing reliable and competitively priced SSL markets. However, the performance of SSL products needs products1 to market. Consideration is also given to the time to improve, and costs need to come down to further penetrate line and the quantifiable benefits for the commercialization the residential, commercial, and industrial lighting replace- of SSL products as replacements for current incandescent ment market, which is the largest potential market for SSL. and halogen lamp (i.e., light bulb) technology. The cost of organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) must Consumers need assurances that the SSL products they be substantially reduced before OLED lighting products purchase will meet their lighting needs as advertised to avoid penetrate the lighting market. The replacement markets also some of the early deployment problems associated with the hold the most promise for the greatest energy savings and introduction of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Problems environmental benefits from SSL use, consistent with the encountered during the introduction of CFLs are discussed in Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) SSL program objective Chapter 2 and again later in this chapter, as are the lessons and funding priorities. learned for the introduction of SSL products. Also examined in this chapter is the role of support for consumer purchases in the form of financial incentives (or SSL Industry and Markets giveaways) by utilities and state energy efficiency programs At this time, the United States is lagging behind other and the establishment of more stringent lighting require- countries in SSL manufacturing volume, and most manufac- ments in new construction and building retrofits to stimulate turing is located in the Far East.2 The SSL lighting industry is market demand to support SSL industry development in the intertwined with the electronics industry, and light-emitting United States. To avoid problems experienced with the intro- diodes (LEDs) are used not only for general lighting but also duction of CFLs, government and industry both have a role to in many other applications, including backlighting of liquid play in helping achieve scientific breakthroughs, developing crystal display (LCD) TVs, laptop computers, and handheld standards, supporting consumer purchases with financial devices. One analysis of the LED market revenues for all incentives, and having a viable disposal plan in place to such applications approached $10 billion globally in 2010, address safe disposal of end-of-life SSL products to support and sales of packaged LEDs rose 55 percent in 2010 with adoption, as discussed in more detail later in this chapter. sales of 81 billion units (Young, 2011). LEDs fabricated of SSL costs must come down in all major cost categories, gallium nitride (GaN) were principally responsible for this including materials use, yield, wafer processing, assembly, 1Including those based on light-emitting diodes (LEDs), organic LEDs 2 Market shares are as follows: United States and Europe, 23%, Japan, (OLEDs), and, potentially in the future, semiconductor lasers. Korea, Taiwan, and China, 72% (Young, 2011). 85

OCR for page 85
86 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING growth, rising 67 percent and now accounting for 79 percent and automobile headlights. However, China intends to be a of the LED market. LED backlighting for LCD television major producer of LEDs by 2015, and large capital invest- screens is now the leading market for LEDs, accounting ments by LED makers are now being heavily subsidized by for 27 percent of the inorganic LED sales, and is the fast- the Chinese government (Young, 2011). Until July 2011, est growing LED market today. Total revenues from sales metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) equip- of backlighting rose 84 percent in 2010 and accounted for ment was subsidized 50 percent by the Chinese government. 70 percent of inorganic LED sales (Young, 2011). Lighting, More than 200 MOCVD systems were purchased under this automotive, and signage applications of LEDs enjoyed a subsidization program. However, it is now being discontin- greater than 20 percent growth in the past year to slightly ued until further demand for LED lighting is demonstrated. less than $2 billion (Young, 2011; Bhandarkar, 2011). IMS Motivated by the potential for large energy savings using Research estimates that the North American lighting market SSL, LEDs are a targeted technology in China’s 5-year plan. has close to 4 billion incandescent lamps, 1.6 billion CFLs,3 Started in 2009, the plan is focused on the development of a 1.65 billion fluorescent lamps, 200 million HID lamps, sustainable LED industry. The Chinese central government’s and just over 500 million halogen lamps (Young, 2011). objective is to consolidate the industry with five or six major M ­ cKinsey (2011) studied the global market for lighting in players, all of which would be able to compete globally all applications and found that in 2010 LEDs for general with the intention of becoming low-cost manufacturers by illumination captured 7 percent (roughly €3 billion) of the 2015; with China being the largest consumer of LEDs with market for new installations and 5 percent (€0.3 billion) of a market reaching $74 billion by that same year. China has replacements. announced its intent to phase out incandescent lamps by U.S. participation in SSL research and development 2016 starting with those over 100 watts in October 2012 (R&D), manufacturing, and sales is currently well behind (Reuters, 2011). other developed countries. Japan is a leader in the LED Mobile OLED displays are now being manufactured industry in production and in public funding for R&D. almost exclusively in Korea and the Far East for handheld Suppliers such as Nichia, Toyoda Gosei, Sharp, Rohm, electronic device applications such as smart phones. It is P ­ anasonic, Toshiba, and Citizen reside in Japan. More than expected that display manufacturers in Japan, Korea, and 20 national universities in Japan have strong R&D efforts, China will move to larger displays, where OLEDs are very which surpass the number in the United States. Currently, attractive alternatives to liquid crystal displays (LCDs). LED lighting is being subsidized by the Japanese govern- Although displays are a highly commoditized product, their ment in order to reduce electricity use, in part in response to relative price elasticity compared to general lighting makes the devastation to the country’s electricity supply (25 percent displays the ideal first application for OLEDs. Larger com- reduction) caused by the Sendai earthquake and tsunami of panies like GE, Philips, Osram Sylvania, and Samsung are all 2011. LED lighting sales in Japan are estimated to top $1 bil- developing OLED technology for lighting applications, with lion in 2011, making Japan the largest market for LED light- Moser-Baer, located in New York, being the first commercial ing products. The LED adoption rate for new lamp purchases entry into OLED lighting manufacturing. has already reached 40 percent and is projected to exceed Several large U.S.-based corporations and numerous 50 percent in Japan by 2012. medium-size lighting and start-up companies participate in In June 2011, a new national energy-saving program the SSL market. These companies hold world-class positions was launched by the South Korean government aimed at and employ tens of thousands of people in the United States. achieving a 100 percent conversion rate to LED lighting In the LED chip market, Cree Inc., and Philips-Lumiled in buildings owned by the South Korean government, as are among the top 10, based on worldwide revenue. Both well as a 60 percent penetration of all lighting applications companies still manufacture in the United States and pro- nationwide by 2020. To support this initiative, the Korean duce revenues of the order of $1 billion annually. Some of government will provide $185 million in funding support in the world’s leading LED manufacturing equipment sup­ 2012 and 2013 for LED point-of-purchase rebates. Samsung, pliers reside in the United States, with VEECO and Applied LG, and Seoul Semiconductor are crucial players in helping Materials being leading MOCVD reactor suppliers. Numer- reach these goals. These companies already offer a broad ous substrate equipment suppliers and fabrication and test range of LED products for the domestic market. Samsung companies play a critical role in the SSL supply chain. The announced a 60 watt (W) equivalent LED lamp at less than LED lamp and luminaire markets have numerous medium $20 in 2011. Seoul Semiconductor was the fourth largest and small companies providing LED lamps and luminaries. LED manufacturer in 2010 (Bhandarkar, 2011). China is cur- OLEDs have also been the subject of a growing manu- rently a net importer of LED lighting for notebook backlights facturing base over the past decade in the commercializa- tion of color mobile displays. Mobile display production in 2011 was estimated at approximately 3 million displays per 3 The term CFL applies to not only the twisted fluorescent replacement month for Samsung alone (Wall Street Journal Asia, 2011). for incandescent A-lamps, but also “folded” fluorescent lamps, e.g., GE’s Biax lamp. These do not share the problems associated with the twisted CFL. Leveraging this early manufacturing experience, several

OCR for page 85
SSL LARGE-SCALE DEPLOYMENT 87 manufacturers are now developing OLEDs for general The industry value chain shown in Figure 6.1 is depicted lighting applications because of their potential for high as consisting of three major categories of activities (upstream, efficacy, large area coverage, and conformable configura- midstream, and downstream) and is used to organize the dis- tions. At present, however, OLEDs have some shortcomings cussion in this chapter around the barriers that need to be for general lighting applications, as discussed in Chapter 3, overcome for widespread SSL adoption. First are upstream such as very high cost compared to LEDs and to other light- market activities, including basic and applied R&D, perfor- ing technologies. mance standards setting, and determining the best ways to test products. Second are the midstream activities that focus on manufacturing and the movement of product to major BARRIERS AND THE SSL VALUE CHAIN wholesalers and retailers, also including associated sales Despite the rapid increase in manufacturing and sales force education and training on the benefits of SSL. Third of SSL products based on LEDs, barriers remain to be are downstream activities that include decision-making on overcome for them to dominate the lighting market. Efforts particular lighting applications and end-user purchases and focused on materials research and overcoming manufactur- the offering of any purchase support programs offered by ing challenges to improve SSL products and reduce costs utilities or other entities to support widespread adoption of are essential. Barriers exist all along the SSL value chain, SSL. There are barriers to full-scale deployment at each point depicted graphically in Figure 6.1. The value chain identifies along the value chain that will be discussed below. at a high level the market activities and participants com- prising the lighting industry. Activities include, but are not UPSTREAM OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES limited to: R&D; patenting and licensing intellectual prop- erty; the making of specialty manufacturing tools required in R&D challenges to improving the efficacy, reliability, commercial-scale SSL component and product manufactur- and color quality of SSL products while reducing the cost ing; manufacturing itself; product assembly; component and are many, as noted in preceding chapters of this report. product distribution, wholesaling, and retailing; and various While challenges for improving SSL products to support light form applications in the consumer market. Market widespread adoption can be generalized, some challenges are participants include all those individuals, businesses, and unique to specific end-use sectors and applications, including organizations participating in some aspect of the lighting residential, commercial, industrial, and general illumination market just described, including the lighting design com- and niche applications. Upstream barriers include but are not munity and consumers. limited to the following: FIGURE 6.1  Solid-state lighting industry value chain.

