Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

 
 
Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program
Pacific Gas and Electric Company

                              Emerging Technologies Program


                          Application Assessment Report #0728


                            LED MR16 Lighting Demonstration
                                      West Sacramento, CA

            Issued:                            December 2008


            Project Manager:                   Daryl DeJean
                                               Pacific Gas and Electric Company


            Prepared By:                       Christine Riker, Project Manager
                                               Tyson Cook, Project Manager
                                               Terrance Pang, Director
                                               Energy Solutions
                                               1610 Harrison St.
                                               Oakland, CA 94612
                                               (510) 482-4420


                                      L E G AGas
                    Copyright, 2008, Pacific L Nand
                                                   OElectric
                                                     T I C E Company. All rights reserved.
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for exclusive use by its
employees and agents. Neither Pacific Gas and Electric Company nor any of its employees and
agents:
(1) makes any written or oral warranty, expressed or implied, including, but not limited to those
    concerning merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose;
(2) assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
    any information, apparatus, product, process, method, or policy contained herein; or
(3) represents that its use would not infringe any privately owned rights, including, but not
    limited to, patents, trademarks, or copyrights.




                    Copyright, 2008, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program
Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................A
P R E FA C E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. B
E X E C U T IV E S U M M A RY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
P RO JE C T BACKGRO U N D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 3
    TECHNOLOGICAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 3
    MARKET OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................................... 4
PRO JECT OBJ ECTIV ES .......................................................................... 5
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 5
    HOST SITE INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................................... 5
    LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 6
    MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................................................... 7
PRO JECT RESULTS A ND DISCUSSIO N....................................................... 9
    ELECTRICAL DATA ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
    LIGHTING PERFORMANCE......................................................................................................................................11
    ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE ....................................................................................................................................17
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 19
CO NCLUSIO N .................................................................................... 2 0
APPENDIX A: MEASUREMENT DIAGRAMS ............................................ XXI
A P P E N D IX B : L I G H T I NG P E R FO R M A N C E S U RV E Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X I I
APPENDIX C: COLOR RENDITION PHOTOGRAPHS ................................ XXVI
Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program
Preface
   Energy Solutions provided monitoring, data collection, and data analysis services for an LED
   MR16 Demonstration Project under contract to the Emerging Technologies Program of Pacific
   Gas and Electric Company. The project replaced standard halogen MR16 lamps of nominal 35 and
   50 watts with new LED MR16 lamps of varying wattages.


Acknowledgements
   This project was funded by the Emerging Technologies Program of Pacific Gas and Electric
   Company. Energy Solutions would like to gratefully acknowledge the direction and assistance of
   Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the West Sacramento IKEA for their participation and
   support of this project.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program
E xe c u t i ve S u m m a r y
    This report summarizes an LED assessment project conducted to study the applicability of LED
    luminaires in focal-point lighting in the retail sector. Halogen MR16 lamps were replaced with LED
    MR16 lamps in select fixtures in a retail store, IKEA, in West Sacramento. The LED MR16 lamp
    technology was tested as a replacement for 35W and 50W halogen MR16 lamps that were in use at
    this store. The suitability of the new technology was determined by energy and power usage
    measurements, lighting performance characteristics, qualitative satisfaction, and economic factors.
    In the retail sector, lighting is used to enhance shoppers’ experience by highlighting products and
    creating positive visual impressions. Retailers use accent lighting and product positioning within a
    store to guide customers towards product the retailer is promoting at any given time. Given the
    significance of lighting to promote sales, an additional and important part of evaluating the new
    lighting performance was a staff survey to determine qualitative satisfaction.
    This LED demonstration project involved the demonstration of six LED MR16 lamps from the
    following manufacturers: CRS Electronics, IMS Lighting LLC, Lamina Lighting Inc, and LED-
    Power. For this application, one LED MR16 lamp replaced one halogen MR16 lamp in the existing
    fixture. The four LED MR16 lamps tested, when powered by the IKEA fixture, resulted in an
    average draw of 8.3 watts, roughly 80% (33.7 watts) less than when the IKEA fixture powered a
    35W halogen lamp.1 With an estimated 3,630 annual hours of operation, annual electrical savings
    are estimated to be approximately 122.4 kWh per luminaire. Measured results from the study are
    tabulated in Table ES-1 below.


    Table ES-1: Potential Demand and Estimated Energy Savings2

     Lamp Type Used in                                                                             Annual Energy Savings
    Existing IKEA Fixture               Average Power (W)               Power Savings (W)                  (kWh)
     35W halogen MR16                           42                               -                           -
   Average of the four LED
                                                8.3                         33.7 (80%)                     122
     MR16 lamps tested


    Unfortunately, the one-for-one replacement scheme used in this demonstration resulted in lighting
    performance which was less than that acceptable to the host customer. However, it is possible that
    greater performance could have been achieved by using multiple LED lamps to replace each
    halogen MR16 lamp. Due to the very low power consumption of the LED lamps, it is likely that
    significant energy savings could still be achieved using these multiple LED lamps, while providing
    light output more equivalent to the baseline. This solution, however, would have required a change
    in lighting design which was not acceptable to the host customer in this demonstration.
    A primary factor in lighting performance for this demonstration was staff feedback which was
    gathered with a survey. Since the number of relevant lighting staff at IKEA was small, only 6 staff
    members were able to complete the survey. Of these respondents, the overall reaction to the LED
    MR16 lamps was less than favorable with, 5 respondents indicating preference for the old lights and
    1 indicating preference for the new lights. This reaction was primarily due to the lower light output
    which did not accent the product as desired. However, given the potential for significant energy



    1   For further details by manufacturer, see ‘Electrical Demand and Energy Savings’ section.
    2   See ‘Electrical Demand and Energy Savings’ section.




                                                         ES - 1
Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program
savings, the host site is interested in the assessment of future generations of LED MR16s as the
light output as well as the correlated color temperature improves.
Illuminance and luminance measurements were also taken to quantitatively determine the
difference in “intensity” or “perceived brightness” between the halogen and LED MR16.
Measurements in each test area indicated significantly lower values for illuminance and luminance
for the LED MR16 lamps as compared to the baseline halogen source, ranging from around 25%
reduction to around 60% reduction. The rated correlated color temperature of the LED lamps in
the Sofa Section and Bedroom section was 1300K higher than the baseline halogen lamps resulting
in a “bluish” tint to the products being highlighted with the LED lamps.
Due to the as yet undemonstrated useful life of these LED luminaires, economic and reliability
claims are based on the best available information from the manufacturer and DOE reports.
Based on the significant energy savings of the LED MR16s, simple paybacks were short for most
lamps – on the order of two years versus 35-watt halogen MR16s. While the lamps tested were not
found to be sufficient to replace the baseline lamps in this demonstration though, it is possible that
they could replace lower-wattage halogen MR16s more satisfactorily while still maintaining strong
economic performance. Although 20-watt halogen lamps were not included in this demonstration,
rough payback calculations indicated that the simple payback against these lamps would be in the
order of 4 to 5 years.


