PNNL

Abstract

In August 2008 the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) conducted a light emitting diode (LED) residential lighting demonstration project for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Building Technologies, as part of DOE’s Solid State Lighting (SSL) Technology Demonstration Gateway Program. Two lighting technologies, an LED replacement for downlight lamps (bulbs) and an LED undercabinet lighting fixture, were tested in the demonstration which was conducted in two homes built for the 2008 Tour of Homes in Eugene, Oregon. The homes were built by the Lane County Home Builders Association (HBA), and Future B Homes. The Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) also participated in the demonstration project. The LED downlight product, the LR6, made by Cree LED Lighting Solutions acts as a screw-in replacement for incandescent and halogen bulbs in recessed can downlights. The second product tested is Phillips/Color Kinetics’ eW® Profile Powercore undercabinet fixture designed to mount under kitchen cabinets to illuminate the countertop and backsplash surfaces. Quantitative and qualitative measurements of light performance and electrical power usage were taken at each site before and after initially installed halogen and incandescent lamps were replaced with the LED products. Energy savings and simple paybacks were also calculated and builders who toured the homes were surveyed for their responses to the LED products. The LED downlight product drew 12 Watts of power, cutting energy use by 82% compared to the 65W incandescent lamp and by 84% compared to the 75W halogen lamp. The LED undercabinet fixture drew 10 watts, cutting energy use by 83% to 90% compared to the halogen product, which was tested at two power settings: a low power 60W setting and a high power 105W setting. The LED downlight consistently provided more light than the halogen and incandescent lamps in horizontal measurements at counter height and floor level. It also outperformed in vertical illuminance measurements taken on the walls, indicating better lateral dispersion of the light. The undercabinet fixture’s light output was midway between the low and high power halogen undercabinet fixture light outputs (35.8 foot candle versus 13.4 fc and 53.4 fc) but it produced a more uniform light (max/min ratio of 7.0 versus 10.8). The color correlated temperature (CCT, the blue or yellowness) of the LED light correlated well with the halogen and incandescent lights (2675 K vs 2700 K). The color rendering of the LED downlight also correlated well at 92 CRI compared to 100 CRI for the halogen and incandescent lamps. The LED undercabinet fixture had measures of 2880 K CCT and 71 CRI compared to the 2700 K and 100 CRI scores for the halogen undercabinet fixture. Builders who toured the homes were surveyed; they gave the LED downlight high marks for brightness, said the undercabinet improved shadows and glare and said both products improved overall visibility, home appearance, and home value. Paybacks on the LED downlight ranged from 7.6 years (assuming electricity cost of 11 c/kWh) to 13.5 years (at 5C/kWh). Paybacks on the LED undercabinet fixture in a new home ranged from 4.4 years (11c/kWh electricity) to 7.6 years (5c/kWh) based on product costs of $95 per LED downlight and $140 per LED undercabinet fixture at 3 hrs per day of usage for the downlight and 2 hrs per day for the undercabinet lighting.