OCR for page 85
88 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING 1. Potential for inferior product quality compared to MIDSTREAM OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES other illumination alternatives if sufficient scientific Midstream market activities, as defined for the SSL indus- breakthroughs are delayed; try and depicted in Figure 6.1, include all of the means and 2. Bulky and heavy product designs due to SSL heat processes for moving products from R&D and smaller-scale sink requirements; manufacturing to full-scale manufacturing and, ultimately, 3. Uncertain product lifetime, insufficient warranties, to architects, engineers, lighting designers, contractors, and and lack of expedited testing procedures; retailers for sale to and use by consumers. This definition is 4. Costly product design and engineering, including broader than what might typically be defined as midstream choice of rare earths, wafer, and substrate design; and because of the heavy emphasis in the SSL industry value 5. Costly packaging and components and product chain on continued R&D and smaller-scale manufacturing, manufacturing. which in this case is included as an upstream activity. Mid- stream activities are also defined to include product labeling For uniform and consistent adoption of SSL, improvements for consumer information and for marketing and advertis- need to occur upstream quickly to ensure that the market is ing, which includes ENERGY STAR® and related labeling not tainted early with inferior products and that SSL products systems, such as the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partner- continue to come down the cost curve. ship’s DesignLightsTM Consortium, established outside of the federal government. Research and Development Midstream market actors principally include distributors, designers, and contractors responsible for designing and Several upstream R&D needs must be addressed if wide- installing lighting in commercial and industrial buildings, spread adoption is to occur. For example, LED R&D support and lighting contractors and electricians serving the resi- is needed for improving the yield, efficiency, and operation at dential sector. Midstream labeling efforts help facilitate and high power and high temperatures. One specific development, inform decision-making by these market actors. The barriers discussed in Chapter 3, is the development of low-cost, high- and challenges to widespread adoption in residential, com- quality substrates for GaN for the growth of lattice-matched mercial, and industrial sectors, while generally similar, can LED structures. The removal of such defects as would occur also be quite different. The lighting systems design and prod- due to lattice mismatch in LEDs should increase reliability, uct decision makers are different for each sector, and decision yield, and efficiency. Improving LED light output and color is makers in each sector have a different level of knowledge also important because most LED lamps currently available do and experience with SSL technology. Bringing information not have the same light output and color rendering properties to all lighting decision makers uniformly and consistently as incandescent lamps, and those that do have lower efficacies. through ENERGY STAR® or other labeling programs has New dimming switches (“dimmers”) will need to be proved valuable in deploying new lighting technologies, developed. As is the case with some CFLs, existing ­ immers d whether for CFLs in recent years or SSL today. Examples used with incandescent luminaires may not work with highlighting the success and value of labeling programs are LED replacement lamps because of perceptible flicker, no discussed below and later in this chapter. smooth dimming, radio interference, and insufficient loading General midstream barriers include, but are not limited (­ immers require a minimum load). Even though LED lamps d to, the following: are labeled “dimmable” they are not universally dimmable by the myriad of dimming systems currently available. Con­ 1. Risks associated with moving from demonstrations sumers accustomed to incandescent dimming might notice and and niche market product manufacturing to full-scale be bothered by the fact that LED lights do not get warmer in standardized product manufacturing; color as they dim. 2. Availability of SSL products on the market in retail LED lamp heat management needs to be improved. Even and other outlets with still uncertain product demand; though heat management requirements are much less for 3. Lack of availability of some SSL products and light LEDs than for incandescent lighting, both the point heat forms (not a full array of lighting solutions yet source nature of LEDs and the thermal sensitivity of the available); device create a thermal management challenge. If LEDs 4. Lack of awareness of applications and benefits of and OLEDs are to compete with fluorescent lamps and other SSL by architects, design engineers, building profes- light forms, particularly in the commercial sector, efficacy sionals, and consumers; and must be improved. And because many applications require 5. Lack of information and training of wholesalers and an omni-directional lamp, the unidirectional emission from retailers on various SSL light forms, product applica- the LED must be modified by lamp design to become more tions, performance, and costs, which impede stocking omni-directional. decisions, product placements, and sales emphasis.

OCR for page 85
SSL LARGE-SCALE DEPLOYMENT 89 SSL Manufacturing SSL manufacturing base. The risk of not manufacturing SSL products in the United States is one of continuing to import SSL manufacturing refers to the full range of activi- technology, intellectual property, and product and, thus, ties and materials use, including intellectual property and export money and jobs overseas. The U.S. LED manufactur- labor to produce SSL products for sale, including for use in ing base, although substantially smaller than that of Japan or televisions, mobile devices, and signage, as well as end-use Korea, is still a multibillion-dollar industry and will at some lighting products for general illumination in buildings. Each point produce higher yields and higher efficiencies. The very SSL product has its own set of manufacturing challenges, and large industry efforts currently under way, coupled with leg- LED and OLED technologies, in particular, as emphasized islation that requires higher lighting product efficacies, with in previous chapters, present different challenges and oppor- time should allow attractively priced lighting products to be tunities for use in general illumination and specialty lighting available in the marketplace that meet the mandated U.S. and for lowering energy use and costs. efficacy standards. LED Manufacturing Yield LED Efficacy The low yield of high-efficiency LED devices with proper The relatively high cost of general illumination LED color and the fact that they are grown on relatively small lamps and luminaires today is due to the recently estab- substrates is what makes LEDs relatively expensive. The sub- lished manufacturing base and not necessarily to suboptimal strates (sapphire or silicon carbide) are typically 2 to 4 inches designs and low yield, both of which will improve with time in diameter compared to 12 inches typically for silicon. The and from the natural learning curve associated with manufac- LED devices are sold to manufacturers for assembly into turing electronic products. In addition, current LED products luminaires (i.e., SSL products). Some LED manufacturers, suffer from relatively low efficacy compared to their potential however, are vertically integrated and make the LED pack- efficacy. LED luminaires require large heat sinks to maintain age and their own varied lighting devices and luminaires. All temperature and large electronic components to carry high LED-based luminaires require optics to distribute the light, currents. Higher-efficiency LEDs will contribute to a lower a large heat sink to remove the heat, and driver electronics heat load, which would in turn substantially reduce the cost to control the current input. The cost and assembly of these of the luminaire by reducing the size and cost of the heat components is similar to other commonly used electronic sink and supporting electronics. Improving LED efficiency devices, such as hand-held games and cell phones, where can lower luminaire costs by an amount roughly equal to the cost is dependent on manufacturing volumes and component efficiency improvement and allow for smaller, lighter designs size. As with other electronics, competition and progression that are more attractive to consumers. Improvements in effi- along the learning curve associated with moving to higher- ciency will come with scientific research and breakthroughs. volume manufacturing will bring down the cost and price to consumers. FINDING: To make LED-based luminaires and lamps at Another important benefit of improving the crystal growth high efficacies (notionally those exceeding 150 lumens per and substrates is the effect on greater yields. The yield of watt) at prices lower than fluorescents, technological and high-efficiency LEDs at the proper wavelengths is relatively manufacturing breakthroughs will be needed. low under current design and manufacturing processes. Low enough, in fact, that manufacturers are “binning” their RECOMMENDATION 6-1: The Department of Energy product. After testing, manufacturers put the product in bins should concentrate its funding on light-emitting diode core each with a range of wavelengths and efficiencies and sell technology and fundamental emitter research that have the them to consumers at different prices. Binning is used when potential to lower costs of solid-state lighting products. the yield is low and manufacturing processes do not have sufficient quality controls in place to ensure a consistent and uniform product. For most all other semiconductor OLEDs devices, manufacturers have detailed sampling and test- SSL products based on LEDs and OLEDs can fill separate ing of devices from large lots. Device functionality is also lighting niches. Based on current experience, there do not sampled and tested. Devices are typically made and sold to appear to be any fundamental reasons why OLED lighting a given specification. Improved epitaxial growth technology cannot become cost competitive with LEDs as engineering, should eliminate binning and substantially improve yields design, and manufacturing infrastructure and experience and lower costs. Improvements in LED efficacy, and thus with OLEDs are improved. The multiyear learning curve efficacy of luminaires, will also result in lower cost and as a and multibillion dollar manufacturing base in Asia for result increased SSL adoption. OLED displays should significantly reduce costs and make Early manufacturing challenges need to be overcome, par- the manufacture of OLED-based general lighting devices ticularly if the United States wants to be home to a successful more attractive.