Table ES-2: Simple Payback Economics vs. 35-watt Halogen MR16
                                                                             Simple Payback
     Lamp Type                   Incremental Cost        Annual Savings         (Years)
         LED Power MR16                $28.24                $14.15                2.00
          CRS LED MR16                 $77.24                $11.37                6.79
       IMS 12 Degree MR16              $32.24                $15.68                2.06
       IMS 24 Degree MR16              $32.24                $15.72                2.05




                                                ES - 2
Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program
Project Background
Project Over view
    The LED MR16 Lighting Demonstration project studied the applicability of light-emitting-diode
    (LED) lamps in existing fixtures used to provide focal-point lighting. Halogen MR16 lamps were
    replaced with new LED MR16 lamps at four settings within the IKEA store located in West
    Sacramento, California. The applicability of the technology was determined by energy and power
    usage, qualitative satisfaction, lighting performance, and economic factors.
    This demonstration project was conducted as part of the Emerging Technologies Program of
    Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The Emerging Technologies program “is an information-only
    program that seeks to accelerate the introduction of innovative energy efficient technologies,
    applications and analytical tools that are not widely adopted in California…. [The] information
    includes verified energy savings and demand reductions, market potential and market barriers,
    incremental cost, and the technology’s life expectancy.”3


Technological Over view
    The LED MR16 Lighting Demonstration project focused on high brightness, focal-point lighting
    used to highlight specific displays of merchandise in retail display lighting. Focal-point lighting is
    the second most common type of lighting in retail display lighting, following linear fluorescent
    track lighting, which is used to provide accent or display case lighting.4 Currently, in many
    applications focal-point lighting is accomplished with halogen MR16 lamps. Halogen MR16 lamps
    are used primarily for their “spotlight” ability and the lack of other lamp options.

    At the time of this assessment, LEDs are showing promise in retail display lighting because of their
    potential for reduced energy consumption. There are also additional benefits specific to retail
    display lighting including long operating life, lower maintenance and life-cycle costs, reduced
    radiated heat, minimal light loss, dim ability and controllability, direction illumination, and
    adjustable color when compared to traditional sources.5 At this time, however, the initial cost of
    LED MR16 lamps is much higher than alternative light sources such as halogen MR16 lamps.

    Information from the US Department of Energy suggests LED technology is changing at a rapid
    pace such that, “since 2002, commercial white LED device efficacies have increased from 30
    lumens/watt (DOE, 2006a) to about 100 lumens/W in 2008.”6 Therefore, readers of this
    assessment are encouraged to note that while this particular demonstration may not have met the
    host customer’s requirements for further investment, advances in this field are occurring so quickly
    that this or another manufacturer may have a product under development that will soon meet the
    host customer’s performance and investment criteria.




    3Pacific Gas and Electric Company (2006). Program Descriptions, Market Integrated Demand Side Management,
    Emerging Technologies. PGE2011
    4   Navigant Consulting, Inc (2008). “Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications.”
    5   Navigant Consulting, Inc (2008). “Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications.”
    6   Navigant Consulting, Inc (2008). “Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications.”


                                                                 3
Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program
Market Over view
    The penetration of LEDs into the retail lighting display niche is of importance for energy
    efficiency measures because this application normally involves high-power, high-brightness fixtures.
    Currently, the market penetration of LEDs in the retail display sector is estimated at 0% because
    LED retail display products have only recently become available. This is expected to increase, as
    technology develops and efficacy increases. 7

    A report by Navigant Consulting in 2002 estimates that lighting makes up approximately 22% of
    IOU kWh sales on a national scale. Using kWh sales figures from a 2006 study, the total
    consumption in PG&E’s service territory for lighting is calculated to be on the order of 21,500
    GWh in 2002.8 This study also provides values for kWh lighting figures within PG&E’s commercial
    sector only. A 2002 DOE study, found that of the total commercial lighting in the United States,
    about 12% is consumed by retail display areas resulting in an estimated energy savings potential
    within PG&E service territory of retail display lighting of around 1088 GWh.9 Although these
    figures are not exclusively for focal-point retail display lighting using MR16 lamps (the estimate also
    includes accent lighting and display case lighting) the figures do give an idea of the significant
    potential that exists for savings.




    7Navigant Consulting, Inc (2008). “Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting
    Applications.”
    8   Itron Inc., et al (2006). “California Energy Efficiency Potential Study”.
    9Navigant Consulting, Inc (2002). “U.S. Lighting market Characterization – Volume 1: National Lighting
    Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate.”

                                                              4
Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program
P r o j e c t O b j e c t i ve s
     The objectives of this demonstration project were to examine electrical, lighting, and economic
     performance of LED MR16 lamps as compared to halogen MR16 lamps. The potential electrical
     demand and energy savings were measured in terms of average wattage and estimated annual kWh
     usage. Lighting power density was also calculated. Lighting performance was measured in terms of
     satisfaction and concerns of interested parties along with illuminance, luminance, and correlated
     color temperature (in Kelvin). Finally, economic performance was calculated as a simple-payback
     for substitution in new installation or replacement scenarios, accounting for lamp life-span,
     maintenance costs, and electrical costs.

Methodolog y
Host site infor mation
     The facility selected for this demonstration was a 2 story retail store in West Sacramento
     specializing in home product sales (IKEA). This demonstration project focused on four test areas
     within the store to represent the different ways in which IKEA uses MR16 lamps to provide accent
     lighting. The four testing areas included the Sofa Section within the Living Room Display, a mock
     bedroom set-up, the Textile & Rugs Display area, and various blue hanging destination signs. These
     main testing areas also included subsections as outlined in the list below:
         1) Sofa Section
                  a. Blue Sofa
                  b. White Sofa
         2) Bedroom
                  a. Bed
                  b. Corner Dresser
         3) Textiles & Rugs
                  a. Pillows
                  b. Placemats
                  c. Circle Rugs
         4) Destination Signs
                  a. Textiles & Rugs
                  b. Living Room (front and back of sign)
     The lighting system in the testing areas consists of linear 32WT8 fluorescent lamps for off-hours
     cleaning and other tasks, linear 35WT5 fluorescent lamps for open-hours ambient illumination, and
     halogen MR16 lamps (hereafter the lamps of consideration) for open-hour focal-point lighting. The
     MR16 lamps are 50 watts in area 3-Textils & Rugs, and 35 watt in the other three areas. Lighting
     design is given a high priority by this retailer, and directional lighting is used heavily to illuminate
     products as well as steer customer attention. As a result, the arrangements of the MR16 lamps are
     changed relatively frequently, with a complete re-arrangement during re-merchandizing. There are
     an estimated 3500 total MR16 lamps (2000 35watt, 1500 50watt) in this facility.




