developing led lighting technologies and practices for...

Cary A Mitchell

2012 OFA Annual Short Course

Columbus Ohio

July 15 2012

Developing LED Lighting Technologies

and Practices for Sustainable

Specialty-Crop Production

NIFA SCRI Grant 2010-51181-21369

bull Arend-Jan (AJ) Both ndash Rutgers University

bull Michael Bourget ndash ORBITEC

bull John Burr ndash Purdue University

bull Chieri Kubota ndash University of Arizona

bull Roberto Lopez ndash Purdue University

bull Cary Mitchell ndash Purdue University

bull Robert Morrow ndash ORBITEC

bull Erik Runkle ndash Michigan State University

Businesses

Organizations

bull CCS Inc

bull Conviron Inc

bull Future Electronics

bull Hoosier Energy

bull OFA

bull Orbital Technologies

bull Verdant Earth

Technologies

Growers

bull Altman Plants

bull Bevo Farms

bull Bushelboy Farms

bull Heartland Growers

bull Krueger-Maddux

bull Mast Young Plants

bull C Raker amp Sons

bull Syngenta Flowers

bull UrbanPonics

httpledshrtmsuedu

Erik Runkle Webmaster

runkleermsuedu

bull Flower control ndash night interruption end-of-

day (light quality important)

bull Propagation ndash rooting grafting

morphology (light quality and quantity

important)

bull Growth and production ndash supplemental

day-length extension sole-source

(quantity of PAR important)

bull Fluorescent sole-source in growth chamber

bull Incandescent photoperiodic lighting

bull High-intensity discharge (HID) solesupplemental

Advantages

bull Broad-band emission

bull Plants look ldquonormalrdquo

bull Can get in colors

bull Can get in various

shapes

bull CFLs socket

adaptable

Disadvantages

bull Canrsquot get high

intensity

bull Short life span

bull Fixtures shade sunlight

bull Electrically inefficient

bull Disposal issues

bull Effective flowering responses (RFR

effects)

bull Can cause desirable morphogenic effects

bull A rich red-light source

bull An even richer far-red

source

bull Very electrically inefficient


bull Can cause

undesirable

morphogenics (far-

red effects)

bull Being phased out

Advantages Disadvantages

bull Achieve high intensity

bull Relatively long life span

bull Can offset greenhouse heating in winter

bull Effective PAR source

Photosynthetically active radiation

(400-700 nm)

bull Long-wave radiation

bull Intensely hot lamp

surfaces

bull Waveband mismatch

for plant pigments



bull Wavelength specificity to match pigment

absorption

bull Extremely long life span

bull Heat removal remote from light emitters

bull Can place extremely close to plants

bull No massive ballasts required

bull Dimmable

bull Solid state-minimal disposal issues

bull Energy efficiency improving continuously

bull Cost will decrease with mass production

ldquoWhiterdquo LED = Blue LED + phosphor lt50 as efficient as the blue LED)

Screw-in LED lamp (probably 85 as efficient as hard-wired)

bull Meters that measure in photometric

units

ndash Foot candles

ndash lux

bull Sensors of such meters are most

sensitive to wavelengths detected best by the human eye not the plant

00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE

RQE = Relative Quantum Efficiency = absorption by the plant

bull Quantum sensor for photosynthetically active

radiation (PAR 400-700 nm)

ndash μmolmiddotm-2middots-1 for photosynthetic photon flux (PPF)

ndash molmiddotm-2middotd-1 for daily light integral (DLI)

bull RedFar-Red two-Channel Sensor

bull Spectroradiometer to scan individual wavelengths

from the UV through the PAR to the near IR

bull SCRILED Project guidelinesrecommendations being

developed for growers under the leadership of Dr

AJ Both

Determining the Effectiveness of Red

and Blue Light-Emitting Diodes as

Supplemental Lighting during Plug and

Cutting Propagation

Michael Ortiz Christopher Currey

and Roberto Lopez

Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture

Purdue University

Background

bull High-pressure sodium (HPS)