OCR for page 85
90 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING The manufacturing experience gained as OLEDs have of aluminum manufacturing and is abundantly available. emerged as an increasingly important display technology LEDs are manufactured with very small amounts of phos- provides manufacturers with the experience and confidence phor containing rare earths to create the color balance needed to move this technology, with its unique features, into the for efficient white output, as described in Chapter 3. The rare lighting market in the near future (Willner et al., 2012). earths in phosphors, however, are in short supply globally OLED displays have a much higher selling price than do and are mainly sourced today from China. If other supplies light sources, and OLED costs will have to be substantially are not developed or the rare earths become much more reduced for OLED lighting products to be viable in the mar- expensive, then other alternatives need to be found to make ket place. In this context, Universal Display Corporation in white-light LEDs. DOE and the lighting industry disagree on Ewing, New Jersey, provides significant intellectual property the severity of this problem, and the potential consequence to the industry with their holdings of more than 1,000 patents is that product supply might be in jeopardy if the industry covering many of the key technologies that are required to view proves correct.4,5 High-efficacy white-light LEDs can make high-efficiency OLED displays and lighting sources. be manufactured with red, green, and blue LEDs, in which In addition, Novaled in Germany has important intellectual case phosphor is not required. In addition, quantum dots can property in low-voltage, high-efficiency OLED technology be used to replace the phosphor, as discussed in Chapter 3. that may prove significant for lighting applications. Other In the case of OLEDs, the materials are carbon-based and chemical companies, notably Idemitsu Kosan, PPG (in closely related to dyes used in paints and inks. Hence they Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), and BASF, also have a portfolio are widely available, easy to synthesize, and typically inex- of materials that they provide to the display industry. Intel- pensive. Also, there do not appear to be toxicity issues in lectual property and manufacturing development is currently organic materials used in lighting that would impede their emerging as a global industry whose center is in Asia, but widespread commercial distribution. significant market strengths and players are also located in the United States and Europe. Testing and Standards Equipment manufacturers, which provide the key infra- structures needed for sustained growth in manufacturing, are Performance also starting to take notice of the possibilities for potentially large developing markets for OLED displays and lighting. As new and innovative products move to market, it Aixtron, AG, the largest producer of MOCVD equipment becomes increasingly important that performance testing for LED lighting, also produces (on still a small scale) be standardized so as not to impede adoption. Currently organic vapor phase deposition systems for OLEDs. Applied the testing method for LED-based emitters—the so-called Materials is the world’s largest supplier of equipment for LM-80 standard (IES, 2008)—specifies data collection at low-temperature polysilicon deposition on glass substrates various intervals over a 6,000-hour time period to evaluate used as OLED display drivers. Its division, Applied Films, lumen maintenance. Doing this requires 8 months of real- supplies in-line deposition tools for “front-plane” OLED time testing to introduce a new product. The standard places display materials deposition. ULVAC in Japan provides many a significant burden on new technology, for which new and OLED display manufacturers with evaporation systems, improved product introductions face market pressure to whereas Angstrom Engineering is a leading supplier of labo- occur at a faster pace. ratory tools used in OLED device experimentation across The current standard for forecasting lumen maintenance, North America. Most OLED display manufacturers have no TM-21 (IES, 2011), which specifies no greater than 30 per- single source for deposition tools, and work is continuing to cent diminution in light output (the so-called “L70” point) in engineer low-cost, scalable, and high-throughput methods 25,000 hours of operation, appears to be more than adequate to deposit and pattern organic thin films. It should be noted, to meet market demand. In addition, efforts to increase however, that the current lack of a complete tool set for the efficiency should extend the LED lifetime even further by manufacturing of OLEDs remains a limiting factor in their decreasing the operating temperature and removing process- widespread and low-cost deployment as lighting sources. related defects. Currently, the lifetime of luminaires will be (See Chapter 3 for the committee’s recommendations on limited by the lifetime of the supporting electronics and not where DOE should invest to enable widespread deployment the LEDs themselves (Next Generation Lighting Alliance of OLED SSL.) and DOE, 2010). The reduced electric current requirements for more efficient LEDs should also have a beneficial effect on extending the lifetime of the supporting electronics. Materials There should be no impediments to the deployment of 4 DOE New Critical Materials Strategy, released December 15, 2010, LED and OLED lighting products due to availability of start- see http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-releases-new-critical- ing materials. Gallium, one of the two components in the materials-strategy. 5 NEMA letter to DOE, November 28, 2011. Available at http://www. material set of the most commonly used LEDs, is a byproduct ­ nema.org/policy/paegs/rulemaking-comments.aspx.

OCR for page 85
SSL LARGE-SCALE DEPLOYMENT 91 FIGURE 6.2  Lighting Facts Label. SOURCE: DOE and NGLIA. FINDING: There are currently no industry-accepted The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a final accelerated life tests for SSL products, which slows the rule on July 19, 2010, that required all medium screw-base development and deployment of new reliable products. lamps, including incandescent, compact fluorescent, and LED lamps, to carry their version of a lighting facts label. RECOMMENDATION 6-2: The Department of Energy This label is intended to give individual consumers more should continue efforts to help develop accelerated life tests information about the lighting products they are purchasing for luminaires and LEDs. and will be on each replacement lamp box. An example of this label is shown in Figure 6.3. This rule went into effect on January 1, 2012. The voluntary DOE label will not be Labeling of SSL Products used on products that require the FTC label, in order to avoid Several efforts are under way to standardize the informa- confusion. Both labels are limited in information content, for tion provided to consumers who purchase (or who consider example, no information of dimming capability or expected the purchase) of SSL products. In December 2008, DOE, in lifetime is given, both of which are important features for collaboration with the Next Generation Lighting Industry the buyer to consider. Alliance (NGLIA), started a voluntary program known as While labels help communicate to consumers the perfor- SSL Quality Advocates. Members of this program pledge mance of lamps they are considering purchasing, they do to use the “Lighting Facts Label” depicted in Figure 6.2, little to help them understand the choices that they have after for SSL products in order to accurately communicate key the phase-out of general service incandescent lamps, which performance characteristics of SSL devices to con­umerss began January 1, 2012. The FTC label, for example, does not and retailers.6 The Lighting Facts Label is designed to show how a particular lamp compares with other lamps on help ­ etailers and utilities compare qualities and benefits of r the market and does not indicate whether the lamp is dim- similar products. Although it is not designed to be affixed mable. Furthermore, while both the DOE and FTC labels to product boxes, it could appear on the product that is pur- provide information on color quality, there are few studies chased by consumers or in retail displays. elucidating people’s preference across different attributes of lighting technologies (brightness, color, lifetime, and price, 6 for example) to help guide how labels and communications For more information, see http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/ advocates.html. could be more helpful to consumers purchasing decisions.

OCR for page 85
92 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING (EPA)-led ENERGY STAR® program is a voluntary labeling program designed to promote energy efficient appliances and other end-use products. ENERGY STAR® labeling for lighting products applies to residential applications and, to the extent these are part of federal procurement activities, to commercial applications. Industrial applications do not currently fall within the scope of ENERGY STAR®. As a result, ENERGY STAR® does not provide the information and labeling that would enable light- ing decision makers in the commercial sector (beyond federal procurements) and the industrial sector to make informed choices easily. This may significantly limit the impact of ENERGY STAR® overall in improving lighting efficiency in these sectors and impede widespread deployment of SSL technologies. Other programs, such as the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership DesignLightsTM Consortium (DLC) initiated in 2009, partially fill this gap, but not as compre- FIGURE 6.3  Lighting Facts Label. SOURCE: Federal Trade hensively or with as high a profile as the ENERGY STAR® Commission. program would (and does for residential sector applications). The DLC is comprised of utility companies and energy efficiency program administrators throughout the United FINDING: The labels designed by DOE and FTC for States interested in providing incentives for high-performing lamp packages help consumers better understand the char- LED products that meet individual sponsor criteria. The acteristics of the product they are purchasing, but important DLC claims that its qualified products list includes only information is missing from the labels that would help high-­ uality, high-performance, tested, and verified LED q consumers to better differentiate products and assign value products. The qualified products list is used by program to the products. administrators to determine the products to include in their programs for consumer rebates.7 RECOMMENDATION 6-3: The Federal Trade Com- mission should conduct a study in 2014, 2 years after DOWNSTREAM OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES introduction of the label, to determine the effectiveness of the labeling and whether it could be improved by additions Downstream market activities include all means and and/or changes. processes employed to support end-user purchases of lighting products, which can include some later-stage, The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 midstream activities, such as training of retail sales staff, (EISA 2007) provided an authorization of $10 million for technical support for distributors, design professionals each of the fiscal years 2009 to 2012 for public awareness. It and contractors, and information dissemination to support appears that this money has not been appropriated, however, consumer purchases. More typically, downstream activities to help the education process. are consumer focused and intended to encourage and sup- port consumer purchases. Such support can be in the form FINDING: The move to new lighting is changing the of financial incentives to consumers or product “giveaways” entire vernacular used for lighting. It is going to be critical or incentives to retailers to increase the percentage of SSL to label products in a clear way and educate retailers, con­ products available for purchase. The main downstream bar- sumers, lighting designers, and contractors on the opportuni- riers include, but are not limited to, the following: ties and challenges with these new lighting technologies. To this end, EISA 2007 authorized $10 million a year to advance 1. Higher first-cost of SSL products and systems, absent public awareness, but this money has not been appropriated. utility rebates or other government or manufacturer incentives, compared to conventional lighting; RECOMMENDATION 6-4: The Department of Energy 2. Lack of consumer awareness and undervaluing the and lamp manufacturers and retailers should work together to benefits of SSL; ensure that consumers are educated about the characteristics 3. Skepticism regarding SSL performance claims with- and metrics of the new technology options. out sufficient field-testing; As discussed in the Chapter 2 section “Current Federal and State Programs,” the Environmental Protection Agency 7 Further information is available at http://www.designlights.org/.