                                                        5
Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program
Of the 6 types of LED lamp tested, the primary lamps of consideration were IMS lighting 12° and
       24° beam angles. These were tested in areas 1, 2, and 3, and were chosen because the specifications
       indicated that they were the most likely to be a feasible replacement for the baseline technology. All
       other lamp types were tested in area 4.
       Prior to testing, both halogen and LED lamps were operated for approximately 100 hours of burn-
       in time.




Lighting Technology

       This LED demonstration project involved the demonstration of six LED MR16 lamps from the
       following manufacturers: CRS Electronics, IMS Lighting LLC, Lamina Lighting Inc, LED-Power.
       The six LED MR16 lamps were provided to the California Lighting Technology Center (CLTC) to
       determine performance characteristics including Color Temperature (K), Color Rendition Index –
       CRI, and Power (W), which are listed in Table 1 below.


Table 1: CLTC Test Results for LED MR16 Lamps
                             Color                                                 Beam
                          Temperature         Color                               Spread
  LED Manufacturer        Description      Temperature           CRI             (degree)         Power
   IMS Lighting LLC       Natural White        4195 K            92.6               24°           5.8 W
   IMS Lighting LLC       Natural White        4249 K            94.5               12°           5.7 W
  Lamina Lighting Inc     Warm White           3082 K            52.6               38°           7.5 W
  Lamina Lighting Inc       Trucolor           3106 K            87.1               57°           7.5 W
      LED-Power           Warm White           3255 K            76.9               30°           5.2 W
    CRS Electronics       Warm White           2778 K            96.0          Not Available      5.0 W



       The LED MR16 lamps were compared to halogen MR16 lamps that were currently in use at IKEA.
       Product information on the baseline halogen lamps, provided by the manufacturer, is included in
       Table 2 below.


Table 2: Manufacturer Specifications for Halogen MR16 Lamps
                                Color                                                Beam       Company
  Baseline Halogen           Temperature            Color             CRI           Spread       Stated
    Manufacturer             Description         Temperature       (typ/min)       (degree)      Power
       OSRAM               Halogen Dichroic          3000 K             NA           24°          35 W
       OSRAM               Halogen Dichroic          3100 K             NA           10°          50 W




                                                         6
Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program
The LED MR16 lamps were demonstrated in the four test areas as described in Table 3.

                 Table 3: Products Used in Test Areas
                                                LED MR16           Halogen MR16
                         Test Area                Lamp            Lamp (Baseline)
                      Sofa Section               IMS 24°            OSRAM 35 W
                        Bedroom                  IMS 24°            OSRAM 35 W
                     Textiles & Rugs             IMS 12°            OSRAM 50 W
                                                LED-Power           OSRAM 35 W
                    Destination Signs
                                                   CRS              OSRAM 35 W

    The Lamina Lighting Inc (Lamina) MR16 lamps were planned to be used in the Destination Signs
    Test Area, but proved to be incompatible with the fixtures currently installed at IKEA. The base of
    the lamps are plastic and the plastic melted when placed in the IKEA MR16 fixtures because the
    fixture included a metal clip to hold the bulb in place. Therefore, only four lamps were tested on-
    site at IKEA.


Monitoring Plan
    The Monitoring Plan included initial, pre-installation, installation, and post-installation field visits to
    the IKEA store in West Sacramento
    The initial field visits were intended for team members to meet and become familiar with the
    facility staff, to note the general pre-retrofit lighting conditions in the facility, and to determine
    demonstration areas within the facility.
    The pre-installation field visit occurred after the initial field visit and prior to installation of the
    LED lamps. The visit was used to document the existing condition of the lighting system. This
    visit was scheduled to minimize inconvenience and reduce impact at the demonstration facility. In
    accordance with common industry practice, the visit occurred at a time when the pre-retrofit
    halogen MR16 lamps in the testing areas had been in use for approximately 100 hours.
    Photographic records as well as spot-measurement of illuminance, luminance, and correlated color
    temperature values were used to determine lighting characteristics in all four test areas. Each of the
    four test areas displayed different merchandise. Therefore, a common grid for lighting characteristic
    measurement locations was not appropriate at this site. The location of the lighting characteristics
    measurements taken in the sofa section and bedroom can be found in Appendix A: Measurement
    Diagrams. Also, the pre-installation measurements for all four site areas are located in Section
    “Project Results and Discussion.” Fixture counts were also taken to determine Lighting Power
    Density (LPD) in the sofa section and textiles & rugs area.
    The installation field visit was intended to assist the staff at IKEA with the replacement of the in-
    use halogen MR16 lamps with the LED MR 16 lamps in the current fixtures. Prior to this visit,
    Energy Solutions completed the 100 hour recommended burn time for the LED MR16 lamps off-
    site.
    The post-installation field visit was used to document the new condition of the lighting system.
    This visit took place the day after the installation field visit. All photographs and lighting
    characteristic measurements were taken in a manner consistent with the procedure for the pre-
    installation visit. In addition, the Lighting Performance Survey was distributed to appropriate
    IKEA staff that had direct interaction with the LED demonstration areas to determine
    comparative lighting performance between pre- and post-retrofit lighting systems.


                                                        7
The following monitoring equipment used in the execution of this Monitoring Plan was obtained
from the Pacific Energy Center:
I L L UM I NA NC E ME T ER
Li-Cor Light Meter, Model: LI-250 with LI-COR Photometric Sensor, Model: li-210sa

LUMINANCE METER
Konica Minolta Luminance Meter, Model: LS-110

CORRELATED COLOR TEMPERATURE METER
Konica Minolta Chroma Meter, Model CL-200

D I G I TA L C A M E R A
Nikon D80 Digital Camera




                                              8
P r o j e c t Re s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Electrical Data
ELECTRICAL DEMAND AND ENERGY SAVINGS
     The four LED lamps demonstrated along with the two halogen lamps currently in use at IKEA
     were tested in-house at Energy Solutions to determine power consumption of each lamp when
     used in the IKEA focal-point lighting fixture.
     At IKEA West Sacramento, focal-point lighting is usually used during store hours, which are 10:00
     AM to 8:00 PM, 363 days a year, resulting in an average usage of 3630 hours per year. The
     measured power demand, power factor and estimated yearly energy consumption are summarized
     in Table 4. Table 5 displays the potential demand and energy savings of using the LED MR16
     lamps as compared to the baseline 35W halogen lamp, while Table 6 displays the savings compared
     to the baseline 50W halogen lamp.


