APPENDIX 10C. PENETRATION OF EMERGING AND EXISTING

TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10C.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................10C­1

10C.2 PRICE AND PERFORMANCE OF EMERGING AND EXISTING

TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................................................10C­1

10C.2.1 LED............................................................................................................10C­1

10C.2.2 CMH ..........................................................................................................10C­3

10C.2.3 R­CFL ........................................................................................................10C­3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 10C.1 LED Device and Luminaire Performance Projections.......................................10C­2

Table 10C.2 LED Device and Driver Cost Projections..........................................................10C­2

Table 10C.3 LED Reflector Lamp Cost Projection................................................................10C­3

Table 10C.4 LED GSFL Replacement Cost Projection..........................................................10C­3

Table 10C.5 CFL Historical Prices.........................................................................................10C­4

10C­i

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 37.2
APPENDIX 10C. PENETRATION OF EMERGING AND EXISTING

TECHNOLOGIES

10C.1 INTRODUCTION

In this appendix, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) presents the assumptions and

methodology used to estimate the penetration of emerging technologies and existing

technologies in the base case shipments projections for IRL and GSFL. For both GSFL and IRL,

DOE analyzes an existing technologies scenario which models the penetration of only existing

technologies and an emerging technology scenario which models additional penetration from

emerging technologies. For the GSFL existing technology scenario, DOE analyzes only

fluorescent technologies covered under this rulemaking. For the IRL existing technology

scenario, DOE models the penetration of R­CFL as R­CFL are a mature technology with a

relatively stable price and efficacy points. In both the GSFL and IRL emerging technology

scenario, DOE separately considered the potential market penetration of two technologies: 1)

light­emitting diodes (LED) (into the commercial, residential, and industrial sectors), and 2)

ceramic metal halide (CMH) (into the commercial and industrial sectors).

In order to model the penetration of both emerging and existing technologies, DOE

forecasted the future performance of both LEDs and CMH and estimated historical prices for RCFL. These performance forecasts allowed DOE to calculate the simple payback period

encountered by consumers for each technology and thus project the market penetration of these

technologies for each year during the shipments analysis.

10C.2 PRICE AND PERFORMANCE OF EMERGING AND EXISTING

TECHNOLOGIES

10C.2.1 LED

To estimate the future efficacy and lifetime of LED luminaires, DOE used the efficacy

projection from DOE’s Solid State Lighting Multi­Year Program Plan (SSL MYPP).i The SSL

MYPP estimates a luminaire efficacy of 47 lm/W in 2007 climbing to 64 lm/W in 2008 and then

stabilizing at 196 lm/W in 2020. This luminaire projection takes into account improvements in

performance of LED devices as well as fixture, thermal, and driver efficiencies. DOE used the

commercial cool white device projection for both the commercial and residential sector. DOE

understands that the residential sector may prefer a warm white luminaire. However, as stated in

the SSL MYPP, manufacturers are achieving a warm white luminaire by using a red LED and

cool­white LED devices. Therefore, DOE believes this efficacy projection is appropriate for

both the residential and commercial sectors. The projection in the SSL MYPP is shown below in

Table 10C.1. DOE used the lifetime assumed in the SSL MYPP of 50,000 hours.

10C­1

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 37.2
Table 10C.1 LED Device and Luminaire Performance Projections

Device

EfficacyCommercial

Cool White

(lm/W 25

degrees C)

Fixture

Efficiency

Thermal

Efficiency

Driver

Efficiency

Resultant

Luminaire

Efficiency

Luminaire

Efficacy

Cool

White

(lm/W)

2007 84 77% 85% 85% 55% 47

2008 108 79% 86% 86% 59% 64

2015 188 95% 95% 95% 85% 161

2020 228 95% 95% 95% 85% 196

In order to estimate the future price of both the LED reflector lamp replacement and the

LED fluorescent system replacement, DOE estimated the OEM selling price for the components

of the LED luminaire and then applied a markup that is consistent with current retail prices for

these luminaires. The LED luminaire is composed of several parts: the LED device, driver, heat

sink, and other components. To estimate the OEM selling price for the LED device, DOE used

the projection of LED device costs from the SSL MYPP. By interviewing an integrated circuits

manufacturer, DOE was able to estimate the cost of the LED driver. DOE used both the LED

device and driver cost estimates for the LED luminaire replacing GSFL systems and IRL. The

device price and driver costs are displayed in Table 10C.2.