OCR for page 85
SSL LARGE-SCALE DEPLOYMENT 93 4. Lack of utility financial incentives or government involved in lighting decisions. Major retrofit and renovation support for consumer purchases; lighting decisions are most often made by contractors and 5. Uncertainty about SSL product use and replacement energy services companies. Often, energy services com- opportunities; and panies (ESCOs) are also the primary contractors used by 6. Uncertainty associated with handling and disposal of u ­ tilities for implementing lighting efficiency programs in toxins contained in SSL products at their end of life building renovations and retrofits. Utility program activi- and the potential for future government regulations ties and information targeted to ESCOs and contractors is regarding safe disposal. important in the retrofit market. Industrial sector lighting applications require large Downstream barriers, while generally similar among amounts of ambient light. Industrial buildings are less sectors and building type, affect decisions differently across homogeneous than commercial buildings and often require the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. This is specialty and task lighting. Such buildings and lighting sys- because the decision maker for lighting choices differs in tems are typically designed by facility designers specializing each sector, and the barriers are more difficult to overcome in industrial and facility applications, usually working in in one sector than in another. For example, the residential concert with manufacturers. sector is characterized by thousands of point-of-purchase outlets, including small local retail establishments, big box Utility-Administered Programs and Partnerships stores, department stores, lighting showrooms, hardware stores, grocery stores, and local convenience shops. Each car- Electric utilities have long played a role in incenting ries a wide variety of lamps, and most do not have sales staff energy efficient product purchases by consumers—in part that are knowledgeable about the characteristics of particu- at the direction of their regulators or in response to state law lar lighting products to aid consumers with their purchase. and in part as a response to their customers’ vocal support Moreover, consumers generally do not concern themselves for such incentives and programs. Several successful pro- with lighting characteristics—cost is a primary driver of grams are currently being offered by utilities to encourage lighting purchase decisions.8 Providing information about purchase of SSL. As found by GSD Associates in its review lighting choices for residential purchases also differs. Util- of the Small Commercial Lighting Program administered ity bill stuffers and utility-sponsored in-store advertising, as by the New York State Energy Research and Development well as collaborative labeling efforts like ENERGY STAR® Authority (NYSERDA) (GSD Associates, 2005), train- and the DLC-qualified products list, aid utilities in determin- ing activities, technical support, and incentives encourage ing for which products to provide incentives. Multifamily contractors, distributors, designers, and other trade allies to residential buildings have their own unique challenges, design and install lighting projects that result in better lighted particularly where renters do not make lighting purchases spaces, which allow people to see more easily and which but, rather, the building owner or a management company cost less to operate. has this responsibility. In this case, cost is the primary driver The small commercial market segment, although difficult for lamp purchases. and costly to reach through such programs, has been persuaded Commercial sector lighting decisions in new buildings are by this program to install energy efficient lighting. Large made by architects, engineers, and lighting designers work- projects tend to have design teams and architects involved in ing primarily with large building projects and by contractors project design and implementation, while smaller projects are and distributors whose primary focus is on smaller buildings. often installed by lighting contractors with products selected While final lighting decisions belong to the building owner, by the contractor, distributor, or manufacturer’s representa- information and lighting systems options are provided by the tive. By focusing outreach and information dissemination on lighting design community. Providing SSL information to these mid-market actors, program efforts can influence the architects, engineers, and lighting designers is therefore criti- practice of designing, specifying, and installing lighting for cal to widespread deployment of SSL in new construction. small commercial buildings—ultimately providing effective, The building retrofit market is different from the new energy efficient lighting to an increasing portion of the market. construction market with respect to the activities and actors Utility incentive programs working in concert with pro- grams like the DLC help spur consumer demand for LED 8 While a high-performance lighting system typically has a payback of 4 products and support manufacturers’ interest in providing to 8 years, a building owner’s expectation for payback is shorter—around market-ready retail products. As an example, each year the 2 years. A common problem in commercial buildings is that the person r ­ esponsible for the operating budget is not the same as the person respon- Long Island Power Authority’s (LIPA’s) Energy Efficient sible for the construction budget. The decision to go ahead with a more Products Program (Box 6.1) works with lighting manufac- expensive but better performing system would have to be made at a higher turers and retailers to coordinate incentive programs that level in the organization, where other priorities often preclude sufficient promote specific ENERGY STAR®-qualified products. In attention to the building energy performance. In residential construction, October 2010, LIPA announced a campaign encouraging the limiting factor often is available capital for the construction of a high- performance home.  customers to switch to energy-saving lighting by offering

OCR for page 85
94 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING BOX 6.1 BOX 6.2 The Value of Partnership in Rebating LED The Value of Partnership in Rebating Purchases—Long Island Power Authority LED Purchases—National Grid Because of the success of the Long Island Power Authority’s National Grid has been promoting emerging solid-state (LIPA’s) initial LED fixture markdown, LIPA approved additional lighting (SSL) technologies through its residential and commer- funding through 2011. The Energy Efficient Products Program in cial energy efficiency programs since 2007. Like most efficiency 2011 added LED bulbs to the product mix and established a sales programs the goals are energy savings facilitating the introduction goal of 25,000 ENERGY STAR®-qualified LED products. Through and sustainability of emerging technologies in the marketplace. October 2011, a total of 31,326 products were sold through the To that end, National Grid is an active participant in the ENERGY LIPA markdown program of which more than 26,000 have been STAR® SSL Lighting Program and Northeast Energy Efficiency downlights—and sales through year-end 2011 were in excess of Partnership DLC. National Grid has seen its program savings 37,000. Because of the early success of this program, both Cree, attributed to SSL increase over the past several years. Incentives the manufacturer, and Home Depot, the retailer, provided rebates are offered for a wide range of SSL products that are listed by of their own, bringing the promotional retail price to just under ENERGY STAR® and the DLC. It is expected that up to 10 percent $25. In 1 month following these added rebates, sales increased of the savings through its lighting programs could be attributed by more than 200 percent. to SSL by the end of 2012. Most savings are derived through “downstream” incentives provided directly to the end-user for purchasing and installing solid-state lighting products. Starting in late 2010 for residential downlight retrofits and expanded to commercial reflector/directional lamps in 2011, National Grid has been offering “upstream” incentives to retailers and distributors for select solid-state lighting products. These upstream programs are targeting end-users that would otherwise purchase halogen-based a discount on ENERGY STAR®-qualified LED recessed incandescent products. downlights. This promotion began as a pilot offering, when Home Depot began carrying one of the first ENERGY STAR®-qualified LED downlights. The retail price for this luminaire was $49.97, and with a $15 discount from LIPA, customers could purchase the luminaire for $34.97. In addition to those sold at Home Depot, LIPA’s Energy LED products is high, with opportunities for lamps, retrofit Efficient Products Program has allocated funding for more kits, and luminaires. Recent technology additions by GE than 77,000 ENERGY STAR®-qualified LED lamps and and Philips now have cost-effective general ambient lighting luminaires to be sold at Costco, Sam’s Club, and 15 inde- solutions on the market for table lamps, whereas previously pendent electrical distributors across the Long Island service the LED market had been focused more on downlighting. area. LIPA’s Energy Efficient Products Program provides site Reducing the price of SSLs for retail purchases has been visits to enrolled retailer partners and place point of purchase shown to increase sales, as illustrated in Figure 6.4—­showing mate­ials that call out the product’s energy savings and pro- r monthly sales and price data compiled by Philips—which motional pricing provided by LIPA. Field representatives on shows a significant increase in sales as LED prices fell. LIPA’s behalf provide training to the sales force at each loca- tion that joins the program. The program also provides retailer LED End-of-Life Issues in-store promotions complete with light displays to educate consumers on the ENERGY STAR®-qualified LED products One of the fundamental advantages of SSL is that the and demonstrate the energy efficient lighting products and light-emitting structure does not contain materials that their dimming capabilities. LIPA also promotes LEDs with exceed existing U.S. regulatory toxicity levels. This is in bill inserts, newsletters, and print ads in local newspapers.9 contrast to other lighting systems that can contain highly National Grid offers a similar rebate and support services toxic materials like mercury. However, other materials that program in its New England service area, which covers sev- are used in the white LED device packaging may have high eral states (Box 6.2). This cross-state program is helpful in levels of toxicity. Because these materials do not directly stimulating industry interest in serving the broader regional affect the fundamental light generation mechanisms, it is market. The market potential for ENERGY STAR®-qualified theoretically possible that substitution materials can be found and used to address toxicity issues. It is important to 9 identify potential toxins in SSL and their role in the device’s LIPA’s LED program is continuing in 2012 with a goal of 52,500 prod- ucts (lamps and luminaires) and a budget of $787,500. operation and use.

OCR for page 85
SSL LARGE-SCALE DEPLOYMENT 95 Sales volume Price UNIT SALES AVERAGE PRICE PER UNIT FIGURE 6.4  LED sales and price relationship. Courtesy Philips Lighting. 6.4.eps diagonally placed type is outlined A recent study by researchers at the University of SSL COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS POTENTIAL C ­ alifornia, Davis (Lim et al., 2011), focused on the potential metallic toxins in LEDs. The study found that other than SSL Energy Savings Potential arsenic and some metals, the materials found in LEDs do The United States electricity consumption was 3,754 TWh not pose serious health risks. Among the LEDs tested, white in 2010, and lighting electricity consumption in all sectors LEDs appeared to be the safest for the environment because accounted for roughly 19 percent of U.S. total electricity of the absence of toxic substances. LED lighting does not use.10 DOE’s estimates for lighting electricity use, by sector contain mercury, which is a miniscule component in all and technology type, in 2010 are shown in Table 6.1. fluorescent lighting products. It is anticipated that the adoption of SSL will lead to large Other potential toxicity issues can originate from the energy and attendant cost savings. Nonetheless, there is some polymers used for the plastic lenses/encapsulate or from uncertainty of just how large these savings might be. In this the phosphor used to generate white light. It is important to section, the committee reviews estimates prepared for DOE note that while this study found for blue/white LEDs that and also provides its own estimates. toxic levels for copper, silver, and nickel are exceeded, based A recent study performed for DOE by Navigant analyzed on California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement 12 markets for SSL, including four applications in general Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), currently no federal regula- illumination; 11 four applications in outdoor lighting;12 and tions are violated by the levels of any material in white light four applications in consumer electronic displays (Navigant LEDs. Furthermore, in LED-based lighting components only Consulting, 2011).13 The study found the greatest savings lead was found to be in the European directive Restriction potential to be in general illumination, where LEDs are esti- of Hazardous Substances, and lead levels for this standard mated to have saved 0.38 TWh of electricity in 2010 alone were not exceeded. Current SSL products appear to be in because of the replacement of incumbent technologies with compliance with current environmental regulations, thus LEDs. The study estimates that if the four general illumina- disposal should not impede widespread deployment. As tion applications switched entirely to LEDs, savings could regulations and materials used in manufacturing change, reach 133 TWh per year. there needs to be continued study and vigilance so that dis- The Navigant study further estimates that the maxi- posal does not become an issue. mum theoretical energy estimated savings for all niche RECOMMENDATION 6-5: The Environmental Protec- tion Agency in conjunction with the Department of Energy 10 EIA, 2012, Electricity sales and revenue data, available at http://www. should conduct a study to understand the environmental eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/ index.cfm. impacts of SSL and to determine potential disposal strate- 11 These applications were as follows: (1) PAR, BR, and R shaped; gies, if necessary, that should be developed as SSL deploy- (2) MR16; (3) 2-ft by 2-ft Troffer luminaires; and (4) general service A-type. 12 These included roadway lighting, parking facilities, other area and ment develops. flood lighting applications, as well as lighting outside residences. 13 These included television displays, desktop monitor displays, laptop displays, and mobile handset displays.

