LEDs for Commercial Signs (Other than Linear)
"Lighting, Sign, Backlit": LED Backlight or LED CRT vs. Linear Fluorescent
LED lighting for backlit display signage, typical of restaurant menu boards, movie theater poster displays, and advertisements in airports, train/subway stations, etc.
Item ID: 113
Technical Advisory Group: 2009 Lighting TAG (#1)
Backlit display lightboxes are used in a variety of applications including restaurant menu boards, movie theater poster displays, and advertisements in airports, train/subway stations, shopping malls, casinos, and stadiums. Typical light sources include linear fluorescent lamps and cold cathode fluorescent lamps. However, using LEDs as the light-source for display lightboxes is an application that is gaining traction. By manipulating the directional LED sources, LED systems can be designed to accurately and efficiently illuminate the desired area.
Backlit display lightboxes employing LED technology are available from a number of manufacturers. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is encouraging research, development and market penetration of the technology and is providing resources for objective, ongoing information about the technology.
Energy savings over traditional lightbox lighting using fluorescent or cold cathode sources may be significant. A study conducted by SDG&E showed cold cathode and LED lightboxes use less power than fluorescent light boxes regardless of size. Power savings ranged from 48% to 74%. However, in some instances luminance was sacrificed. Lamp life could be significantly longer than for other systems in use, potentially providing maintenance savings, which can be significant for commercial applications. Additionally, the DOE predicts continued improvement in efficacy and declines in prices for LED lighting, making this and other LED applications an increasingly cost-effective option.
Baseline Description: Standard T8 fluorescent lamps
Baseline Energy Use: 61 kWh per year per square foot
This estimate came from: http://www.etcc-ca.com/images/SDGE.pdf, page 36. It assumes 14W * 12 hr/day * 365 days/year.
Manufacturer's Energy Savings Claims:
Currently no data available.
Best Estimate of Energy Savings:
"Typical" Savings: 50%
Energy Savings Reliability: 3 - Limited Assessment
48 to 74% savings over fluorescent or cold cathode lighting.
Energy Use of Emerging Technology:
30.5 kWh per square foot per year
Energy Use of an Emerging Technology is based upon the following algorithm.
Baseline Energy Use - (Baseline Energy Use * Best Estimate of Energy Savings (either Typical savings OR the high range of savings.))
Potential number of units replaced by this technology:
20 square feet per sign, 250,000 signs in PNW = 5,000,000 square feet. Based on Navigant for U.S. DOE "Energy Savings Estimates for LED Lighting in Niche Applications" (2008) http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/nichefinalreport_october2008.pdf
Note: In Table 2-19, Navigant indicates a market share by lamp type for electric signs. Fluorescent light sources account for 45.8% of the total installed base of 15.9 million electric signs. The Northwest fluorescent electric sign count is estimated at: 0.04 x 0.458 x 15.9 million = 291,288 signs. It is assumed that the LED market potential has increased beyond the 6.1% reported in 2008, so assume 250,000 signs.
Regional Technical Potential:
0.15 TWh per year
Regional Technical Potential of an Emerging Technology is calculated as follows:
Baseline Energy Use * Estimate of Energy Savings (either Typical savings OR the high range of savings) * Technical Potential (potential number of units replaced by the Emerging Technology)
Currently no data available.
Simple payback, new construction (years): N/A
Simple payback, retrofit (years): N/A
Cost Effectiveness is calculated using baseline energy use, best estimate of typical energy savings, and first cost. It does not account for factors such as impacts on O&M costs (which could be significant if product life is greatly extended) or savings of non-electric fuels such as natural gas. Actual overall cost effectiveness could be significantly different based on these other factors.