LED Under-Cabinet Lighting
Under-Cabinet Lighting: LED vs. Incandescent
LED lighting for mounting under cabinets, typically in office cubicles and kitchen applications.
Synopsis:
Under-cabinet lighting has typically been provided by fluorescent luminaires that use an omnidirectional light source to deliver directed illumination. Sometimes, xenon and halogen incandescent sources have been used. Unlike traditional fluorescent lighting, LED under-cabinet lighting can take advantage of the inherent directionality of LEDs to direct all of the available light onto the counter or desk below where it is needed, eliminating wasted light and energy.
LED under-cabinet lighting is widely available from a number of manufacturers but not widely adopted due to the higher first cost. The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) is encouraging research, development and market penetration of the technology and is providing resources for objective, ongoing information about the technology. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star program includes a category for LED under-cabinet lighting.
Energy savings over traditional under-cabinet lighting using fluorescent and incandescent sources may be significant, depending on design light levels, fixture efficiency, and weekly hours of operation. The most efficient luminaires listed with the DOE LED Lighting Facts program have efficacies over 80 lumens/watt, which is comparable to fluorescent lighting and a substantial energy savings over halogen or incandescent lighting. Lamp life could be significantly longer than other systems in use, potentially providing maintenance savings. The white light is available in a range of color temperatures and high CRI (color rendering index) suitable for commercial and residential lighting uses. Additionally, the USDOE predicts continued improvement in efficacy and decline in price for LED lighting.
Energy Savings: 50%
Energy Savings Rating: Limited Assessment
What's this?
| Level | Status | Description |
| 1 | Concept not validated | Claims of energy savings may not be credible due to lack of documentation or validation by unbiased experts. |
| 2 | Concept validated: | An unbiased expert has validated efficiency concepts through technical review and calculations based on engineering principles. |
| 3 | Limited assessment | An unbiased expert has measured technology characteristics and factors of energy use through one or more tests in typical applications with a clear baseline. |
| 4 | Extensive assessment | Additional testing in relevant applications and environments has increased knowledge of performance across a broad range of products, applications, and system conditions. |
| 5 | Comprehensive analysis | Results of lab and field tests have been used to develop methods for reliable prediction of performance across the range of intended applications. |
| 6 | Approved measure | Protocols for technology application are established and approved. |
Simple Payback is one tool used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a proposed investment, such as the investment in an energy efficient technology. Simple payback indicates how many years it will take for the initial investment to "pay itself back." The basic formula for calculating a simple payback is:
Simple Payback = Incremental First Cost / Annual Savings
The Incremental Cost is determined by subtracting the Baseline First Cost from the Measure First Cost.
For New Construction, the Baseline First Cost is the cost to purchase the standard practice technology. The Measure First Cost is the cost of the alternative, more energy efficienct technology. Installation costs are not included, as it is assumed that installation costs are approximately the same for the Baseline and the Emerging Technology.
For Retrofit scenarios, the Baseline First Cost is $0, since the baseline scenario is to leave the existing equipment in place. The Emerging Technology First Cost is the Measure First Cost plus Installation Cost (the cost of the replacement technology, plus the labor cost to install it). Retrofit scenarios generally have a higher First Cost and longer Simple Paybacks than New Construction scenarios.
Simple Paybacks are called "simple" because they do not include details such as the time value of money or inflation, and often do not include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs or end-of-life disposal costs. However, they can still provide a powerful tool for a quick assessment of a proposed measure. These paybacks are rough estimates based upon best available data, and should be treated with caution. For major financial decisions, it is suggested that a full Lifecycle Cost Analysis be performed which includes the unique details of your situation.
The energy savings estimates are based upon an electric rate of $.09/kWh, and are calculated by comparing the range of estimated energy savings to the baseline energy use. For most technologies, this results in "Typical," "Fast" and "Slow" payback estimates, corresponding with the "Typical," "High" and "Low" estimates of energy savings, respectively.