OCR for page 85
96 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING TABLE 6.1  Estimates for Lighting Electricity Consumption in 2010 by Sector and Technology Type (in terrawatt-hours (TWh) per year)   Residential Commercial Industrial Outdoor All Sectors Incandescent 136 15 0 4 156 Halogen 12 15 0 1 28 Compact fluorescent 15 16 0 1 32 Linear fluorescent 10 250 23 10 294 High intensity discharge 0 49 35 98 183 LED 0 3 0 2 5 Miscellaneous 1 0   1 3 TOTAL 175 349 58 118 700 SOURCE: DOE (2012). TABLE 6.2  Average Efficacy, Power, Daily Usage, and Lamps Per Household in 2010 Linear   Incandescent Halogen CFLs Fluorescents HID LED Other Efficacy (lm/W) 12.1 14.3 52.1 67.3 62.4 40.7 37.5 Average wattage (W) 56 65 16 24 126 11 54 Average usage (h/day) 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.5 2.1 1.4 Average number of lamps per building 31.8 2.3 11.7 5.1 0 0.1 0.4 SOURCE: DOE (2012). ­market applications14 from 100 percent LED replacement is market characterization from DOE. Estimates from DOE’s 263 TWh per year. A previous report (Navigant Consulting, market characterization for average efficacy, power, daily 2006) projected that electricity savings from LED adoption usage, and lamps per house in 2010 are shown in Table 6.2 by 2027 could be larger than the energy used to illuminate for each technology type. all homes in the United States today (NRC, 2010). For the residential sector, it was assumed that usage pat- The committee developed its own estimates of energy terns (hours per day for each technology type) will remain the savings potential that might result from different scenarios same during the 2012-2020 time period. This excludes any for the transition to LEDs for general illumination purposes potential direct “rebound effects”16 associated with light- in the U.S. residential and commercial sectors and outdoor ing energy use or other changes in consumer behavior. It is applications. These estimates and their derivation are dis- further assumed that the demand for illumination (measured cussed in the following sections. in lumens) will be proportional to population growth. Using these assumptions, residential lighting use would grow from roughly 173 TWh in 2010 to 187 TWh in 2020 in the base Potential Energy Savings for the Residential Sector case (Table 6.3), where the base case does not account for Today the residential sector accounts for 39 percent the impact of EISA 2007. (1,446 terawatt-hours [TWh]) of U.S. electricity use. 15 The first scenario estimates the impacts of EISA 2007 Approximately 12 percent of residential electricity use is standards. Given the limits for rated lumen ranges and to power lights (DOE, 2012). Approximately 78 percent of lighting electricity use is attributable to incandescent lamps. 16 Rebound effects include the following consumer responses to an in- For the committee’s estimates, the baseline assumptions for crease in energy efficiency. The direct rebound effect means that efficiency lighting technology characterization and lighting energy gains lead to a lower price of energy services, leading to an expanded or use in the residential sector rely on the 2010 U.S. lighting intensified use of the energy consuming products or services. For example, when consumers switch from incandescent lamps to compact fluorescents, they may leave their lights on for more hours than they did previously 14 Niche-application lighting includes under-cabinet kitchen lighting, b ­ ecause their operation costs less. The indirect rebound effect reflects the under-cabinet shelf-mounted task lighting, portable desk task lights, outdoor case where an additional income that is freed up by saving energy costs can wall-mounted porch lights, outdoor step lights, outdoor pathway lights, and be used for other energy- or carbon-intensive consumption. For example, the recessed downlights, as defined for ENERGY STAR® Program Require- income gained by installing an efficient furnace and insulating one’s house ments for Solid State Lighting Luminaires Eligibility Criteria. could be bundled into additional air travel, leading possibly to an overall 15 EIA, 2012, Electricity sales and revenue data: http://www.eia.gov/ increase in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (adapted electricity/sales_revenue_price/index.cfm. from the definitions in Sorrell, 2010).

OCR for page 85
SSL LARGE-SCALE DEPLOYMENT 97 TABLE 6.3  Residential Electricity Consumption, Due to TABLE 6.4  Projections for LED Package Efficacies Used Lighting, as Estimated by the Committee in the Committee’s “Aggressive Scenario” Year BAU (TWh) Scenario 1 (TWh) Scenario 2 (TWh) Year Efficacy 2010 173 173 173 2010 96 2011 174 174 174 2012 141 2012 176 176 176 2015 202 2013 177 177 177 2020 253 2014 178 107 56 NOTE: Projections are taken from DOE (2011, p. 24) and are for device 2015 180 108 53 temperatures of 25° C. 2016 181 109 50 2017 183 110 48 2018 184 110 46 2019 186 111 45 Using similar scenarios as those used to estimate residen- 2020 187 112 44 tial sector savings, commercial lighting use would grow from NOTE: BAU = business as usual; TWh = terawatt-hours. roughly 347 TWh in 2010 to 406 TWh in 2020 in the base case. The base case does not account for the impact of EISA 2007. The committee estimates that the EISA 2007 standards will save 60 TWh between 2012 and 2020. A more aggressive maximum rated wattages (see Chapter 2), these standards scenario was also developed in which LED package efficacy are only expected to substantially impact general illumina- would continue to improve according to the projections in tion in the residential sector starting in 2014 (see Chapter 2 Table 6.4, again depreciated to take account of the operating for the detail on EISA standards for general illumination). temperature. Under this aggressive scenario, widespread adop- It is assumed that residential illumination services will be tion of LEDs could lead to cumulative savings from 2012 to provided with the maximum allowed wattage while provid- 2020 of 771 TWh (an average of 86 TWh savings annually) ing the same level of illumination. As a result, this scenario (see Table 6.6). provides an estimate of the technical potential energy savings that can be anticipated as a result of EISA implementation.17 Under this scenario, lighting technologies (whether CFLs or Residential and Commercial Energy Consumption Surveys LEDs) would replace standard incandescent lighting start- The Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), the ing in 2014, leading to residential electricity use of 112 TWh Commercial Energy Consumption Survey (CEBCS),18 and in 2020. Savings are estimated at 514 TWh between 2012 the Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) and 2020 (or an average of 57 TWh per year). have been the primary sources of data for estimating the A more aggressive scenario was also developed in nation’s lighting energy use. These surveys were designed to which LED lamp efficacy would continue to evolve accord- be nationally representative of U.S. residential, commercial, ing to projections in DOE’s Solid-State Lighting Research and manufacturing building energy use and expenditures, and Development: Manu­acturing Roadmap (DOE, 2011), f and are administered by the Energy Information Adminis- shown in Table 6.4. The values in the table were depreci- tration (EIA). Since the late seventies, CBECS and RECS ated by 24 percent to take account of the higher operating surveys have been conducted every 4 years. MECS was temperature. DOE does not report projections for overall developed in the mid-1980s and has been conducted once lamp efficacies—only packaged device efficacies. Thus, a every 4 years on average since its inception. p ­ ackage-to-lamp efficacy ratio of 42 percent is assumed— While RECS data are available for 2009, the most recent which reflects the ratio between 2010 package efficacies and CBECS data available are from the 2003 edition of the Sur- the efficacy for LED lamps reported in the DOE 2010 market vey. EIA reports, “the 2007 data did not yield valid estimates characterization. Under this aggressive scenario, cumulative of building counts, energy characteristics, consumption, and savings from 2012 to 2020 could reach 939 TWh (an average expenditures.”19,20 These data collection errors have since of 103 TWh savings per year). 18 CBECS includes all buildings in which at least half of the floor space Potential Energy Savings for the Commercial Sector is used for a purpose that is not residential, industrial, or agricultural. Thus, it includes also schools, correctional institutions, and buildings used for Baseline assumptions for average efficacy, power, usage, religious worship, in additional to “commercial” buildings. 19 Available at http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/. Accessed May 24, 2011. and lamp counts in the commercial sector are shown in 20 EIA reports that because of the use of “a cheaper but experimental Table 6.5 for each technology. survey frame and sampling method by EIA’s prime contractor, design er- rors in the construction of the method and selection of common building 17 Technical potential does not take into account different rates of adop- types, and an inability to monitor and manage its use in a production sur- tion to technology turnover; it assumes the baseline technology is replaced vey environment.” Available at http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/. Accessed by the efficient one overnight. May 24, 2011.

