Transcript TITLE OF PRESENTATION HERE

DOE SSL Program Overview
and
2012 CALiPER Reports in Review
January 22, 2013
0
DOE SSL PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Comprehensive Program
R&D and Commercialization








R&D
CALiPER Testing
LPrize Competition
Next Generation Luminaire
LED Lighting Facts
GATEWAY Demonstrations
Street Lighting Consortium
TINSSL
ssl.energy.gov/
1
DOE SSL PROGRAM OVERVIEW
LED Lighting Facts
 DOE's LED Lighting Facts® program showcases LED products for general
illumination from manufacturers who commit to testing products and
reporting performance results according to industry standards.
 LED Lighting Facts label provides lighting buyers, designers, and energy
efficiency programs with information essential to evaluating SSL products
 Data is measured by the industry standard for testing photometric
performance, IES LM-79, and covers five areas: light
output (lumens), watts, efficacy (lumens per watt),
CCT, and CRI. Optional information related to LED
lumen maintenance and warranty may also be
provided on the label.
 Products Listed: 7,680
2
DOE SSL PROGRAM OVERVIEW
GATEWAY Demonstrations
 Showcase high-performance LED products for general illumination in a variety
of exterior and interior lighting applications.
 Demonstration results connect DOE technology procurement efforts with
large-volume purchasers and provide buyers with reliable data on product
performance.
 Demonstration results provide buyers with real-world data on product
performance.
Municipal Solid State Street Lighting Consortium
 Shares technical information and experiences related to LED street and area
lighting demonstrations and serves as an objective resource for evaluating
new products on the market intended for street and area lighting
applications.
 Most recent development: Draft Model Specification for Adaptive Control and
Remote Monitoring of LED Roadway Luminaires
3
DOE SSL PROGRAM OVERVIEW
L Prize Competition
 Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and designed to spur lighting
manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to
replace the common light bulb.
 Recent L Prize winning product: a 60W replacement lamp manufactured by Philips.
 Next category is for PAR38 replacement lamps
Next Generation Luminaires™
 The Next Generation Luminaires™ (NGL) Solid-State Lighting (SSL) Design Competition
was created to recognize and promote excellence in the design of energy-efficient
LED luminaires for commercial, industrial and institutional applications.
 In 2012, the Next Generation Luminaire competition was expanded to include
separate indoor and outdoor competitions.
 www.ngldc.org
 2012 Outdoor winners announcement: February 14, 2013
 2013 Indoor winners announced March 20, 2013
4
DOE SSL PROGRAM OVERVIEW
CALiPER Summary Reports
 The DOE CALiPER program supports testing of a wide array of SSL
products available for general illumination, using industry-standard
test procedures.
 Results provide unbiased product performance information to
foster the developing market for high-performance SSL products.
 Most recent reports focused on photometric performance of 38 LED
PAR38 lamps (CALiPER summary report 20) and performance of nine
LED linear pendants and a collection of 11 linear pendant products
available in both an LED and fluorescent version (CALiPER summary
report 19).
5
THANK YOU!
Jon Linn
[email protected]
781-860-9177 x134
Fritzi Pieper
[email protected]
781-860-9177 x123
Irina Rasputnis
[email protected]
781-860-9177 x133
6
The CALiPER Program:
Latest Findings and 2013 Preview
Naomi Miller & Michael Royer
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
January 22, 2013
7 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
eere.energy.gov
CALiPER History
• CALiPER started in the SSL ‘Wild Wild West’
–
–
–
–
–
–
No LM-79 test procedures
Little understanding of how to compare products
Many low efficacy products with even lower light output
Virtually no industry accountability
False equivalency claims by many
Potential for great consumer disappointment
• 2012 – Entirely different story!
8
CALiPER’s Emphasis
• Historically:
– Capture market trends and gauge performance
levels
– Improve manufacturer accountability
– Inspire consumer confidence
• New Emphasis:
– Identify important areas for improvement
– Educate industry on potential issues
– Support standards activities
9
CALiPER’s Emphasis
Shift to Lighting Facts QA
Product
Selection &
Purchasing
Independent LM79-08 Testing
Data
Analysis
Report
Publication
New CALiPER Focus
10
CALiPER’s Emphasis
• Snapshot Reports using data
from LED Lighting Facts
• Application Reports focusing
on specific product types and
design scenarios, going
beyond LM-79 testing
• Special Investigations that
incorporate product
installations and evaluations
• Standards Support for
emerging areas such as
flicker, dimming, power
quality, long-term
performance, etc.
