Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Quantum Leap in Lighting

Continued from page 1

By Neil Savage

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

The QD Vision optics absorb the energy from the phosphor-coated LEDs and reemit it at a new mix of wavelengths. Coe-Sullivan says that the color rendering index--a measure of what colors look like under the light--of the company's optic is 90, compared with the 70s for the LEDs without the optic. Sunlight has a color rendering index of 100, and standard incandescent lightbulbs about 99. The QD Vision light is far more efficient than an incandescent, producing 65 lumens per watt of electricity, whereas an incandescent produces about 15 lumens per watt. A compact fluorescent lightbulb produces about 30 lumens per watt; has a cooler, harsher light than the QD Vision lamp; and has the added environmental problem of containing mercury.

"These are good numbers," says Nadarajah Narendran, director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. "This may be the first market-ready product [based on quantum dots], so in that sense they might be unique," he says. "You have to have all the ingredients right." Those include not only lifetime, energy efficiency, and color: "Price is the most important one at the moment."

Companies are struggling to get the cost of their LED-based bulb replacements down to $65 and below. The Nexxus lamp could cost about $100. Button says that if you consider how much a user will save in electricity, the cost of replacement bulbs, and the labor that would otherwise be needed to replace multiple ceiling fixtures over the projected seven-and-a-half-year lifetime, the lamp will be competitive.

The two companies displayed their lamp last week at the Lightfair International trade show in New York, and they say that they'll have it available for sale by the end of the year. Meanwhile, Button says that there's nothing exclusive about QD Vision's deal with Nexxus, and that he hopes to work with other companies to produce more products for general lighting. QD Vision had initially focused on using quantum dots to make better display screens for computers and other devices. It's still in that business, but given that most of the display makers are in Asia, the company felt as though lighting would give the company a quicker entry into the market, Coe-Sullivan says.

The beauty of QD Vision's technology, Button says, is that it's just a small addition to existing LEDs designed for standard light fixtures. "They're getting a market without changing anything," he says. "You give us a light input, and we're going to improve the color without diminishing the efficiency."

Comments

  • Cost needs leap first
    I don't care how good it works when a standard light bulb can be bought at WalMart for less than a dollar and these cost about $100.  It would take  my lifetime to payback the difference. Also these compact florescent light bulbs do not give off the light they claim, nor do the last as long. So I am skeptically that these bulbs would really last for  40,000 hours.

    jmaximus9
    05/13/2009
    Posts:84
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Cost needs leap first
      I agree - these are a total rip off at $40-100.  I have used a broad variety of LED "bulbs" over the past two years - none of them lasted more than a few thousand hours.  They're all crap with wrap-around marketing. 

      I've also achieved a warmer light cast by using yellow/orange markers - this worked quite well, but the LEDs eventually die (and not in 40,000 hours - most were dead around 4k hours, some sooner).

      hankejh
      05/13/2009
      Posts:20
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: Cost needs leap first
      In fact over 10 years of nightly lighting (say in living room) the difference in running cost between on old incandescent and one of these LED lights is about $400 (at 30cents/kWh which seems like a plausible average price over the next 10 years (at least in the UK - I don't know what expected prices in the US are). So if the bulb really does last for the 14,000 hours in question then you will save $350-odd.

      So it really is worth investing in low-power bulbs, even expensive ones like this, in well-used areas. CFLs are nearly as efficient (30-50lumens/watt) and also very cheap so if you don;t like the upfront prices get those instead. But in fact what you really want is the most efficient lights money can buy.

      wookey
      05/13/2009
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      4/5

This discussion has been moved to our discussions forum.

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Tiny Devices Use Light to Grab Cells
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.