     Table 4: Energy Solutions Measured Power Demand and Estimated Energy Usage


                                                                Estimated Annual
                MR16 lamp used in                                 Consumption
                current IKEA fixture          Power (W)              (kWh)
               Halogen
                   OSRAM 35W                   42.1 W                 152.7
                   OSRAM 50W                   60.2 W                 218.6
               LED
                 IMS Lighting - 12°            8.4 W                   30.4
                 IMS Lighting - 24°            8.3 W                   30.1
                    LED-Power                  10.8 W                  39.4
                  CRS Electronics              5.8 W                   21.2




     Table 5: Potential Demand and Energy Savings – Compared to 35W Halogen MR16
                                                                         Estimated Annual
      MR16 lamp used in                             Power Savings         Energy Savings
      current IKEA fixture        Power (W)             (W)                   (kWh)
      Halogen
          OSRAM 35W                 42.1 W                  -                      -
      LED
       IMS Lighting - 12°           8.4 W               33.7 W                122.3 kWh
       IMS Lighting - 24°           8.3 W               33.8 W                122.6 kWh
           LED-Power                10.8 W              31.2 W                113.3 kWh
        CRS Electronics             5.8 W               36.2 W                131.5 kWh
               AVERAGE              8.3 W            33.7 W (80%)             122.4 kWh




                                                     9
Table 6: Potential Demand and Energy Savings – Compared to 50W Halogen MR16


                                                                            Estimated Annual
      MR16 lamp used in                               Power Savings          Energy Savings
      current IKEA fixture        Power (W)               (W)                    (kWh)
     Halogen
         OSRAM 35W                  60.2 W                     -                    -
     LED
      IMS Lighting - 12°            8.4 W                51.8 W                188.2 kWh
      IMS Lighting - 24°            8.3 W                51.9 W                188.5 kWh
          LED-Power                 10.8 W               49.4 W                179.2 kWh
       CRS Electronics              5.8 W                54.4 W                197.4 kWh
              AVERAGE               8.3 W             51.9 W (86%)             188.3 kWh




LIGHTING POWER DENSITY


     The lighting power density (LPD) was calculated for the Sofa Section and Textile & Rugs according
     to the following equation:
                                     Installed Watts (W )
      Lighting Power Density ≡
                                                   ( )
                                       Site Area ft 2
     The installed watts included the wattage of the T5 lamps that provide ambient light in the store
     along with the wattage of the spot fixtures using MR16 lamps that were used for accent lighting.
     The T5 lamps in use at IKEA are GE Ecolux® Starcoat® T5 F35W/T5/830/ECO while the
     ballasts in use are Sylvania Quicktronic® electronic ballast. There were 20 MR16 lamps in use in
     the Sofa Test Section and 18 in the Textile & Rugs Test Section.
     As seen in the tables below, through the use of LED MR16 lamps the lighting power density for
     the Sofa Section was reduced by 52% over the current Halogen lamps. The lighting power density
     for the Textile and Rugs section had an even more pronounced reduction resulting in a decrease in
     lighting power density of 58%.



     Table 7: Lighting Power Density – Sofa Section
                                     Power –        Power –                     Lighting
                                     Ambient        Accent                       Power
           Lighting Power            Lighting       Lighting        Area        Density
                                                                       2              2
               Density                 (W)            (W)           (ft )        (W/ft )
         Baseline w/ Halogen
             MR16 (35W)                440             842          924            1.39

         LED MR 16 (IMS 24°)           440             166          924            .66




                                                      10
Table 8: Lighting Power Density – Textiles & Rugs
                                     Power –        Power –                       Lighting
                                     Ambient        Accent                         Power
          Lighting Power             Lighting       Lighting         Area         Density
                                                                        2               2
              Density                   (w)            (w)           (ft )         (W/ft )
        Baseline w/ Halogen
            MR16 (50W)                  520            1084           675            2.38

        LED MR 16 (IMS 12°)             520            151            675            .99


Lighting Perfor mance
    In this demonstration, the technology under consideration was generally used to provide focal-
    point accent lighting. As a result, the primary determinant of lighting performance is different than
    in a general area lighting application. Whereas in general area lighting, the most important
    consideration may simply be the amount of light output, in this application customer acceptance
    provides the greatest indication of whether or not the LED lamps were a suitable replacement.
    However, since this is a purely qualitative metric, quantitative measurements of illuminance,
    luminance, and color temperature were also taken. The results of a customer satisfaction survey, as
    well as the measured qualitative results, are shown here.


CUSTOMER ACCEPTANCE
    The main application of the MR16 lamp at IKEA is to provide focal-point accent lighting.
    Therefore, the primary factor in determining the lighting performance of the LED MR16 lamp was
    through staff feedback that was collected on a paper survey distributed to IKEA staff. The total
    number of respondents was limited due to the small number of relevant staff.
    A total of 6 respondents completed the survey. Overall reactions to the new LED lights from the
    respondents were less than favorable; of the 6 respondents, when asked, “Do you generally prefer
    the new lights or the old lights?”, 5 indicated preference for the old lights while 1 preferred the new
    lights. Similarly, when asked, “Do you think the new lights will drive more or less sales?”, 3 of 4
    responded “Much less”, while 1 responded “No change”.
    The less than favorable reaction was primarily due to the lower light output which did not properly
    accent the product as desired. However, the host site is interested in the assessment of future
    generations of LED MR16s as the light output improves as well as the correlated color
    temperature.
    The full results of the survey including staff comments are included in Appendix B: Lighting
    Performance Survey.