OCR for page 85
98 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING TABLE 6.5  Average Efficacy, Power, Daily Usage, and Lamps Per Building in 2010 Linear Incandescent Halogen CFLs Fluorescents HID LED Other Efficacy (lm/W) 11.7 16.3 55.2 76.6 75.2 55.8 66.2 Average wattage (W) 53 68 19 37 350 12 11 Average usage (h/day) 10.4 12.4 10.4 11.1 11.1 20.8 14.8 Average number of lamps per building 14.1 8.7 39.3 301 6.3 6.9 0.1 SOURCE: DOE (2012). TABLE 6.6  Commercial Electricity Consumption, Due to such as high-pressure sodium, metal halide, or mer- Lighting, As Estimated by the Committee cury vapor; and other types of lighting. 5. The type of lamp if “other” is identified in (4) above. Year BAU (TWh) Scenario 1 (TWh) Scenario 2 (TWh) 6. Questions about the percentage of floor space lighted 2010 347 347 347 by the types of lighting just identified, keeping in 2011 377 377 377 mind the following: 2012 381 381 381 2013 384 380 384 a.  The lighted portion of the floor space, so these 2014 387 379 337 percentages must add up to at least 100, but 2015 390 382 312 because more than one type of lamp can light 2016 393 385 292 the same area, it is also possible for them to add 2017 397 389 278 up to more than 100; and 2018 400 392 268 b. The percentage of the lighted area in the building 2019 403 395 261 lighted by each lighting technology, e.g., fluo- 2020 406 398 257 rescent lighting; compact fluorescent lighting; NOTE: TWh = terawatt-hours; BAU = business as usual. incandescent lamps; halogen lighting; HID; and other lighting types. FINDING: Without appropriate data on consumer light- been corrected for the 2011 edition of CBECS. Without fur- ing use, it is difficult to establish an appropriate baseline ther support for data collection, policy makers and the light- of energy use in lighting and benchmark energy lighting ing industry generally are left to rely on a nearly decade old efficiency. survey data. The results of the survey, in either case, because of data limitations and the frequency of collection, are of RECOMMENDATION 6-6: The Energy Information little use to energy modelers and policy makers. EIA could Administration should collect data on energy demand for ask consumers to fill out tables similar to Table 6.7, which lighting through the Residential Energy Consumption Sur- uses the room types from DOE’s 2010 Lighting Market ­ vey, the Commercial Energy Consumption Survey, and the Characterization study (DOE, 2012). The list of data and Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. These efforts questions provided below is illustrative and not exhaustive. need to be pursued on a consistent basis and should con- Questions related to lighting use that EIA might consider sider adding questions that would increase the accuracy and asking CBECS survey respondents include the following: usefulness of the data. In addition, detailed lighting market characterization based on nationally representative surveys, 1. The percentage of the square footage in buildings such as the 2001 Lighting Market Characterization from the that are lighted when the building is operating under Department of Energy, need to be pursued every 5 years. It normal use conditions. would be helpful if these surveys are available before this 2. The best estimate of the percentage of square feet study is updated in 2015. lighted for each room (space) identified in Table 6.7. 3. The percentage of room area in square footage, Relative Cost Savings lighted during off hours—hours when the building is not in normal operating use, excluding the space Annualized Life-Cycle Cost of Lighting lighted by emergency lighting. 4. The types of lighting used to light space in the The committee has developed a first-order comparison of building: fluorescent lighting other than CFLs; the consumer life-cycle costs of light. The following assump- CFLs; incandescent lamps other than halogen lamps; tions are used: a retail electricity price of 0.11$/kWh and halogen lamps; high-intensity discharge (HID) lights, a 10 percent discount rate reflecting the implicit discount

OCR for page 85
SSL LARGE-SCALE DEPLOYMENT 99 TABLE 6.7  Suggested Design to Be Used in Future RECS to Assess Lighting Energy Consumption and Usage Patterns Compact Number of lamps used less Linear Incandescent Halogen Fluorescent HID LED Other than 1h/day: Fluorescent Lamps Basement(s)               Bathroom(s)               Bedroom(s)               Closet(s)               Dining Room(s)               Exterior(s)               Garage(s)               Hall(s)               Kitchen(s)               Laundry / Utility Room(s)               Living / Family Room(s)               Office(s)               Other               NOTE: Similar tables using other usage intervals (1 to 4 h/days, 4 to 12 h/days, and more than 12h/day). rate of the consumer. The latter is in general higher than the used the figures from DOE (2011) for efficacy and lifetime market rate and the social discount, both utilized in analyses of warm and cool LEDs, and scaled them so that for year of public investment (Azevedo et al., 2009; Frederick et al., 2012 they are in reasonable alignment with the efficacies 2002). The committee employed two scenarios for daily and lifetimes of LEDs that can currently be purchased by usage of lights: 3 h/day and 10 h/day. The committee selected consumers in retail stores. These same scaling factors were these two usage scenarios for two reasons: first, because they used for years 2015 and 2020, resulting in the following are representative of average daily usages in the residential weighting factors for cool and warm LEDs: lifetime factor and commercial sectors, and second, the results are found of 0.5, efficacy factor of 0.51, and a markup factor for price to be very sensitive to the number of hours of use. For each of 3. This further translated into lifetimes and efficacies for scenario, it is assumed that a 60 W incandescent lamp would LEDs that are half of the goals reported by the SSL roadmap, be replaced by another lighting technology while the same and capital expense costs per thousand lumen that are three energy service is provided (850 lumen). The level of the times what is reported in the SSL roadmap. energy service and the baseline power for the incandescent The results of the analysis in the 3 h/d usage scenario lamp does not change the overall results for this assessment. are shown in Figure 6.5 and for the 10 h/d scenario in The committee assumed efficacies, lifetime, and cost per Figure 6.6. thousand lumen values shown in Table 6.8. The committee TABLE 6.8  Assumptions Used in Calculation of Cost in Figures 6.5 and 6.6 Efficacy Lifetime Lamp Cost Service Cost ($/ (lm/W) (h) ($/lamp) thousand lm) Incandescent 14 2,000 0.5 0.5 Compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) 69 8,000 4.4 4.3 Fluorescent tube (T12) 69 5,000 2.0 2.0 Fluorescent tube (T8) 92 12,000 2.0 2.0 Fluorescent tube (T5) 104 20,000 2.0 2.0 Solid-state lighting (system level, warm white) 2012 72 25,000 23.0 22.5 2015 103 25,000 6.7 6.6 2020 129 25,000 3.1 3.0 Solid-state lighting (system level, cool white) 2012 90 25,000 18.4 18.0 2015 114 25,000 6.1 6.0 2020 132 25,000 3.1 3.0

OCR for page 85
100 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING 8 Incandescent 7 Life-cycle annualized cost ($/year) 6 5 LED warm white 4 LED cool white CFLs T12 T8 3 2 1 T5 - 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year FIGURE 6.5  Annualized life-cycle costs of lighting technologies for 3 h/day usage scenarios. A 10 percent discount rate and an electricity price of $0.11/kWh are assumed. 6.5.eps 30 Incandescent Life-cycle annualized cost ($/year) 25 20 15 CFLs LED warm whiteLED cool white T12 T8 10 5 T5 - 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 6.6.eps FIGURE 6.6  Annualized life-cycle costs of lighting technologies for 10 h/day usage scenarios. A 10 percent discount rate and an electricity price of $0.11/kWh are assumed. FINDING: On a life-cycle basis, warm and cool white ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN AIDING WIDESPREAD LEDs are already cheaper than incandescent lighting and will ADOPTION likely be comparable to that of fluorescent lighting technolo- Government can have a role to play in spurring techno- gies in the near future. For applications where the daily usage logical innovations and development as well as new product is larger than 10 h/d, cool white LEDs have now a similar introduction for products that offer economic, environ­ consumer cost to CFLs or T12. mental, energy, and national security benefits to the nation.

OCR for page 85
SSL LARGE-SCALE DEPLOYMENT 101 SSL technology, when fully deployed, offers all of these Australian government. After Cuba instituted an import ban benefits. The federal government and many state govern- of filament lamps in 2005, Australia was the first country to ments provide R&D support, manufacturing support, and announce, in February 2007, that incandescent lamps were information resources to market participants, including going to be phased out in that country starting with an import consumers, to advance the public good. Industry, health and ban in February 2009 and ultimately leading to a sales ban safety, and environmental regulations also play a role in in November 2009. While the total amount of money that directing industry behavior as it conforms to meeting stated the Australian government has spent on consumer education public policy goals. is not publicly available, the federal and state governments in Australia collaborated with industry, retailers, and other stakeholders to produce in-store banners and other point-of- Outreach and Communication on Implementing Standards purchase materials intended to give guidance to the public Chapter 2 reviewed targets and timetables set by various about lamp choices. One such example is shown in Figure 6.7. bodies around the globe for the implementation of more The Australian government also produced training manu- efficient lighting products for illumination. In many cases als for electrical contractors to explain the new regulations such targets and timetables are mandated by law, such as in and to teach the basics of lighting energy efficiency. The EISA 2007. Some states were permitted to accelerate these acceptance of these regulations has been high, and the over- timetables, and California issued a fact sheet discussing its whelming majority of media reports have been positive and early adoption.21 This section reviews the efforts made in in support of the regulations.23 In other examples around communicating the implications of these standards to the the world, New Zealand joined Australia in June 2008 by consumer public. announcing its intention to phase out incandescent lamps. The phase-out of incandescent lamps in the European The government of New Zealand worked with Australia to Union began on September 1, 2009.22 At that time, the Euro- develop a common minimum efficacy standard for these pean Commission had not issued any guidance documents lamps.24 However, public opinion and a change in govern- to consumers about the choices they would have after the ment in New Zealand led that country in March 2011 to transition date. There are no official estimates of the percent- repeal the ban. There is some speculation that the minimum age of the European population in September 2009 that was standard may be re-introduced in New Zealand now that aware of the changes in available products, but the European the election period is well over. The Canadian government Lamp Companies Federation (ELC) estimates that more than announced in October 2011 that the phase-out in that country half of the adult population was aware that changes were will be delayed by 2 years and will now begin in January coming. This is largely the result of the media and retailers 2014. Brazil is currently considering regulations similar to themselves in various European countries informing the those in the United States and is watching developments in consumers of the change. It should be noted, however, that other countries closely. China recently announced that it will some of the information provided was found by ELC to be phase out 100 W incandescent lamps starting October 1, inaccurate. Negative reactions were experienced in many 2012 (Taylor, 2011). countries, and it was not until a year later that the European On the other hand, the market share of incandescent lamps Commission finally published its consumer guidance on its in Japan’s residential market has for a long time been much website where readers in Europe are now able to find it in lower than in other countries, even without government regu- their own language. ELC estimates that the total amount of lation or intervention. The traditionally high electricity rates money that the European Commission has spent on consumer have contributed somewhat to Japanese consumers volun- awareness programs such as this is approximately half a tarily using fluorescent lighting in their homes, and after the million Euros. The member countries have not funded local 2011 earthquake and tsunami, as a result of extensive news language programs, at least not on a systematic scale. Much coverage and government outreach to the public, the adop- like in the United States, halogen incandescent lamps and tion of even higher efficiency LED lamps has accelerated. LEDs are also available to consumers and meet the legislative requirement. Nonetheless, the European Union recognized Discussion the need for government intervention to aid in the lighting transition. The United States is the only country in the world These examples suggest that national governments can where such significant changes in consumer choices of lamps greatly help increase public acceptance of higher-efficiency has taken place without the government first making efforts products with positive and proactive messaging. And con- to build awareness with the consumer. versely, by remaining passive, government can turn the An effective program for communicating to consumers public against such efforts. The committee found that in about the incandescent lamp phase-out was launched by the 23 Email communication with Bryan Douglas, Chief Executive Officer, Lighting Council Australia. 21 See http://ww.energy.ca.gov/lightbulbs/lightbulb_faqs.html. 24 AS/NZS 4934.2(Int):2008, which was later replaced by AS/NZS 22 European Commission Regulation 244/2009. 4934.2:2011.