lamps are the current

industry standard for

supplemental lighting

bull HPS are relatively inefficient

at converting electrical

energy into light (30)and

generate a significant

amount of heat

Objectives

bull Compare plug (seedling) and liner (cutting)

quality under three LED supplemental

lighting treatments of different light quality

(RedBlue) and HPS lamps as supplemental

lighting sources for 12 species of annual

bedding plants

bull To quantify the energy use under each of

the above supplemental lighting treatments

Materials amp Methods

Plant Material (seed) bull Antirrhinum (snapdragon)

bull Begonia

bull Catharanthus (vinca)

bull Celosia lsquoFresh Look Goldrsquo

bull Impatiens lsquoDazzler Blue Pearlrsquo

bull Pelargonium (geranium) lsquoBullseye Scarletrsquo

bull Petunia lsquoPlush Bluersquo

bull Tagetes (French marigold) lsquoBonanza Flamersquo

bull Salvia

bull Viola (pansy)lsquoMammoth Big Redrsquo

Plant Material (cutting) bull Impatiens lsquoCelebrette Frostrsquo

bull Pelargonium lsquoPresto Dark Redrsquo

bull Petunia lsquoSuncatcher Midnight Bluersquo

bull 70 degF constant

bull DLI asymp 10 ndash 12 molmminus2dminus1

bull 288-cell plug tray of each species in

each treatment

bull Propagation treatment = 28 days

bull 16-h photoperiod with the following 4

supplemental lighting treatments

(100 micromol∙m-2∙s-1)

ndash HPS

ndash 100 R LEDs (Phillips Research Module)

ndash 85 R 15 B LEDs (Phillips)


Materials amp Methods (seed)

HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate

bull 73 degF constant air and substrate

bull DLI asymp 10 ndash 12 molmminus2dminus1 during rooting

bull 105-cell tray of each species in each treatment

bull Propagation treatment = 7 days callusing and 14 days rooting

bull 16-h photoperiod with the following 4 supplemental lighting treatments (70 micromol∙m-2∙s-1) ndash HPS

ndash 100 R LEDs (Orbitec)

ndash 85 R 15 B LEDs (Orbitec)


Materials amp Methods (cuttings)

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B

Viola lsquoMammoth Big Redrsquo

Petunia lsquoPlush Bluersquo Celosia lsquoFresh Look Goldrsquo

Tagetes lsquoBonanza Flamersquo Impatiens lsquoDazzler Blue Pearlrsquo Pelargonium lsquoBullseye Scarletrsquo

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

Pelargonium lsquoPresto Dark Redrsquo

HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a

Supplemental light source

HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a


Impatiens lsquoCelebrette Frostrsquo

Petunia lsquoSuncatcher Midnight Bluersquo

HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)

bull Higher finished plug quality for 56

species investigated thus far under LEDs

rather than HPS lamps ndash Exception is Celosia

bull B LEDs seems to be very effective in

producing compact fully-rooted plugs

Summary (cuttings)

bull LEDs resulted in cuttings with growth

comparable to those grown under HPS

bull Photosynthesis was not significantly

affected by supplemental light source

bull Supplemental light source did not affect

finished plant attributes

bull LEDs appear to be suitable for use in

cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs

bull Determine end-of-day red blue and

far-red light responses of plugs (stem

elongation) and flowering

bull Work with our research partners to

develop supplemental lighting LEDs for the

greenhouse industry

bull Work with stakeholder partners to

perform small-scale trials in commercial

greenhouses

Current and Future Research

Using LEDS for Photoperiodic

Lighting of Specialty Crops

Daedre Craig and Erik Runkle

Department of Horticulture

Michigan State University

bull Expansion of leaves and stems is increasingly

promoted as the amount of far-red light relative to

red light increases

bull For some long-day plants light deficient in far-red

light is less effective at promoting flowering than light

rich in far red

bull Blue light also inhibits extension growth in some

cases dramatically through phytochrome and

UVblue light photoreceptors

Effects of Red to Far-Red Ratio

Red Far Red

high low

From Photomorphogensis in Plants (2nd ed) by Kendrick and Kronenberg (eds) 1994

Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10

PR and PFR from Sager et al 1988 Trans ASAE 311882-1887

PFR

PR

Phytochrome Absorption

Red

Far

red

Petunia lsquoFantasy Pink Mornrsquo

9-hour day (15-hour night)