ILLUMINANCE
    Illuminance measurements were taken using a Konica Minolta Chroma Meter (Model CL-200).
    Spot measurements were taken in two testing areas for three specific testing objects. The exact
    locations of the measurements are indicated on the diagram found in Appendix A1: Sofa Section
    Diagram and Appendix A2: Bedroom Diagram. Illuminance measurements were reduced in all test
    locations from the baseline halogen lamps as compared to the LED lamps.
    Consolidated illuminance values are shown below:



                                                      11
Table 9: Illuminance – Sofa Section
                            A          B              C             D             E       F     Avg.
       White Sofa          (fc)       (fc)           (fc)          (fc)          (fc)    (fc)   (fc)
      Halogen MR16
          (35 W)          13.0        58.4           34.9          73.5          65.6   43.5    48.1
       LED MR16
        (IMS 24°)         22.9        23.4           23.2          26.9          32.9   33.7    27.2


                            A          B              C             D             E       F     Avg.
        Blue Sofa          (fc)       (fc)           (fc)          (fc)          (fc)    (fc)   (fc)
      Halogen MR16
          (35W)           33.3        44.0           29.1          43.2          54.8   39.2    40.6
       LED MR16
        (IMS 24° )        16.6        23.4           19.6          26.1          34.3   27.7    24.6




    Table 10: Illuminance – Bedroom
                              A               B              C            Avg.
           Bed               (fc)            (fc)           (fc)          (fc)
      Halogen MR16
          (35W)              58.9            149            60.2          89.5
       LED MR16
        (IMS 24°)            35.8            38.2           38.8          37.6




LUMINANCE
    Luminance measurements were taken using a Konica Minolta Luminance Meter (Model LS-110,
    identification number of PEC 14126). Spot measurements were taken in each of the four testing
    locations to determine values of maximum and minimum luminance (cd/m2). Depending on the
    testing object, other spot luminance measurements were taken as indicated by the tables below. The
    location of each spot measurement coincides to the diagrams found in Appendix A1: Sofa Section
    Diagram, Appendix A2: Bedroom Diagram and Appendix A3: Corner Dresser Diagram.
    Consolidated luminance values are shown below:


    Table 11: Luminance – Sofa Section
    Note: Diagram of spot measurements found in Appendix A1: Sofa Section Diagram


                       Maximum            Minimum
     White Sofa         (cd/m2)            (cd/m2)
      Halogen             443                15.3
     MR16 (35W)
     LED MR16             92.1               10.0
      (IMS 24°)




                                                       12
White          A          B              C          D          E           F             G          H           I       Avg.
                     2          2              2          2          2           2             2          2           2        2
    Sofa        cd/m       cd/m           cd/m       cd/m       cd/m        cd/m          cd/m       cd/m        cd/m      cd/m
  Halogen
   MR16
   (35W)         295           139         102        114        126         108          20.0        27.0       26.0       106

   LED
   MR16
   (IMS
   24°)           51           52          50         56         66           74           13         12          14            43



                           Maximum                   Minimum
     Blue Sofa              (cd/m2)                   (cd/m2)
     Halogen                  8.5                       0.80
       MR16
       (35W)

     LED MR16                    5.9                   0.70
     ( IMS 24° )


  Blue        A            B             C            D          E            F         G             H            I       Avg.
  Sofa      cd/m2        cd/m2         cd/m2        cd/m2      cd/m2        cd/m2     cd/m2         cd/m2        cd/m2     cd/m2
Halogen
 MR16
 (35W)          3.8        3.8            2.7        4.8        6.4          4.9          .84         1.0        0.70       3.2

   LED
  MR16
(IMS 24°)       1.7        2.4            1.8        3.3        4.1          3.1          0.6        0.70        0.70       2.0



   Table 12: Luminance – Bedroom
   Note: Diagram of spot measurements found in Appendix A2: Bedroom Diagram and Appendix
   A3: Corner Dresser Diagram
                               Maximum             Minimum            A                  C
           Bed                  (cd/m2)             (cd/m2)        (cd/m2)            (cd/m2)
      Halogen MR16                70                  1.6            200                94
          (35W)
       LED MR16                      26               1.4              16                  22
        (IMS 24°)


                      Maximum             Minimum           Top of Vase       Left Front           Right Front      Right Back
     Corner                                                     (A)           Corner (B)           Corner (C)       Corner (D)
    Dresser            (cd/m2)             (cd/m2)            (cd/m2)          (cd/m2)               (cd/m2)          (cd/m2)
   Halogen              1100                 1.1                1.4              1.6                   1.1              150
     MR16
     (35W)
  LED MR16               990                 0.48              0.72                0.79               0.48                103
  ( IMS 24° )




                                                                 13
Table 13: Luminance – Textiles & Rugs
                      Maximum     Minimum
                             2           2
     Pillows           (cd/m )     (cd/m )
  Halogen MR16           400         2.2
      (50W)
   LED MR16              130            1.1
    (IMS 12°)


                      Maximum     Minimum
                             2           2
    Placemats          (cd/m )     (cd/m )
     Halogen             340         3.3
    MR16(50W)
    LED MR16              90            1.1
     (IMS 12°)


                       Maximum     Minimum
     Circle Rugs        (cd/m2)     (cd/m2)
      Halogen             180         2.8
     MR16(50W)
     LED MR16             160            2.3
      (IMS 12°)




Table 14: Luminance – Destination Signs
                       Maximum     Minimum              Below        Inside Letter
                        (cd/m2)     (cd/m2)            Letter X            G
  “Textiles & Rugs”                                    (cd/m2)          (cd/m2)
   Halogen MR16           290            1.7             7.6              26
        (35W)
     LED MR16              27            1.1             3.2             3.5
         (CRS)


  “Living Room        Left of       Corner of             Center of        Top of Letter   Bottom of
     - Salas” –       Letter L       Letter L             Letter G              M           Letter A
    side facing       (cd/m2)        (cd/m2)               (cd/m2)           (cd/m2)        (cd/m2)
      elevator
      Halogen           55               164                   25                6.5          17
   MR16 (35W)
    LED MR16            7.4               37                   3.7               2.5          3.7
   (LED-Power)


  “Living Room        Left of        Below              Top of first O     Top of Letter   Bottom of
    - Salas” –        Letter L      Letter N             in “Room”              M          first A in
     side not                                                                               “Salas”
      facing          (cd/m2)           (cd/m2)            (cd/m2)             (cd/m2)      (cd/m2)
     elevator
     Halogen            3.8               29                   65                37           77
   MR16 (35W)
   LED MR16             1.5               2.5                  38                6.2          4.9
      (CRS)




                                                  14
COLOR RENDITION
     To qualitatively analyze color rendition, photos were taken of each test site location.
     They were taken with a Nikon D80 digital camera. The camera settings were identical
     on each photo. A representative of the pictures taken is included below, using the bedroom as an
     example. Note that the MR16 lamps assessed were directed only at the pillows and head of the bed.
     Additional lighting was provided by the incandescent fixtures seen in the photographs. The
     complete set of pictures can be found in Appendix C: Color Rendition Photographs.
     Bedroom




