WSU Energy Program Logo
Bonneville Power Administration Logo
  • Home
  • About
  • Database
      • Browse
      • Energy Systems
        • Building Envelope
        • Electronics
        • HVAC
        • Irrigation
        • Lighting
        • Motors & Drives
        • Multiple Energy Systems
        • Power Systems
        • Process Loads & Appliances
        • Refrigeration
        • Transportation
        • Water Heating
      • Sector
        • Agricultural
        • Commercial
        • Industrial
        • Residential
        • Utility
  • TAG Portal
      • 2017 Residential Lighting TAG (#14)
      • 2016 Multifamily Building TAG (#13)
      • 2015-1 Commercial HVAC TAG (#11)
      • 2014 Residential Building TAG (#10)
      • 2014 Commercial Building TAG (#9)
      • 2013 Information Technology TAG (#8)
      • 2013 ALCS TAG (#7)
      • 2012 Smart Thermostat TAG (#6)
      • 2012 LED Lighting TAG (#5)
      • 2011 Energy Management TAG (#4)
      • 2010 HVAC TAG (#3)
      • 2009 HVAC TAG (#2)
      • 2009 Lighting TAG (#1)
  • Webinars
    • Webinar Archives
  • Glossary
>

Summary

OLEDs for Display Applications

Electronic Device Displays: OLEDs vs. LCD Screens

Organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) for applications such as computer monitors; televisions; and screens for tablets, laptops, and handheld electronic devices.

Synopsis:

Organic light emitting diodes (OLED) create light on ultrathin sheets of material without the requirement for a backlight.  Early OLED display uses include cellphones, digital camera displays, radio displays, game consoles, and high resolution computer monitors and TV screens.  Advantages to OLED technologies include thin, flexible panels that give off virtually no heat when lit, greater brightness, high contrast, fuller viewing angles, truer and a wider variety of colors, a broader operating temperature range, faster response time to refreshing, better power efficiency, and lighter weight.

OLEDs are a potential replacement for LED (light-emitting diode) TV screens and monitors.  LEDs work by placing a filter over a backlight source (red/green/blue).  Colors that are not wanted for a given pixel are filtered out.  In contrast, OLEDs make use of a process called electrophosphoresence to emit light in the presence of an electrical current.  They display only the colors needed with no filter (E-Cubed Ventures, 2013).  This means they convert more power into light with independent tests showing that OLED televisions consume only 50% to 60% of the power of LED TVs while delivering a higher quality image with a quicker refresh rate (Runde, 2015).  OLEDs are thus superior for 3-D viewing technologies. 


Early OLED displays had a shorter lifetime when contrasted with LEDs, but currently available products have lifetimes that are comparable to or even better than LEDs.  Commercialization of OLED display and flexible lighting sources will be dependent upon costs. About 82% of the total OLED display market is mobile phones due to OLEDs high resolution and low energy requirements that provide for a long battery life.  It is projected that costs should reach parity with LEDs when OLED makers develop economies of scale through switching to factories capable of producing larger substrates. 

Energy Savings: 40%
Energy Savings Rating: Concept validated:  What's this?
LevelStatusDescription
1Concept not validatedClaims of energy savings may not be credible due to lack of documentation or validation by unbiased experts.
2Concept validated:An unbiased expert has validated efficiency concepts through technical review and calculations based on engineering principles.
3Limited assessmentAn unbiased expert has measured technology characteristics and factors of energy use through one or more tests in typical applications with a clear baseline.
4Extensive assessmentAdditional testing in relevant applications and environments has increased knowledge of performance across a broad range of products, applications, and system conditions.
5Comprehensive analysisResults of lab and field tests have been used to develop methods for reliable prediction of performance across the range of intended applications.
6Approved measureProtocols for technology application are established and approved.

Status:

Details

OLEDs for Display Applications

Electronic Device Displays: OLEDs vs. LCD Screens

Organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) for applications such as computer monitors; televisions; and screens for tablets, laptops, and handheld electronic devices.
Item ID: 98
Sector: Commercial
Energy System: Electronics--Other Devices
Technical Advisory Group: 2013 Information Technology TAG (#8)
Average TAG Rating: 2 out of 5
TAG Ranking Date: 10/25/2013
TAG Rating Commentary:
  1. Unlikely to be cost effective; not market ready
  2. Good idea. Probably still too expensive.
  3. I understand that the display industry is abandoning this technology.
  4. Low potential energy savings
  5. These type of panels often have better contrast, brightness, and viewing angles too.

Synopsis:

Organic light emitting diodes (OLED) create light on ultrathin sheets of material without the requirement for a backlight.  Early OLED display uses include cellphones, digital camera displays, radio displays, game consoles, and high resolution computer monitors and TV screens.  Advantages to OLED technologies include thin, flexible panels that give off virtually no heat when lit, greater brightness, high contrast, fuller viewing angles, truer and a wider variety of colors, a broader operating temperature range, faster response time to refreshing, better power efficiency, and lighter weight.