OCR for page 85
102 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING education programs are important for widespread adoption of SSL products and can help to avoid the problems encoun- tered during the introduction of CFLs. RECOMMENDATION 6-7: The Department of Energy should take a leadership role, in partnership with the states and industry, to examine and clearly identify opportunities for demonstration, outreach, and education so that its activi- ties in support of SSL deployment are most valuable. What’s in it for me? The right choice will save you money BOX 6.3 • Together we spend around $900 million Lessons to Avoid: each year on lighting our homes The Digital TV Example • Simply by switching to energy efficient light globes you can cut your lighting The transition to digital television (DTV) provides a relevant costs by up to 80% analogy and some potentially useful lessons for the transition to • By choosing an energy efficient light globe, solid-state lighting (SSL). As is the case with SSL, DTV offers each of us can today important benefits and advantages over existing technologies, but because of public unfamiliarity with the new technology, consumer demand was “latent.” Another similarity is that the successful deployment of DTV required action by several different industries that are not linked or coordinated, as is the case with SSL. While DTV depended on the combined actions of equipment manufacturers, broadcast channels, and content providers, SSL requires synchronized action by lamp and fixture manufacturers, retailers, utilities, builders, and designers. Finally, both DTV and SSL raise challenging issues as to the appropriate role of FIGURE 6.7  Australian lighting information brochure. SOURCE: Reproduced by permission of the Commonwealth Department of government, industry, and other players in promoting a nascent Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Australia. technology that may not achieve an optimal pace and scale of market penetration relying on market forces alone. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress mandated that all broadcast TV channels switch to digital broadcasts by a California, media coverage has been fair and balanced and specified date, which after several delays and extensions, ended informative as to what the new standards really mean for con- up being June 12, 2009. sumers. As described in greater detail in Chapter 2, the roll- The DTV transition resulted in substantial public and indus­ out of CFLs encountered many problems. Foremost among try confusion, frustration, and resistance, as well as repeated them was the lack of a robust public education campaign to delays, even though it ultimately succeeded. Perhaps the greatest prepare consumers for this new technology. Related to this problem was the failure of government to anticipate and address problem was the failure to consider and give sufficient weight the public response to the technology change that many perceived to consumer expectations and reactions to this new lighting as being forced upon them. technology in terms of lighting quality, reliability, costs, The federal government also failed to accurately anticipate and durability. Finally, there was an absence of any serious how companies in the various industry sectors would respond to effort to proactively anticipate and attempt to address fore- the DTV mandate. There were performance problems with DTV, seeable problems with the technology that may be important such as the “digital cliff” that resulted in the complete loss of a to consumers, such as the objectionable color temperature, signal when there was any interference, which was not commu- the potential for mercury pollution, and the inability to dim nicated well to customers (Hart, 2008). There was also a failure many CFLs. The lessons of CFLs have played out in other to consider the environmental implications of suddenly making types of technology introductions, such as the transition to millions of analog TV sets obsolete, many of which ended up in digital TV (see Box 6.3). landfills (Palm, 2009). The Government Accountability Office criti- cized the federal government for failing to have a comprehensive FINDING: As discussed in this chapter and in previous plan for the DTV transition (GAO, 2007). chapters, demonstration, outreach, and public and industry

OCR for page 85
SSL LARGE-SCALE DEPLOYMENT 103 Federal Facilities FINDING: Government agencies that manage building assets can play a larger role in helping the deployment of The federal government is a major consumer of products energy efficient SSL. that use and supply energy. In 2008, the federal government used 1.1 percent of the 99.3 quadrillion Btu of energy used in RECOMMENDATION 6-8: The Office of Management the United States (PCAST, 2010). The government owns or and Budget should develop criteria for determining life-cycle operates 3.5 billion square feet of buildings space and a fleet costs and for including social costs in evaluating energy of 600,000 vehicles. Most federal government buildings are purchases and incorporating this methodology into agency under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense (DOD) procurements. and the General Services Administration (GSA). Executive Order 13514 was issued on October 5, 2009, to encourage the federal government to use its purchasing power to accel- Public Funding of Applied Energy R&D erate the introduction of more energy efficient technologies To highlight the role public funding can play in supporting in its facilities. There have also been recent studies from the industry development, one can look at the role DOE had in President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology advancing energy technologies and helping move them in to (PCAST, 2010) and the National Research Council (NRC, the marketplace. 2011) recommending the government use its purchasing A study by the NRC assessing the benefits and costs of power. The PCAST study recommended that “the Office of DOE’s R&D programs in fossil energy and energy efficiency Management and Budget (OMB) should develop criteria for reported that, in the aggregate, the benefits of federal applied determining life-cycle costs and for including social costs energy R&D exceeded the costs but observed that the DOE in evaluating energy purchases” (PCAST, 2010, p. 20) for portfolio included both striking successes and expensive fail- its building assets. ures (NRC, 2001). Follow-up studies by the NRC to develop a DOD and GSA are taking steps to align themselves with methodology for estimating the prospective benefits of DOE the Executive Order. In the Office of the Secretary of Defense R&D efforts determined that future success will depend on a (OSD) the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and number of factors, “including uncertainty about the techno- Logistics has responsibility for overall energy use. On May 5, logical outcome of a program, uncertainty about the market 2011, a memorandum to the facility directors of each of the acceptance of a technology, and uncertainty about future services was issued describing the Defense Logistics Agency’s states of the world” (NRC, 2005, p.2). DOE’s SSL program sustainability and energy efficiency policy. This included a has sponsored more than $120 million R&D activities over schedule of technologies, including LEDs, necessary to meet the past 10 years. While DOE is the primary funding agency the 2015 goal to reduce energy density by a minimum of for SSL, the Office of Science and the Advanced Research 50 percent compared to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2010, as dis- Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) have also provided fund- cussed in Chapter 2. Although OSD issued the overall policy, ing for some novel programs. With the exception of DOE and it is up to the services and ultimately the base commanders ARPA-E funding and some states funding, there has been for implementation. The base commander is responsible for very little investment in SSL by other governmental entities. the final purchasing decision. The bases are currently being Large academic programs at the Lighting Research Center required to reduce their energy consumption by 10 percent. (LRC) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), California Except for DOD facilities, GSA owns, leases, and oper- Lighting Technology Center (CLTC) at University of Califor- ates all of the federal government facilities except for those nia, Davis, and the Solid State Lighting and Energy Center of the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental (SSLEC) at University of California, Santa Barbara, have Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) laboratories, and the Veteran’s established strong public-private partnerships. Numerous Administration’s hospitals, to name a few. Approximately other U.S. universities have strong research efforts in LED 50 percent of GSA space is owned, while the rest is leased lighting. In terms of scientific publications, the United States, space. Of 9,000 properties in 2,800 communities, about Japan, and China are leading globally. 8,000 are leased properties. Most of these are 10,000 square Although it is difficult to assign benefits to collaboration, feet or less and are often part of a larger building. These these processes can directly lead to technological break- 8,000 buildings use less than 50 percent of the energy used throughs and advance innovations. in federal government buildings. GSA is implementing a pro- In 1998, NYSERDA funded creation of the LRC at RPI. gram that all owned or leased buildings over 10,000 square NYSERDA helped establish the LRC through a competitive feet will have to incorporate energy efficient products dur- grant solicitation. NYSERDA and Niagara Mohawk (now ing build or retrofit. They are converting the prescriptive National Grid) helped establish the LRC’s Partners Program standards to performance standards for specific services and beginning in 1988, and the number of partners has grown components. GSA will not dictate the technologies to be used over time to a high of 15, in 2003, from government, utilities, to meet the target. manufacturers, and foundations from around the world. Today the LRC has 35 full-time faculty and staff and 15 graduate