Bed – Halogen MR16 - 35W                           Bed – LED MR16 – IMS 24°


COLOR
     Color measurements taken by the CLTC for each LED MR16 lamp tested are provided in Table 1.
     Color measurements were also taken in the field using a Konica Minolta Chroma Meter (Model CL-
     200). For the blue and white sofa, measurements were taken in six places, three on the back and
     three on the seat of the sofa. Exact location of test points can be found in Appendix A1: Sofa
     Section Diagram. For the room set, three measurements were taken from left to right on the middle
     of the bed. Exact location of test points can be found in Appendix A2: Bedroom Diagram. A
     summary of the correlated color temperature measurements can be found in Table 15 and Table
     16.
     The LED lamps tested in Sofa Section and Bedroom had a rated correlated color temperature
     (CCT) of 4300K. According to Table 15 and Table 16 there appears to be minimal difference in
     CCT between the LED lamps and the halogen lamps, this is likely because the light from the LED
     MR16 lamps was not reaching the surface of the test site and therefore the CCT being measure was
     actually from the ambient T5 lighting which was rated with a CCT of 3000K.


                                                    15
Table 15: Correlated Color Temperature – Sofa Section
                         Correlated Color
                          Temperature
    Blue Sofa
                                (K)

                     Halogen           LED
                       MR16            MR16
                      (35 W)         (IMS 24°)
   Back of Sofa A      2978            2963
                B      2791            3238
                C      2854            3111
             Avg       2874            3104
   Seat of Sofa D      2827            2905
                E      2811            3028
                F      2875            3005
             Avg       2838            2979
          TOTAL
                       2856            3042
       AVERAGE


                         Correlated Color
    White Sofa           Temperature (K)

                     Halogen           LED
                       MR16           MR16
                      (35 W)        (IMS 24°)
   Back of Sofa A      2926            3077
                B      2828            3147
                C      2793            3054
             Avg       2849            3093
   Seat of Sofa D      2835            2945
                E      2812            2590
                F      2798            2950
             Avg       2815            2828
          TOTAL
                      2832 K          2961 K
       AVERAGE


Table 16: Correlated Color Temperature – Bedroom
                        Correlated Color
       Bed              Temperature (K)

                     Halogen           LED
                       MR16           MR16
                      (35 W)        (IMS 24°)
               1       2915           2912
               2       2997           2993
               3       2899           2925
             Avg      2937 K         2943 K




                                                 16
Economic Perfor mance
Economic performance was evaluated primarily by simple payback of the LED lamps versus the
halogen MR16 lamps. To calculate this, maintenance and energy costs were taken into account
assuming current energy and materials costs.
To estimate energy cost, a 2008 PG&E E-20s rate schedule was used. This is the rate schedule used
by IKEA, under which electrical rates are varied based on time of use. For simplicity, the
“‘Average’ Total Rate” of $0.12261/kWh was assumed.
 The electrical costs for the LED lamps varied from an estimated roughly $2.60 to $4.80 per year.
These are compared to estimated electrical costs for the 35- and 50-watt halogen MR16 lamps of
roughly $18.70 and $26.80 per year, respectively.
In this demonstration, lighting design is such that lamps are routinely adjusted and changed by a
lighting team. As a result, differences in maintenance costs are a function of only the different lamp
costs and lifetimes. It is assumed that the LED lamps will be replaced at the end of their useful life
as determined by a 30% reduction in light output from initial output. This is a reasonable
assumption due to the necessity of maintaining a minimal light output in this situation, and due to
the robust nature of LED technology and its tendency towards rare catastrophic failure. The base
case halogen MR16 lamps are assumed to be replaced at the end of their rated life of 4,000 hours,
or just under once per year. The costs of the LED lamps ranged from $31 to $80, compared with
under $3 for the halogen lamps.
The high energy costs of the base case halogen MR16 lamps were such that lamp replacement
costs were a very small portion of the total annual cost. Due to the greatly reduced energy costs of
the LED lamps however, their annualized replacement cost became a significant portion of their
estimated total annual cost.

Table 17: Annual Lamp Costs
                                  Annual
                             Maintenance Cost         Annual Energy        Total Annual Cost
   Lamp Type                    (per Lamp)            Cost (per Lamp)         (per Lamp)
   35-watt Halogen
   MR16                             $2.50                 $18.72                 $21.23
   50-watt Halogen
   MR16                             $2.50                 $26.80                 $29.31
   IMS 24°                          $1.82                  $3.69                  $5.51
   IMS 12°                          $1.82                  $3.73                  $5.55
   LED-Power                        $2.25                  $4.83                  $7.08
   CRS LED MR16                     $7.26                  $2.59                  $9.85


Currently, the cost of the LED MR16 lamps is over 10 times that of the base case halogen MR16
lamps. However, the energy savings are so great that simple paybacks were generally just over two
years versus the 35-watt halogen lamps, and between one and two years versus the 50-watt halogen
lamps The exception to this was the CRS LED, which had an upfront cost more than double the
other lamps.




                                                 17
Table 18: Simple Payback Economics vs. 35-watt Halogen MR16
                                                                            Simple Payback
     Lamp Type                   Incremental Cost      Annual Savings          (Years)
     IMS 24°                          $32.24                $15.72                2.05
     IMS 12°                          $32.24                $15.68                2.06
     LED-Power                        $28.24                $14.15                2.00
     CRS LED MR16                     $77.24                $11.37                6.79


Table 19: Simple Payback Economics vs. 50-watt Halogen MR16
                                                                            Simple Payback
     Lamp Type                   Incremental Cost      Annual Savings          (Years)
     IMS 24°                          $32.24                $23.80                1.35
     IMS 12°                          $32.24                $23.76                1.36
     LED-Power                        $28.24                $22.23                1.27
     CRS LED MR16                     $77.24                $19.45                3.97


While there were no 20-watt halogen lamps in use at the facility featured in this demonstration, they
are used for focal point lighting in other sectors of the retail marketplace. To provide a general
understanding of whether the current LED MR16 technology would be a viable replacement for
this lower wattage halogen MR16, rough payback calculations were completed. Since 20-watt
halogen lamps were not measured, the lamps were assumed to have power losses consistent with
the other lamps when used in the IKEA luminaires (20%). Other assumptions remained constant
as well. The resulting simple payback estimates are provided in Table 20 included below.