11
CALiPER Testing, 2006 – 2011
• 2006 Pilot phase
– 4 products (hard to
purchase)
• 2007 Rounds 1, 2, 3
– Small replacement lamps,
desk lamps, undercabinet,
small downlights
• 2008 Rounds 4, 5, 6
– Downlight and T8 in situ
testing, replacement lamps
12
• 2009 Rounds 7, 8, 9
– Streetlights, bollards,
downlights, 2x2 panels, 2x4
troffers, replacement lamps
• 2010 Rounds 10, 11
– Parking garage, wallpack,
cove lights, replacement
lamps, roadway, high-bay
• 2011 Rounds 12, 13
– Downlights, track lights, Alamps, T8 replacements,
cove lights, high-bays, wall
packs, 2x2 troffers
CALiPER Testing, 2012 Application Summary Reports
• 14: Retrofit Downlight Units
• 15: Floodlights
• 16: BR30/R30 Lamps
• 17: AR111/PAR36 Lamps
• 18: Recessed Wallwashers
• 19: Linear Pendants
• 20: PAR38 Lamps
13
CALiPER Results, 2012 Lamps
Efficacy
100
90
80
lm/W
70
60
59
56
51
50
47
40
30
20
10
0
Maximum
75th Percentile
Mean
Median
14
25th Percentile
Minimum
Downlight Retrofit
BR30/R30
AR111/PAR36
PAR38
(13)
(13)
(6)
(38)
CALiPER Results, 2012 Lamps
Power
35
1,400
30
1,200
Lumens
25
Watts
Output
1,600
20
16
15
13
10
1,000
600
11
870
800
660
662
11
491
400
5
200
0
0
Downlight
Retrofit
BR30/R30
AR111/PAR36
PAR38
Downlight
Retrofit
BR30/R30
Note: Values likely influenced by CALiPER selection process.
Maximum
75th Percentile
Mean
Median
15
25th Percentile
Minimum
AR111/PAR36
PAR38
CALiPER Results, 2012 Lamps
CRI
Color Rendering
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
82
Downlight Retrofit
Maximum
75th Percentile
Mean
Median
16
25th Percentile
Minimum
84
BR30/R30
83
80
AR111/PAR36
PAR38
CALiPER Results, 2012 Lamps
• Generally a range of performance within each product
category
• Lamp formats generally performing better than retrofit
products
• Downlight retrofit units and BR30 lamps have output
similar to conventional downlights
• CRI in the low 80s for the vast majority of products
• Some exceptional products, some duds
17
CALiPER Results, Lamps 2006 – 2012
Efficacy
100
Luminous Efficacy (lm/W)
90
80
70
60
55
54
50
47
44
40
34
30
26
20
10
0
Maximum
75th Percentile
Mean
Median
18
25th Percentile
Minimum
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
(0)
(16)
(34)
(39)
(50)
(43)
(58)
CALiPER Results, Lamps 2006 – 2012
Power
50
Watts
40
30
20
10
8.0
7.9
9.7
14.2
7.0
7.7
0
Output
2,000
Lumens
1,500
1,000
776
500
471
234
274
389
422
0
Maximum
75th Percentile
Mean
Median
19
25th Percentile
Minimum
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
CALiPER Results, Lamps 2006 – 2012
Color Rendering
100
90
80
73
70
79
76
83
82
66
CRI
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2006
Maximum
75th Percentile
Mean
Median
20
25th Percentile
Minimum
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
CALiPER Results, 2012 Luminaires
Output
8,000
80
7,000
70
6,000
60
5,000
4,000
3,997
3,179
3,000
Efficacy
90
Lm/W
Lumens
9,000
59
54
50
42
40
30
2,000
20
1,075
1,000
10
0
0
Floodlights
Wallwashers
Linear Pendants
Floodlights
Power
300
Wallwashers
Linear Pendants
Color Rendering
100
90
250
70
200
81
71
60
CRI
Watts
82
80
150
50
40
100
30
76
57
50
10
25
0
0
Floodlights
21
20
Wallwashers
Linear Pendants
Floodlights
Wallwashers
Linear Pendants
CALiPER Results, 2012 Luminaires
• Highly variable performance across and within product
categories (as expected to meet application needs)
– More difficult to establish performance criteria
• LED products are often not direct one-for-one
replacements for conventional luminaires, even if they are
from the same product family
22
CALiPER Results, All Products 2006 – 2012
Number of Products
9
43
62
73
77
84
87
100
Luminous Efficacy (lm/W)
90
80
70
60
55
50
47
40
40
30
20
52
32
29
18
10
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
Purchase Year
23
2010
2011
2012
CALiPER Results, All Products 2006 – 2012
Number of Products
9
43
62
73
77
84
87
100
Color Rendering Index (CRI)
90
80
70
68
71
74
77
79
80
82
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
Purchase Year
24
2010
2011
2012
CALiPER Results, All Products 2006 – 2012
• Stabilization of efficacy?
– Influence of types of products tested
– Tradeoffs with price and quality?