Table 10C.2 LED Device and Driver Cost Projections

Device Price from OEM

($/klm) Driver Cost ($/W)

2007 25 0.42

2008 18 0.40

2015 2 0.28

2020 2 0.20

To estimate the cost of other components used in a replacement LED reflector lamp,

DOE purchased the LR6 6” recessed down light manufactured by CREE LED lighting as this

luminaire exhibits similar efficacies shown in Table 10C.1. By analyzing the components used

in this luminaire, DOE estimated the cost of the heat sink and other smaller components as $11

in 2007. DOE estimated that these components could drop to $4 in 2020. Using current retail

prices for the LR6 6” recessed down light, DOE estimated a 220% markup from OEM

manufacturer selling price to retail price. The resulting prices of the LED reflector lamp

replacements for each of the baseline reflector lamps are shown in Table 10C.3 below.

10C­2

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 37.2
Table 10C.3 LED Reflector Lamp Cost Projection

Heat Sink

and Other

Costs for

IRL ($)

630

Lumen

LED­RL

Luminaire

Cost

Projection

($)

1050

Lumen

LED­RL

Luminaire

Cost

Projection

($)

1310

Lumen

LED­RL

Luminaire

Cost

Projection

($)

2007 11 100 151 182

2008 10 75 110 132

2015 7 20 24 26

2020 4 13 16 18

To estimate the cost of the LED replacement for a GSFL luminaire, DOE found a

commercially available retrofit kit that included a LED replacement for a 4­foot medium bipin

system. DOE used the retrofit kit as a current baseline from which to project future cost,

efficacy and price points. Table 10C.4 presents the cost projections for the LED GSFL

replacement.

Table 10C.4 LED GSFL Replacement Cost Projection

6200 Lumen LED­GSFL

Luminaire Cost

Projection ($)

2007 339

2008 121

2015 63

2020 53

10C.2.2 CMH

In order to estimate the future performance of ceramic metal halide lamps, DOE

interviewed several manufacturers. These manufacturers believed that the integrated ballast

CMH lamp recently introduced on the market could penetrate into GSFL and IRL shipments.

Manufacturer interviews also revealed that the efficacy of this lamp could increase from 48.8

lm/W in 2007 to 56.1 lm/W in 2012. After 2012, the efficacy of the CMH lamp would stabilize.

Manufacturers did not believe that the cost of this lamp would decrease overtime given the

increase in efficacy. Therefore, DOE estimated the current and future cost of the CMH using a

similar methodology to that described in chapter 7. For the analysis, DOE used a cost of $58

and a lifetime of 15,000 hours for the CMH lamp.

10C.2.3 R-CFL

To estimate historical and future penetrations of R­CFL into both the residential and

commercial sectors, DOE estimated historical prices of R­CFL. As historical prices of R­CFL In

10C­3

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 37.2
2005, 2006, and 2007, are not publicly available, DOE used publicly available information on

historical prices of a CFL sold in Wal­Mart and estimated a similar reduction in price for R­CFL.

Table 10C.5 CFL Historical Prices

Year CFL Historical

Price

R­CFL

Historical Price

PAR30

R­CFL Historical

Price PAR38

2005 3.19ii 11.45 13.90

2006 2.50iii 8.97 10.89

2007 1.65iv 5.92 7.19

10C­4

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 37.2
REFERENCES

i

Multi­Year Program Plan FY’09 to FY’14: Solid­State Lighting Research and Development.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/PDFs/SSLMYPP2008_web.pdf.

ii Charles Fishman. “How many light bulbs does it take to change the world? One. And You’re

Looking At It:” Fast Company Magazine. September 2006. Last Accessed: December 19,.2008

<http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open_lightbulbs.html?page=0%2C2>

iii “Wal­mart in efficient light bulb sales push.”Hybrid Cars. November 2006. Last Accessed

December 19, 2008.

<http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/wal­mart­efficient­light­bulb­sales­push.html>

iv Associated Press. “Wal­mart sells 100 millionth compact fluorescent bulb.” Fox News. October

2007. Last Accessed December 19, 2008

<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298926,00.html>

10C­5

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 37.2