61 days to flower 34 days to flower

From Ryan Warner Michigan State University

Effects of Photoperiod on Flowering

Photoperiodic Lighting

Petunia lsquoPurple Wave Classicrsquo

Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after

transplant at 68 degF

6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093

Photos Sonali Padhye Michigan State University

Objective Determine how the red far-red influences flowering of

photoperiod-sensitive crops so that LEDs with effective spectra can be

developed

Evaluating LEDs for

Night-Interruption Lighting

Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016

Light source and PPE

6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent

bull 9-hour day with lights

operated during middle

of 15-hour night

bull 68 degF temperature

setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm

Manufactured by CCS Inc

Evaluating LEDs for


Marigold lsquoAmerican Antigua Yellowrsquo

064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC

lamps PPE of 4-h night interruption

100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35

Days to flower at 68 degF

Flowering was 100 in all treatments

Evaluating LEDs for


Snapdragon lsquoLiberty Classic Cherryrsquo

064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

41 56 49 47 45 44 44 49 52 Days to flower at 68 degF


Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)

Deep Red White Far Red

Deep Red White

Far Red

Philips ldquoFlowering Lampsrdquo

bull Compare plant responses to end-of-day or night-

interruption lighting

bull Work with our research partner CCS to develop

more effective LEDs to control flowering of a range of

ornamentals

bull Work with stakeholder partners to perform small-

scale trials in commercial greenhouses


John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University

Krannert School of Management

Socio-Economic

Considerations of Using LEDs

Project Purpose

bull Market Analysis

ndash Technical viability versus commercial viability

ndash Two perspectives

bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose

How Mature is this Industry

Technology adoption is governed by 1 Perceived advantage 2 Risk factors 3 Ease of use 4 Timing of benefits 5 Observability 6 Trialability 7 Price 8 Fit with practices

Still Many Unknowns

bull What is the appropriate type of LED to use

ndash Air cooled both active and passive

ndash Water cooled

bull What is the best design

ndash Point source planar array or vertical array

ndash Ratios of RFRB

bull What is the proper usage

ndash Duration timing season application

(type) x (design) x (usage) = ( parameters)

Scenario 1 Tomato

Goal 25 mol∙m-2∙d-1

Method

X 65 = Projected

greenhouse transmission

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Amount of Supplemented Light

Scenario 1 Tomato Preliminary


Supplement 80 mol∙m-2∙d-1

HPS 1000 W 92 hours

Assume 12 month season

Energy Cost $0606 kWh

One bay at 4320 ft2

151 LED to 1000 HPS ratio

12000 hr HPS change +

labor 50000 hr LED life

67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral

Ohio (Low natural DLI

average elect rate)



Energy Cost $1497KWh

NPV positive (and could be

considerable)

High light requirements and

high energy costs are a

good thing for advancing this technology

Connecticut (Low natural DLI

HIGH elect rate)

Actual operating parameters and pricing MUST be taking into account

Scenario 2 Flower

Finish Typical scenario is that a grower will supplement

at low DLI levels (2-3) in short day months

In most cases NPV is negative and turns marginally

positive at high electricity prices

Night Interruption Rapidly developing

We know incandescent bulbs are going away

LED prices rapidly decreasing

Technology is improving

Energy savings subsidies are increasing

Low risk

Conclusions

bull Why no firm numbers ndash Standards still being established ndash look for evidence

ndash Every shop operation and negotiation is different

ndash It is important to consult a trained lighting designer for an accurate calculation of expected light intensities in greenhouses

bull A note on supplemental heathellip

Heat from HPSHID can offset the cost of supplemental heathellip but ndash Electricity cost 068 kWh = $2035 MBTU (100 sys eff)

ndash Fuel Oil 360 = $3328 MBTU (78 sys eff)

ndash Natural Gas 103 = $ 1324 MBTU (78 sys eff)