25
2013 Preview: PAR38 Expanded Testing
26
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
• Install 24 pairs of similar performing recessed luminaires
(2×2 and 2×4) and 0−10 V dimming controls in mock office
space
• Show examples of fluorescent benchmarks, LED tubes, LED
retrofit kits, and dedicated LED troffers
• Invite 18 designers/engineers to observe, brainstorm, and
comment
• Get feedback from non-lighting experts as well
27
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
28
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
29
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
• Performance Comparison
Efficacy looking like an advantage for LED products…
30
Min LPW
Max LPW
Average LPW
FL benchmark
troffers (28W
lamps)
54
72
65
Dedicated LED
troffers
75
104
91
LED tube retrofits
55
76
69
LED retrofit kits
60
76
67
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
• Performance Comparison
…but they don’t always use less energy…
31
Min Watts
Max Watts
Average
Watts
FL benchmark
troffers (28W
lamps)
49 (2x2)
83 (2x4)
63.5
Dedicated LED
troffers (2x2 and
2x4)
34 (2x2)
58 (2x2)
43.6
LED tube retrofits
48 (2x4)
79 (2x4)
16 to 26W
per tube
LED retrofit kits
35 (2x2)
51 (2x2)
41.2
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
• Performance Comparison
…and might not produce the same quality of light
Min CRI, R9
Max CRI, R9
Avg. CRI, R9
FL benchmark
troffers
82, 14
86, 14
84, 14
Dedicated LED
troffers
68, -41
91, 58
83, 20
LED tube retrofits
68, -44
83, 36
77, -4
82, 2
84, 39
83, 22
LED retrofit kits
32
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
• Visual Appeal
– Diffuser products with linear details or mixtures of lens and reflector
preferred by experts
– Observers were indifferent toward smooth white panel troffer
– Conventional K12 lens and parabolic louver troffers not liked
– Lensed or parabolic troffers with funky patterns liked LEAST
33
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
• Lumen Output
– How appropriate is the light output from the luminaire for this
application?
4.0
Too High
C
Expert Mean Response
3.5
U
G
3.0
E
F
2.5
H
J
SA
OT
R
X
K
N I
QV B
D
M
P
W
2.0
1.5
Too Low
1.0
0
34
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Output (lm)
5,000
6,000
7,000
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
• Distribution
– Patterns created on wall by parabolic louvered fixtures not liked
• Fluorescent preferred over LED tube retrofits.
LED Tube
35
LED Tube
T8 Fluorescent Tube
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
• Distribution: Spacing Criterion is not a rigorous metric
– Is the light distribution on the workplane between luminaires
appropriately uniform for this application?
4.0
8'
10'
Too Uniform
2×4
2×2
Mean Expert Response
3.5
TV
3.0
H
2.5
O
E GA
N F X M
U
C WP
IS
J
Q
R
K
D
B
2.0
1.5
R² = 6E-05
Too Uneven
1.0
1.00
36
1.20
1.40
1.60
Spacing Criterion (Max)
1.80
2.00
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
• Flicker
– Fluorescent with electronic dimming ballasts: no perceivable flicker
– LED with dimming drivers at full: usually little perceivable flicker
– LED with dimming drivers at low: about 1/3 exhibited perceivable flicker,
both kits and dedicated LED troffers
37
2013 Preview: Troffer Study
• Comparative quality of tubes, kits, and
dedicated LED troffers
– LED tubes change troffer appearance and performance
– LED tubes may have unexpected installation problems
– LED kits can be good if well-engineered, but may not save
you much energy unless you drop light levels
– LED tubes and kits often have NRTL labeling complications
– Dramatic brightness patterns on lenses can be very
distracting and glaring from some LED retrofit products
– Flicker is a problem with some LED drivers when dimming
and there is no complete metric at this point in time
– Dedicated LED troffers are a good option for new
installations
• See it, mock it up before you buy a bunch of
them
38
2013 Preview: Office Lighting
• CALiPER report due February 2013
–
–
–
–
–
–
Comparison of knowledgeable and naïve observers
Criteria for evaluating luminaires for CALiPER
Better understanding of predictive metrics for lighting quality
Published results on dimming, flicker, glare, etc.
Feedback to manufacturers on LED lamp, kit, and fixture design
Will inform future CALiPER investigations on Type A luminaires, kits,
and LED tubes
STAY
TUNED!
39
Conclusions
• Overall improvements in light output, efficacy, light
distribution, power factor, color quality, etc.
• Manufacturer claims and equivalency claims are
improving… but can still be a problem
• Suitability often depends on application
– Comparable (or better) products are now found in many lighting
applications
– Poor performing products are also found
• Careful comparisons based on accurate performance data
is an absolute necessity
• Be cognizant of “secondary” quality issues: glare, flicker,
color tolerances, physical formats, reliability…
40