Table 20: Simple Payback Economics vs. 20-watt Halogen MR16
                                                                            Simple Payback
     Lamp Type                   Incremental Cost      Annual Savings          (Years)
     IMS 24° IMS24                    $32.24                $7.68                 4.20
     IMS 12° IMS 12                   $32.24                $7.64                 4.22
     LED-Power                        $28.24                $6.10                 4.63
     CRS LED MR16                     $77.24                $3.33                 23.2




                                                 18
Discussion
   LED lamps have the potential for great energy savings in focal-point accent lighting applications.
   This is because, in the majority of cases, the lamps would be replacing a baseline of inefficient
   incandescent bulbs. The inherently directional nature of lighting dispersion from LEDs, as well as
   their potentially small size, also gives LEDS an advantage over other efficient lighting technologies.
   This demonstration provided an example of the possible energy savings, with reductions in energy
   use of over 80% per lamp replaced. Unfortunately though, the lighting performance of the LED
   MR16 lamps was not found to be equivalent to that of the baseline halogen MR16 lamps being
   replaced. The main concerns of the host customer were reduced total light output as compared to
   the baseline, and different color temperature than the baseline.
   While the one-for-one replacement scheme used in this demonstration resulted in lighting
   performance not acceptable to the host customer, it is possible that greater performance could
   have been achieved by using multiple LED lamps to replace each halogen MR16 lamp. Due to the
   very low power consumption of the LED lamps, it is likely that significant energy savings could still
   be achieved using this scenario, while providing light output more equivalent to the baseline. This
   solution, however, would have required a change in lighting design which was not acceptable to the
   host customer in this demonstration.
   While greatly more efficacious than incandescent bulbs, LED chips still convert only a small
   amount of the total power input into light output. The rest of the power input is lost as heat,
   which must be dissipated away from the lamp. This is one of the primary factors affecting LED
   lamp performance, because as they become hot, they become less efficient and depreciate faster.
   This is of greatest concern where the total size of the lamp is limited, such as with MR16 lamps,
   because the total area that can be used to dissipate heat is limited. When enclosed cans are used, as
   in this demonstration, the problem is further exacerbated. It is for this reason that LED lamp
   manufacturers are unable to simply use more or higher-wattage LED chips in a single lamp.
   Fortunately though, as LED MR16 design improves, it can be expected that slightly more power
   can be utilized within the size limitations. Additionally, LED technology continues to improve
   rapidly. As efficacies increase, more light will be able to be produced with the same power
   consumption.
   Due to the significant energy savings of the LED MR16 lamps, simple paybacks were very short
   for most lamps – between one and two years. While the lamps tested were not found to be
   sufficient to replace the baseline lamps in this demonstration, it is possible that they could replace
   lower-wattage halogen MR16 lamps more satisfactorily while still maintaining strong economic
   performance. It is also likely that increased lamp costs resulting from further research and design,
   as well as more technologically advanced components, could easily be accommodated with still low
   simple payback periods.
   PG&E uses this and other Emerging Technologies assessments to support development of
   potential incentives for emerging energy efficient solutions. Because the performance and quality
   of the LED fixtures are critical to the long-term delivery of energy savings, it is important that
   incentive programs include quality control mechanisms. Incentive programs should include
   performance standards for qualifying products that include minimum criteria for warranty, efficacy,
   light distribution, and other important criteria.




                                                    19
Conclusion
   LED lighting has great potential for energy savings in retail applications. This demonstration
   provided an example of this potential in focal-point accent lighting. However, the particular
   lighting design and replacement scheme in this demonstration did not result in lighting
   performance acceptable to the host customer. With the rapid advancement of LED technology
   though, it is likely that products with improved performance characteristics will be available in the
   near future, and the host customer indicated willingness to consider these future products. This is
   indicative of the desire that exists in the retail sphere for an energy-efficient replacement for the
   current technology.
   As the technology increases in performance, utility or government incentive programs can help to
   tip the scale towards greater adoption of LED lamps by reducing the initial investment required.
   These utility incentive programs should require minimum performance standards for qualifying
   products in order to ensure long-term energy savings.




                                                    20
Appendix A: Measurement Diagrams
AP P E ND IX A1 : S O FA S E CT IO N D I A G R AM



               A           B               C

              D            E                F

          G                H                    I


AP P E ND IX A2 : B E D R OO M D I AG R A M




          A        B       C




AP P E N D I X A3 : CO R N E R D R E S S E R D I AGR AM

      A




                       D
 B                 C




                                                    i
Appendix B: Lighting Performance Survey

Lighting Questions                                                                                                 Respondents   Responses
Please circle the answer you most strongly agree with:
               1.€€€€€€ Did you notice a difference in lighting from yesterday to today?                               6
                    Yes                                                                                                             6
                    No                                                                                                              0
                    Comments:

                  From halogen to LED. Between day 1 and day 2 of LED, the answer is no.
                  Area not quite as bright and the LED lights cast a different glow on some colors changing
                  them a bit
                  Light was a cooler blue instead of a warm yellow. Wattage used was lower, resulting in
                  fainter light output.
                  When the regular range lights were replaced, I noticed a dramatic drop in the light level. The
                  new lights were much weaker and cast a blue cold light instead of a warm light.
                  Dull, too blue

(Proceed only if answered ‘Yes’)

Section I: Lighting Quality
Please circle the answer you most strongly agree with:
               1.€€€€€€ How did the new lights affect the visibility of merchandise?                                   6
                  Strongly improved                                                                                                 0
                  Somewhat improved                                                                                                 0
                  No change                                                                                                         0
                  Somewhat lessened                                                                                                 1
                  Strongly lessened                                                                                                 5
                  No opinion                                                                                                        0
                  Comments:

                  The light intensity was not strong enough. It made the fabric look sun bleached. It also made
                  whites look blue.
                  Not to a huge extent but it felt darker a bit to my co-workers. Could be that we need to
                  re____ other lights or add a couple more.


              2.€€€€€€ How did the new lights affect the color of merchandise?                                         6
                 Strongly improved                                                                                                  0
                 Somewhat improved                                                                                                  0
                 No change                                                                                                          0
                 Somewhat lessened                                                                                                  2
                 Strongly lessened                                                                                                  4
                 No opinion                                                                                                         0
                 Comments:

                  Changed color or something a bit (more bluish)
                  Made any color fabric look sun bleached. Made hard white surfaces look blue.
                  The color of lighting chosen was blue and made the merchandise look sickly.