May national average industrial prices source wwweiagovneicexpertsheatcalcxls

Conclusions

LEDs appear to be a viable option

There are learning parameters ldquorapidlyrdquo

-effect on plants (eg internode elongation

flowering etc)

-how do we design optimally with this technology

The industry is in a very early stage of

development

Economic viability

depends on amount of

supplemental light and

your energy costs Source Haitz amp Tsao 2011

Questions

Visit our projectrsquos website

httpledshrtmsuedu

bull Arend-Jan (AJ) Both ndash Rutgers University

bull Michael Bourget ndash ORBITEC

bull John Burr ndash Purdue University

bull Chieri Kubota ndash University of Arizona

bull Roberto Lopez ndash Purdue University

bull Cary Mitchell ndash Purdue University

bull Robert Morrow ndash ORBITEC

bull Erik Runkle ndash Michigan State University

Businesses

Organizations

bull CCS Inc

bull Conviron Inc


bull Hoosier Energy

bull OFA


bull Verdant Earth

Technologies

Growers

bull Altman Plants

bull Bevo Farms



bull Krueger-Maddux




bull UrbanPonics

httpledshrtmsuedu


runkleermsuedu





important)







Advantages





shapes

bull CFLs socket

adaptable

Disadvantages


intensity






effects)




source



bull Can cause

undesirable

morphogenics (far-

red effects)








(400-700 nm)



surfaces


for plant pigments




absorption





bull Dimmable







units

ndash Foot candles

ndash lux



00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE











AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Businesses

Organizations

bull CCS Inc

bull Conviron Inc


bull Hoosier Energy

bull OFA


bull Verdant Earth

Technologies

Growers

bull Altman Plants

bull Bevo Farms



bull Krueger-Maddux




bull UrbanPonics

httpledshrtmsuedu


runkleermsuedu





important)







Advantages





shapes

bull CFLs socket

adaptable

Disadvantages


intensity






effects)




source



bull Can cause

undesirable

morphogenics (far-

red effects)








(400-700 nm)



surfaces


for plant pigments




absorption





bull Dimmable







units

ndash Foot candles

ndash lux



00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE











AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

httpledshrtmsuedu


runkleermsuedu





important)







Advantages





shapes

bull CFLs socket

adaptable

Disadvantages


intensity






effects)




source



bull Can cause

undesirable

morphogenics (far-

red effects)








(400-700 nm)



surfaces


for plant pigments




absorption





bull Dimmable







units

ndash Foot candles

ndash lux



00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE











AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu





important)







Advantages





shapes

bull CFLs socket

adaptable

Disadvantages


intensity






effects)




source



bull Can cause

undesirable

morphogenics (far-

red effects)








(400-700 nm)



surfaces


for plant pigments




absorption





bull Dimmable







units

ndash Foot candles

ndash lux



00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE











AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu




Advantages





shapes

bull CFLs socket

adaptable

Disadvantages


intensity






effects)




source



bull Can cause

undesirable

morphogenics (far-

red effects)








(400-700 nm)



surfaces


for plant pigments




absorption





bull Dimmable







units

ndash Foot candles

ndash lux



00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE











AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu


effects)




source



bull Can cause

undesirable

morphogenics (far-

red effects)