OCR for page 85
104 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING students conducting a range of research activities, including sources in interior spaces may, therefore, be weighted more lighting technology, design, and human factors, to influence heavily than anticipated on the side of new applications that lighting practice through multi­disciplinary research, demon- were never lighted before, raising the possibility of increased stration, and education. The Alliance for Solid-State Illumi- energy use for illumination. nation Systems and Technologies (ASSIST) was established in 2002 by the LRC as a collaboration of global private- and CONCLUSION public-sector organizations (25 members in 2012) to specifi- cally address the needs of SSL to gain acceptance for general Widespread adoption of SSL is dependent on a number illumination purposes through research and education. of critical developments. The industry, still in its infancy, In a similar vein, the California Lighting Technology requires continued public and private funding and support Center (CLTC) at the University of California, Davis, a for basic R&D to improve the efficacy, reliability, and color collaborative effort among the California Energy Commis- quality of SSL while simultaneously reducing costs. For sion, the DOE, and the National Electrical Manufacturers SSL technologies to be deployed successfully in the light- Association (similar to the LRC), was established in 2003 ing retrofit and replacement markets and in new building to “stimulate, facilitate, and accelerate the development and construction, several issues need to be addressed. First, SSL commercialization of energy-efficient lighting and day- needs significant technological breakthroughs to improve lighting technologies” (UC Davis, undated). CLTC works products and lower costs. Second, the benefits of SSL in within the SSL value chain making key market connections retrofit applications and in new lighting forms need to be by providing practitioners hands-on opportunities to learn well articulated and accurately assessed, based on rigorous about energy efficient lighting technologies and lighting and valid testing and in-field verification. Third, consumers design approaches. In addition, CLTC coordinates outreach need to have access to information relevant to inform deci- and support efforts downstream, with existing utility-based sions when selecting lighting solutions; products also need energy centers, offering touring exhibits, demonstration to be readily available where consumers shop. Lastly, public materials, and technical assistance in the adoption of emerg- policy and public-private partnerships need to be focused to ing technologies.25 address needs as they exist and emerge along the industry’s value chain, as depicted in Figure 6.1. The introduction of new technologies in the lighting UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES sector is relatively rare. As we consider the deployment of Supporting the widespread adoption of SSL requires SSL solutions, lessons can be drawn from the problematic the identification and consideration of possible unintended introduction of CFLs for homes and businesses. As detailed consequences in the application of such a new technology. in Chapter 2, first generation CFL products were expensive, The original goal for both industry and government in the had poor color rendering, started dim and achieved full development of SSL products was to save energy. It is worth brightness only after several minutes, and often flickered, noting, however, that seldom has a type of electric light creating poor and inconsistent illumination. Like CFLs, SSL source been discontinued during the more than 100-year-old can substitute for conventional screw-base lamps, including history of electric lighting. The sulfur lamp from the 1990s, incandescent and HID lamps and will soon be able to replace once installed to light the outside walking areas of DOE’s linear tube fluorescent lighting. SSL can also complement Forrestal Building, is one of the very few examples. Even conventional lighting by adding accent and point source though the high-wattage metal halide lamp was introduced effect lighting in buildings and in architectural illumination, in the 1950s to replace the need for inefficient mercury vapor as discussed in Chapter 5. While the largest market for SSL lamps, it is only now—60 years later—that the mercury in the near term is replacing screw-base lamps in residential vapor lamp is finally being phased out. and commercial applications, complementary and new SSL One of the consequences of introductions of new light light forms offer a pathway to gain a foothold into new light- sources has been the ability to light new applications, leading ing markets. While the screw-base replacement lamp market to a higher overall lighting energy use. In the case of SSL, might be the most profitable for the lighting industry in the one can already anticipate the more widely spread light- near term in the residential sector, greater energy savings ing of such applications as stairs on staircases (to improve potential exists in making product for the commercial sec- safety), under-cabinet and cabinet lighting (for aesthetics as tor. This could include replacement and new construction well as visibility), or closet bars (for special effect), just to markets as well as new light forms, which can change the name a few. way consumers use and perceive lighting in buildings. New Finally, today’s SSL products still typically have lower light forms can produce energy savings but will likely not luminous flux than many of the light sources that they are reduce energy use if they are complementary to or used in intended to replace. The initial applications of these light new construction unless they otherwise displace conven- tional lighting. To avoid the fits and starts associated with 25 Further information is available at http://cltc.ucdavis.edu. creating a sustainable consumer market for SSL, thought

OCR for page 85
SSL LARGE-SCALE DEPLOYMENT 105 needs to be given to the types and kinds of support needed IES. 2011. Lumen Degradation Lifetime Estimation Method for LED Light for widespread adoption of SSL along the lighting industry Sources. New York: Illuminating Engineering Society. Lim, S.-R., D. Kang, O.A. Ogunseitan, and J.M. Schoenung. 2011. Poten- value chain. tial Environmental Impacts of Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs): Metallic Resources, Toxicity, and Hazardous Waste Classification. Department of RECOMMENDATION 6-9: Government and industry Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of California, should continue to provide support in a cooperative and com- Davis. School of Social Ecology and Program in Public Health, Uni- prehensive manner to upstream, midstream, and downstream versity of California, Irvine. McKinsey and Company. 2011. Lighting the Way: Perspectives on the market actors and should support market activities evenly. Global Lighting Market. Vienna, Austria: McKinsey and Company. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2006. Energy Savings Potential of Solid State DOE’s efforts in helping advance SSL technology and Lighting in General Illumination Applications. Final Report prepared for manufacture in the United States and educating the lighting Lighting Research and Development Buildings Technologies Program product community, including researchers, manufacturers, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Depart­ ent m of Energy. Washington, D.C.: DOE. December. distributors, and sellers, have been judiciously chosen and Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2011. Energy Savings Estimates of Light Emitting well executed. For widespread SSL deployment to be suc- Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications. Prepared for Building Tech- cessful and for consumer expectation to be met regarding nologies Program Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, SSL products, the much larger task of making the public U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOE. January. aware of the major differences between incandescent and Available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ ssl/­nichefinalreport_january2011.pdf solid-state technology needs to be addressed. The lighting Next Generation Lighting Alliance and DOE (U.S. Department of ­ nergy). E product and design community, working in concert with 2010. LED Luminaire Lifetime: Recommendations for Testing and DOE, could best accomplish this task; however, if DOE takes Reporting. Available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/­ on a leadership role, it will need additional funding and some publications/pdfs/ssl/led_luminaire-lifetime-guide.pdf. ­A ccessed direction from Congress to undertake this activity. Another June 25, 2012. NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Energy Research at DOE: Was It source of funding for increasing public awareness might Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000. be the electric power industry, to help encourage the faster Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. deployment of very energy-efficient LED lighting and avoid NRC. 2005. Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Devel­ the backlash associated with CFL deployment. opment at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward. Washington, D.C.: With continued U.S. government support and funding and The National Academies Press. NRC. 2010. Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States. DOE leadership, the promise of low-cost and very efficient America’s Energy Future Series. Washington, D.C.: The National SSL could be realized, lowering U.S. energy needs and Academies Press. allowing the United States to be a significant SSL manufac- NRC. 2011. Achieving High-Performance Federal Facilities: Strategies turer and technology provider. and Approaches for Transformational Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Palm, E. 2009. DTV transition: Avoiding an e-waste ‘tsunami.’ CNET REFERENCES News, June 9. PCAST (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology). 2010. Azevedo, I. L., M.G. Morgan, and F. Morgan. 2009. The transition to solid- Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy state lighting. Proceedings of the IEEE 97(3):481-510. Technologies through an Integrated Energy Policy. Washington, D.C.: Bhandarkar, V., Strategies Unlimited. 2011. “Status of LED Lighting— Executive Office of the President. Market Development and Forecast.” Presentation to the Committee on Reuters. 2011. China to phase out incandescent light bulbs in 5 years: Assessment of Solid State Lighting, July 27. Report. November 5. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2011. Solid-State Lighting Research Sorrell, S. 2010. Energy, economic growth and environmental sustainability: and Development: Manufacturing Roadmap. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Five propositions. Sustainability 2(6):1784-1809. Department of Energy. Taylor, Z. 2011. LED makers climb as China plans to ban incandescent light DOE. 2012. 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. Available at http:// bulbs. Bloomberg. November 4. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/tech_reports.html. UC Davis. Undated. About CTLC. Available at http://cltc.ucdavis.edu/ Frederick, S., G. Loewenstein, and T. O’Donoghue. 2002. Time discounting content/view/132/208/. Accessed September 15, 2012. and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature Wall Street Journal Asia. June 1, 2011. Key Screen Plant Is Ready Early. 40(2):351-401. Available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023037453 GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2007. Digital Television Transi- 04576356622691229918.html. tion: Increased Federal Planning and Risk Management Could Further Willner, A.E., R.L. Byer, C.J. Chang-Hasnain, S.R. Forrest, H. Kressel, H. Facilitate the DTV Transition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GAO. November. Kogelnik, G.J. Tearney, C.H. Townes, and M.N. Zervas. 2012. Optics Geroski, P.A. 2000. Models of technology diffusion. Research Policy 29:12. and photonics: Key enabling technologies. Proceedings of the IEEE GSD Associates. 2005. Program Theory and Logic Model Activities of the 100:1604. New York Energy $martSM Program: Small Commercial Lighting. Pre- Young, R. IMS Research. 2011. “Global Manufacturing Trends: What Can pared for NYSERDA. North Andover, Mass.: GSD Associates. March. We Learn from the HB LED Market Explosion?” Presentation to the Hart, K. 2008. Digital TV transition not as easy as advertised. Washington DOE Manufacturing R&D Workshop, April 12. Post, May 20, p. A1. IES (Illuminating Engineering Society). 2008. Approved Method: Measur- ing Lumen Maintenance of LED Light Sources. New York: Illuminating Engineering Society.