              3.€€€€€€ How did the color of light from the new lights compare to the old lights?                       6
                   Strongly prefer new lights                                                                                       0
                   Prefer new lights                                                                                                1
                   No opinion                                                                                                       0
                   Prefer old lights                                                                                                1
                   Strongly prefer old lights                                                                                       4
                   Comments:

                  I prefer the new lights due to energy conservation and do feel we can get the same effect as
                  the old lights
4.€€€€€€ How was the light level of the new lights compared to the old lights?                        6
                 Much more                                                                                              0
                 Somewhat more                                                                                          0
                 No change                                                                                              0
                 Somewhat less                                                                                          1
                 Much less                                                                                              5
                 No opinion                                                                                             0
                 Comments:

                  Required more fixtures and bulbs.
                  Had no effect in contrasting between general light from T5s and the area spotlighted.
                  I think the LED lights used have a lower equivalent wattage.

              5.€€€€€€ What effect do the new lights have on the appearance of merchandise?                         6
                 Strongly improved                                                                                      0
                 Somewhat improved                                                                                      0
                 No change                                                                                              0
                 Somewhat lessened                                                                                      1
                 Strongly lessened                                                                                      5
                 No opinion                                                                                             0
                 Comments:

                  Significantly lowered the quality level of the product.

              6.€€€€€€ Do you generally prefer the lighting from the new lights or the old lights?                  6
                   Strongly prefer new lights                                                                           0
                   Prefer new lights                                                                                    0
                   No opinion                                                                                           1
                   Prefer old lights                                                                                    0
                   Strongly prefer old lights                                                                           5
                   Comments:

                  I like the new ones because they save energy and it doesn't seem to be effecting sales.

Section II: Use of Lights (skip for sales staff)
             7.€€€€€€ Is the ease of installation of the new lights improved or lessened from the old lights?       4
                Strongly improved                                                                                       0
                Somewhat improved                                                                                       0
                No change                                                                                               3
                Somewhat lessened                                                                                       1
                Strongly lessened                                                                                       0
                No opinion                                                                                              0
                Comments:

                  It was more difficult to put the new lights into our fixtures. They have a tight prong and the
                  base seemed to be ridged which made it hard to put in.

              8.€€€€€€ Is the ability to adjust the new lights improved or lessened from the old lights?            4
                 Strongly improved                                                                                      1
                 Somewhat improved                                                                                      0
                 No change                                                                                              3
                 Somewhat lessened                                                                                      0
                 Strongly lessened                                                                                      0
                 No opinion                                                                                             0
                 Comments:

                  We used the same fixtures
                  In terms of the cans it made it easier to quickly adjust because it was not hot at all. No need
                  to get the gloves.
9.€€€€€€ How do you feel the pattern of light from the new lights as compared to the old lights?      4
                 Strongly improved                                                                                      1
                 Somewhat improved                                                                                      1
                 No change                                                                                              0
                 Somewhat lessened                                                                                      1
                 Strongly lessened                                                                                      1
                 No opinion                                                                                             0
                 Comments:


                  The light seemed to be more direct, though much weeker in intensity, so it was hard to tell.
                  No halo effect

              10.€€€ What effect do the new lights have your ability to steer sales?                                3
                 Strongly improved                                                                                      0
                 Somewhat improved                                                                                      1
                 No change                                                                                              0
                 Somewhat lessened                                                                                      0
                 Strongly lessened                                                                                      2
                 No opinion                                                                                             0
                 Comments:
                  Need to use more fixtures and distorts some colors

                  Due to the fact that it was almost impossible to see there was light on the merchandise.


Section III: Summary Questions
              11.€€€ Do you think the new lights drive more or less sales?                                          4
                 Much more                                                                                              0
                 Somewhat more                                                                                          0
                 No change                                                                                              1
                 Somewhat less                                                                                          0
                 Much less                                                                                              3
                 No opinion                                                                                             0
                 Comments:

              12.€€€ Do you generally prefer the new lights or the old lights?                                      6
                  Strongly prefer new lights                                                                            0
                  Prefer new lights                                                                                     1
                  No opinion                                                                                            0
                  Prefer old lights                                                                                     2
                  Strongly prefer old lights                                                                            3
                  Comments:
                  Prefer the new lights due to energy conservation but the old lights were brighter and gave
                  off more light


              13.€€€ What would you say is the biggest difference between the lighting today and yesterday?
                  The light level changed from very bright warm light to weak cold lighting. I could see that if
                  the light color to warm and a higher level it would have given a more direct light than our old
                  It was way dimmer because of the low wattage of LED used. LED = 5 watts, Halogen = 50
                  watts.
                  LED lights put off dull bad lighting
                  Weaker output and color difference (very blue)
                  Brightness and color
                  Light intensity and color rendition
14.€€€ In your own words, why do you generally prefer the new or old lights?
    The old lights are stronger and warmer. It's way with the old lights to overlap and give the
    product a nice glow. It was very difficult to see the new light on the product.
    Halogens are much more brighter than LEDs used. If only they had equivalent wattage it
    would have made the difference.
    Old lights were more smooth
    Old = brighter true color representation. New = energy conservation/ longer lasting
    Old halogen are brighte and colo representation on product more true,
    As for the old ones, the pros were intensity, color rendition. As for the new ones, the pros
    were less heat, no halo effect. No light given off into the can which made the source less
    visible (focus on the product).
Appendix C: Color Rendition Photographs

   Sofa Section




   Blue Sofa – Halogen MR16 - 35W




   Blue Sofa – LED MR16 - IMS 24°
White Sofa – Halogen MR16 - 35W




White Sofa – LED MR16 - IMS 24°
Bedroom




Bed – Halogen MR16 - 35W               Bed – LED MR16 - IMS 24°




Night Stand – Halogen MR16 - 35W   Night Stand – LED MR16 - IMS 24°
Textiles & Rugs




Pillows – Halogen MR16 50W         Pillows – LED MR16 IMS 12°




Placemats – Halogen MR16 50W   Placemats – LED MR16 IMS 12°
Circle Rugs – Halogen MR16 50W   Circle Rugs – LED MR16 IMS 12°
Destination Signs




Textiles & Rugs – Halogen MR16 35 W   Textiles & Rugs – LED MR16 CRS




Living Rooms(facing elevator)         Living Rooms(facing elevator)
Halogen MR16 35W                      LED MR 16 LED-Power




Living Rooms (not facing elevator)    Living Rooms (not facing elevator)
Halogen MR16 35W                      LED MR 16 CRS
You can also read
Next part ... Cancel