(400-700 nm)



surfaces


for plant pigments




absorption





bull Dimmable







units

ndash Foot candles

ndash lux



00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE











AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu






(400-700 nm)



surfaces


for plant pigments




absorption





bull Dimmable







units

ndash Foot candles

ndash lux



00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE











AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu


absorption





bull Dimmable







units

ndash Foot candles

ndash lux



00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE











AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

bull Dimmable







units

ndash Foot candles

ndash lux



00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE











AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu




units

ndash Foot candles

ndash lux



00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE











AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

00

02

04

06

08

10

350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

No

rmalized

Ph

oto

n F

lux

Wavelength (nm)

Sunlight

RQE











AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu










AJ Both




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu




Cutting Propagation


and Roberto Lopez


Purdue University

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Background









amount of heat

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Objectives






bedding plants





bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu



bull Begonia







bull Salvia








each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu




each treatment





ndash HPS





HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

HPS

RB 1000

RB 8515 RB 7030

Michael Ortiz

MS Student

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Chris Currey

PhD Candidate










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu










Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x

(microm

olmiddot

m-2

middot s-1

)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Wavelength (nm)

450 500 550 600 650

Ph

oto

syn

the

tic

ph

oto

n flu

x(micro

mo

lmiddot m

-2middot

s-1)

0

1

2

3

HPS

100 R 0 B

85 R 15 B

70 R 30 B




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu




HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B

HPS 100 R 85 R 70 R 15 B 30 B


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Shoot dry mass (mg)

6499 a 6868 a 6372 a 6981 a

Root dry mass (mg)

528 a 618 a 586 a 594 a

Stem length (cm)

44 a 47 a 43 a 44 a


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu


HPS 100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

Pn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Impatiens

Pelargonium

Petunia

(microm

olbull

m-2

bulls-

1)

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu




HPS

100R0B 85R15B 70R30B

LEDs

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Summary (Seedlings)






Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Summary (cuttings)








cutting propagation

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Kilowatt-hour day

HPS LEDs

642 282

Energy Costs






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu






greenhouse industry



greenhouses









red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu








red light increases



rich in far red





Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Red Far Red

high low


Red Far red

Phytochrome

Elongation

Flowering


Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Wavelength (nm)

300 400 500 600 700 800

Re

lativ

e v

alu

e

00

02

04

06

08

10


PFR

PR


Red

Far

red









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu









Incandescent

(INC)

59 days after


6-h

DE

4-h

NI

2-h

NI

Short

days

RFR= 060

Compact

fluorescent

(CFL) RFR= 844

INC + CFL RFR= 093




developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu



developed

Evaluating LEDs for


Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Wavelength (nm)

600 615 630 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 780 795

Ph

oto

ns (

um

olmiddotm

-2middots

-1)

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

Incandescent 064

LED 089

LED 085

LED 080

LED 072

LED 063

LED 046

LED 016


6 R 0 FR

5 R 1 FR

4 R 2 FR

3 R 3 FR

2 R 4 FR

1 R 5 FR

0 R 6 FR

Incandescent



of 15-hour night


setpoint

Red

660 nm

Far red

735 nm


Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu


064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red

52 51 54 53 51 53 51 41 35



Evaluating LEDs for



064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu


064

Short

day 089 085 080 072 063 046 016

INC


100

Red 100

Far red



Evaluating LEDs for


0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

0000

0005

0010

0015

0020

0025

0030

0035

0040

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Inte

nsity (

microm

ol∙m

-2∙s

-1)

Wavelength (nm)


Deep Red White

Far Red






ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu





ornamentals




John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

John Burr

John F Burr PhD

Purdue University


Socio-Economic


Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Project Purpose




bull Barriers

bull ROI

bull Life Cycle

bull Why

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Project Purpose



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu



Still Many Unknowns



ndash Water cooled







Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Scenario 1 Tomato


Method

X 65 = Projected


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20






HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu




HPS 1000 W 92 hours



One bay at 4320 ft2




67 HPS efficiency

NPV neutral


average elect rate)





considerable)





HIGH elect rate)


Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Scenario 2 Flower










Low risk

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Conclusions









Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Conclusions




flowering etc)



development

Economic viability




Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

Questions


httpledshrtmsuedu

developing led lighting technologies and practices for...

Documents