LED technology
benefits from the fast and simple turn-on of LED lamps to implement lighting-on-demand. A challenge: can it be shown that outdoor lamps with a good CRI actually require less luminance and less power compared to a low-CRI lamp (like sodium vapour) to achieve the same lighting perception?
The lighting customer pays two costs: acquisition and operation. The LED has a relatively high cost of acquisition compared to other lighting solutions, while the cost of operation is the lowest. At the moment of purchase, the cost of acquisition is clearly displayed, but there is little or no information about the cost of operation. It is no wonder that customers overwhelmingly choose the lighting source with the lowest cost of acquisition. Consumers may be willing to pay a higher cost of acquisition if they can justify the expense. A pleasing appearance, new and useful functionality as well as overall cost payback in 3 to 5 years makes the proposition attractive.
Lighting manufacturers have uniformly decided to manufacture and market LEDs in the form of GLS bulbs and halogen lamps. This decision removes the appearance factor from pricing. They have also decided not to introduce new functionality (such as wireless control from a mobile phone). This decision removes the functionality factor from pricing. As a result, the adoption of LED lighting will depend only on the payback period. Since the payback period is variable, depending on usage and electricity tariffs, a precise number cannot be printed on the package, so the customer has no information. In our opinion this marketing strategy will lead to disappointing results and slower than necessary takeup for LEDs.
In the scenario below we show the payback calculation for three scenarios, comparing an incandescent lamp, a CFL and an LED. The parameters used were taken from commercial products on sale in the largest department store in Paris, France, one that specialises in hardware, lamps and lighting. We assume that the lamps are used
pay back
10 lumens/watt Incandescent 40 lumens/W
CFL 80 lumens/watt LED
pay back
10 lumens/watt Incandescent 40 lumens/W
CFL 80 lumens/watt LED
YEAR 1
for 1000 hours per year, and that the cost of electricity is 12 euro cents per kWh. Pay-back time assuming that the incandescent is replaced every year, and the CFL is replaced after 5 years:
The first result is that the CFL gives a positive result on a cost of ownership basis in the third year. In this simple model, the LED is not a cost-effective alternative to the CFL. The break-even point for the LED relative to incandescent lamps occurs at 7 years, and if account is taken of the interest that could be earned on the initial saving, the break-even point occurs after year 10. The example illustrates that LED lighting is still too expensive to be competitive in general lighting applications, if cost of ownership is the only criterion.
In the second scenario below, we consider how much the cost of LEDs needs to be reduced in order to achieve payback within 5 years time. All payback calculations are estimates, and depend on local conditions of application as well as the acquisition and operating costs of lamps. For example, in Canada ( and other northern countries), the incandescent light bulb is an helpful heating source as well as an inefficient lighting source. Replacement of incandescent lighting by CFL requires additional “operational costs” to supplement heating needs. In Mediterranean countries, the heat generated incandescent lighting is a negative. Use of air conditioning to evacuate this heat is part of the “operational cost” of incandescent lighting.
This simple model suggests that an LED lamp could be priced only a few euros more than a CFL in order to be cost-competitive in general lighting applications. Similar conclusions have been reached by Cleantech Approach, who have carried out a more detailed study, Solid-State Lighting Benchmark Analysis : Pricing Lifetime costs, and Payback that estimates payback times for LED lighting replacement for many applications. The conclusion of this study, with which we are in agreement, is that LED lighting is not yet cost competitive with compact fluorescent lighting (CFL).
2 345 6
5.1 10.2 15.3 20.4 25.5 30.6 11 11.8 12.6 13.4 14.2
YEAR
12 3 45 6
5.1 10.2 15.3 20.4 25.5 30.6 11 11.8 12.6 13.4 14.2
13.0 13.4 13.8 14.3 14.7 15.1
7
35.7
23 23.8 15.5
8 9
40.8 45.9
10
51
24.6 25.4 26.2 15.9 16.4 16.8
April/May 2010
www.compoundsemiconductor.net 47
35 35.42 35.8 36.3 36.7 37.1
7
35.7
23 23.8 37.5
8 9
40.8 45.9
10
51
24.6 25.4 26.2 37.9 38.4 38.8
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256 |
Page 257 |
Page 258 |
Page 259 |
Page 260 |
Page 261 |
Page 262 |
Page 263 |
Page 264 |
Page 265 |
Page 266 |
Page 267 |
Page 268 |
Page 269 |
Page 270 |
Page 271 |
Page 272