NEW YORK (AP) -- The light bulb, the symbol of bright ideas, doesn't look like such a great idea anymore, as lawmakers in the U.S. and abroad are talking about banning the century-old technology because of its contribution to global warming.
But what comes next? Compact fluorescent bulbs are the only real alternative right now, but ''bulbs'' that use light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, are quickly emerging as a challenger.
LEDs, which are small chips usually encased in a glass dome the size of a matchstick head, have been in use in electronics for decades to indicate, for example, whether a VCR is on or off.
Those LEDs were usually red or green, but a scientific breakthrough in the 1990s paved the way for the production of LEDs that produce white light. Because they use less power than standard incandescent bulbs, white LEDs have become common in flashlights.
Established players in the lighting industry and a host of startups are now grooming LEDs to take on the reigning champion of residential lighting, the familiar pear-shaped incandescent light bulb.
The light bulb has been running out of friends recently. California and Canada have decided to ban the sale of incandescent bulbs by 2012. Australia is banning them in 2010. The European Union is looking at banning production of the bulbs. A U.S. Senate committee is working on a proposal that would phase out the light bulb in 10 years.
And in New Jersey, where the first practical incandescent bulb emerged from Thomas Edison's laboratory in 1879, a bill has been introduced to ban their use in government buildings.
Governments are gunning for the light bulb because it's much less efficient than fluorescents, using about five times more energy to produce the same amount of light.
Lighting consumes 22 percent of electricity produced in the U.S., according to the Department of Energy, and widespread use of LED lighting could cut consumption in half. By 2027, LED lighting could cut annual energy use by the equivalent of 500 million barrels of oil, with the attendant reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide, the gas believed to be responsible for global warming.
Much of that reduction would be possible with today's technology, using compact fluorescents, or CFLs. But consumers haven't warmed to them. The light quality hasn't been satisfactory, most take time to turn on and aren't dimmable.
The LED has advantages over the CFL in most of those areas, and judging by this week's Lightfair trade show in New York, it could be a serious challenge to the CFL in a few years. What holds it back is chiefly price, but LEDs are already an economic alternative for niche uses.
Story continues below
In the last two years, the diodes have doubled in energy efficiency and brightness, according to Greg Merritt, director of marketing for Durham, N.C.-based LED-manufacturer Cree Inc. In particular, LEDs that produce a yellowish or ''warm'' light similar to incandescents have improved.
Dallas-based Lighting Science Group Corp. showed an LED ''bulb'' that screws into a standard medium-sized socket and produces a warm light equivalent to that of a 25-watt incandescent bulb, but consumes just 5.8 watts. It costs $50, hardly palatable to consumers who can buy a standard bulb for less than a dollar.
Comments
My personal (unscientific) experience with fluorescent replacement bulbs is that they are much dimmer than their stated incandescent equivalents and that claims for 10x extended life are greatly exaggerated.
chrisjmiller
05/14/2007
Posts:26
RTTedrow
USDOE [ret.]
rttedrow
05/14/2007
Posts:44
I was really just wondering aloud whether the arguments against incandescent bulbs have been overstated. In calculating the energy savings I guess (and would be prepared to wager) that they are as simplistic as saying that replacing a 100W bulb by an 'equivalent' 20W will save 80 Joules of energy for each second the light is on. I accept that gas or oil heating is more efficient than electric (but what about the greenhouse gases?) and that air-con in summer (not a requirement here in the UK ;)) diminishes the effect (though lighting is in use much longer in winter than in summer), but it's still there.
The point about comparative manufacturing impacts is also well made. Incandescent bulbs are made from cheap non-toxic materials that are readily available. The same is not true of their 'electronic' replacements.
chrisjmiller
05/15/2007
Posts:26
So, really, even if you have to provide another couple hundred watts of heat because your lighting provides only visible light, you're going to help the environment.
That $50 price tag, though... I have no idea where they came up with it. A quick search with Google shows $9 products (1.3W, 18 LED, I'd expect around 1000 Candela) which could replace appliance bulbs. a $95 price tag gets a 11,000 Candela Flood light usign just 5W or so. But $ represent fiddling careful work in electronics, bad yeilds, and significant investment in production equiptment. Every $, in the end, is environmental drain, or fiddling work, or both.
More volume always translates, in electronics, into lower cost, as the line is amortized over more units.
wizwom
05/14/2007
Posts:8
There are much beter reasons to argue against this policy. It is narrowly perscriptive. A beter direction is to set a minimum efficacy (lumen/watt) standard and if incadecent (or more likely their halogen cousins) can meet that standard then we can continue to use them while being more efficient. LEDs are not the magic cure all.
Charles Cameron, IES, Assoc. IALD
chuckcameron
05/14/2007
Posts:2
dvgmacdonald...
05/14/2007
Posts:1
And when those questions are answered perhaps we can look at comparing the manufacturing overhead for each device and its total energy use in the devices lifetime.
Viv
05/14/2007
Posts:14
It is not clear to me nor is it supported in this article what the documented contribution from incandescent light bulbs is, in fact, to global warming. It seems that too many news articles are using this as the a foundation for an argument and the peer-reviewed research seems to be inconclusive or lacking.
Go LEDS! But I resent the jumping on the global warming bandwagon.
TheWhale
TheWhale
05/14/2007
Posts:1
The knee-jerk reaction to perceived man-made cause of global warming again is causing politicians to make bad decisions. Perceived because other planets, Neptune and Mars, without our help, are experiencing global warming. BTW, Quantum Dots may eclipse LEDs.
RD
05/14/2007
Posts:117
I have with great interest red your comments . I'm from Scandinavia and here houses are generally very well insulated . Most houses use electricity in an indirect way for heating . That means heatpumping either from the air or ground . One unit of electricity can give up to 5 times the energy in the form of heat . Thus it is always efficient to use as effective light devices as possible !!!
Then it is another question if so called low energy lamps really are more mean and lean . If one does an energy calculation on power for manufacturing and balances it for better longevity and lumen/watt and the equation comes out favorable to the "low energy" alternative then it is a no brainer . or is it ???
scandiviking
06/02/2007
Posts:1