OLEDs are a potential replacement for LED (light-emitting diode) TV screens and monitors.  LEDs work by placing a filter over a backlight source (red/green/blue).  Colors that are not wanted for a given pixel are filtered out.  In contrast, OLEDs make use of a process called electrophosphoresence to emit light in the presence of an electrical current.  They display only the colors needed with no filter (E-Cubed Ventures, 2013).  This means they convert more power into light with independent tests showing that OLED televisions consume only 50% to 60% of the power of LED TVs while delivering a higher quality image with a quicker refresh rate (Runde, 2015).  OLEDs are thus superior for 3-D viewing technologies. 


Early OLED displays had a shorter lifetime when contrasted with LEDs, but currently available products have lifetimes that are comparable to or even better than LEDs.  Commercialization of OLED display and flexible lighting sources will be dependent upon costs. About 82% of the total OLED display market is mobile phones due to OLEDs high resolution and low energy requirements that provide for a long battery life.  It is projected that costs should reach parity with LEDs when OLED makers develop economies of scale through switching to factories capable of producing larger substrates. 

Baseline Example:

Baseline Description:
Baseline Energy Use: 195 kWh per year per Primary TV

Comments:

Post 2010 vintage TVs are almost exclusively flat screen units consisting of plasma, LED, and liquid crystal displays (LCDs).  In fact, Ecotope reports that flat screens represent 96% of all televisions purchased in the Pacific Northwest between 2010 and 2011 (Ecotope, Inc., 2014 Pg 79).  Average television power for the post-2010 vintages is 99 Watts and the average primary TV on-time is about 5.4 hours per day per home (Tables 115, 116, 117) (Baylon, 2012).  Annual primary TV usage is thus 99 Watts x 5.4 hours/day x 365 days/year/1000 Wh-kWh = 195 kWh/year.  (The Residential Metering study found that primary TVs accounted for 292.7 kWh.  This is explained by possible under-reporting of use, TV unwatched but in "on" mode, and standby mode energy use).  The calculated value of 195 kWh when "on" is assumed for this analysis.

Manufacturer's Energy Savings Claims:

"Typical" Savings: 40%
Savings Range: From 40% to 50%

Best Estimate of Energy Savings:

"Typical" Savings: 40%
Low and High Energy Savings: 40% to 50%
Energy Savings Reliability: 2 - Concept validated

Comments:

Energy Use of Emerging Technology:
117 kWh per Primary TV per year What's this?

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.))

Technical Potential:
Units: Primary TV
Potential number of units replaced by this technology: 5,430,711
Comments:

Ecotope's 2011 "Residential Building Stock Assessment" indicates that there are 2.29 televisions per home in the Northwest (Table 114).  Post 2010 vintage TVs are almost exclusively flat screen units consisting of plasma, LED, and liquid crystal displays (LCDs).  Average television power for the post-2010 vintages is 99 Watts.  The average primary TV on-time is about 5.4 hours per day per home (Tables 115, 116, 117) (Baylon, 2012).  Flat screen TVs made up about 51.1% of the total while completely dominating sales in the Post 2009 time frame.  This analysis will assume savings for only the primary TVs.  There is one primary TV per household per househole leading to an estimate of 5,430,771 single, multi-family, and manufactured homes in the region that might replace LED TVs or CRT TVs with OLED models.

Regional Technical Potential:
0.42 TWh per year
48 aMW
What's this?

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)

First Cost: Currently no data available.

Cost Effectiveness:

Simple payback, new construction (years): N/A

Simple payback, retrofit (years): N/A

What's this?

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.

Reference and Citations:

David Baylon, et. al., 09/18/2012. 2011 Residential Building Stock Assessment: Single-Family Characteristics and Energy Use
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance & Ecotope

Wikipedia, 10/16/2013. Comparison of CRT, LCD, Plasma, and OLED
wikipedia.org

Energy Star, 06/03/2013. Energy Star qualified Displays Product List
Energy Star

US DOE, 05/03/2010. Solid State Lighting OLED Manufacturing Roundtable
U.S. Department of Energy

John Breeden II, 01/03/2012. Paper-thin, 55-inch TV could show the future of monitors
Government Computer News

Charlie White, 01/02/2012. Maker to unveil world's largest OLED TV
Cable News Network

Wikipedia, 03/31/2014. OLED: Manufacturers and Commercial Uses
Wikipedia

Stan Schroeder, 05/10/2012. Samsung's 55-inch OLED TV Will Cost $9000
Mashable Tech

Ecotope, 04/28/2014. Residential Building Stock Assessment: Metering Study
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Joe Runde, 01/01/2015. OLED Myths and Misunderstandings
OLED Association

E-Cubed Ventures, 06/17/2013. OLED Lighting Trends and Energy Efficiency
E-Cubed Ventures

Rank & Scores

OLEDs for Display Applications

2013 Information Technology TAG (#8)


Technical Advisory Group: 2013 Information Technology TAG (#8)
TAG Ranking: 48 out of 57
Average TAG Rating: 2 out of 5
TAG Ranking Date: 10/25/2013
TAG Rating Commentary:

  1. Unlikely to be cost effective; not market ready
  2. Good idea. Probably still too expensive.
  3. I understand that the display industry is abandoning this technology.
  4. Low potential energy savings
  5. These type of panels often have better contrast, brightness, and viewing angles too.


Contact
Copyright 2023 Washington State University
disclaimer and privacy policies

Bonneville Power Administration Logo