Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

LEDs emerge to challenge fluorescents as bulbs may be pushed from lighting throne

Continued from page 1

By Associated Press

Thursday, May 10, 2007

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Polybrite International, a startup in Naperville, Ill., announced that lighting giant Osram Sylvania, a subsidiary of Germany's Siemens AG, will distribute its LED ''bulbs.'' The intended market is mainly commercial clients, who can afford to pay $15 to $85 per unit, according to Osram Sylvania marketing manager Constance Pineault.

The energy efficiency is no doubt a draw for commercial clients like hotels, but LEDs have another big advantage: they last up to 50,000 hours, according to manufacturers. That compares to about 10,000 hours for fluorescents and 1,000 hours for incandescents. Not having to send out janitors to replace burned-out bulbs means big savings in maintenance costs.

''Right now the applications that make sense are either high maintenance or high power consumption, like parking garages, where the lights are on all the time,'' said Cree's Merritt.

LEDs already beat fluorescents for energy efficiency in some niche uses. For instance, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is putting LED lighting in its in-store refrigerators, where the cold dims fluorescents and incandescents produce too much heat. LEDs also starting to replace flat fluorescent backlights in liquid-crystal displays, or LCDs, where they produce better colors.

LEDs don't contain toxic mercury, which CFLs do, though the amount is very small. (Recent stories circulating on the Web about calling a hazmat team if a CFL breaks are exaggerated. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends sweeping up, not vacuuming, the fragments, then checking out local recycling options.)

The cost of LED lighting should be coming down quickly. Polybrite founder Carl Scianna said the cost of individual white-light diodes, several of which go into an LED bulb and make up much of the cost, have come down in price from about $8 to $1.50 in a year.

''They're going to keep going down,'' Scianna said. ''By the middle of next year, they'll be priced for consumers.''

Nadarajah Narendran, director of lighting research at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., cautions that there are still technical issues to work out with LEDs.

While single LEDs can demonstrate very high energy efficiency in the lab, when they're combined into fixtures, their efficiency is considerably lower. In part that's a heat issue: the diodes produce less heat than incandescents, but they keep that heat in the fixture rather than radiating it, and the hotter the diodes get, the less efficient they are.

He sees screwing LED bulbs into standard sockets ''as a waste of talent'' that doesn't utilize the inherent properties of LEDs, like their small size and longevity.

''You could build them in as part of the furniture, part of the cabinetry,'' Narendran said.

Because of their high prices, he doesn't believe LEDs will be ready to replace incandescents in all their uses for the next five to 10 years, but ''LEDs, good or bad, will be growing very rapidly.''

------

On the Net:

U.S. Department of Energy on LEDs: http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/

Recycling options for CFLs: http://www.lamprecycle.org

http://www.cree.com

Lighting Science Group: http://www.lsgc.com/

Comments

  • What about the waste heat?
    Do the energy saving calculations take into account that most incandescent lights are running at night, in winter time?  In most countries we will also be heating our houses by other means and the result of using energy-saving light bulbs will be that the house thermostat (which, of course, has been turned down a degree or two :)) will cut out a few seconds later, largely negating any energy savings.

    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    chrisjmiller
    05/14/2007
    Posts:26
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: What about the waste heat?
      Hi, Chris.  I have seen this comment posted by various persons in various forums concerning fluorescent or LED lighting vs incandescent.  I would be VERY interested in seeing any "numbers" available about the lose of ambient home heating attending a switch away from incandescent bulbs -- and, of course, the hypothetical heating trade off.  Thanks.

      RTTedrow
      USDOE [ret.]
      Rate this comment: 12345

      rttedrow
      05/14/2007
      Posts:41
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: What about the waste heat?
        Hi RT and thanks to all for your helpful explanations.

        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        chrisjmiller
        05/15/2007
        Posts:26
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
    • Re: What about the waste heat?
      Using heat directly from a chemical source is at least twice as efficient as heat from an electrical source.  For those with electrical heating systems, well, there's a sucker born every minute.
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      wizwom
      05/14/2007
      Posts:8
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: What about the waste heat?
      The heat not added to a space durring the air conditioning season will balance or exceed any positive heat gain.  As an architectural lighting designer, I have been directed to reduce the lighting load so additional AC units are not required while I have never been asked to add more lighitng so a heater would not be needed.

      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
      Rate this comment: 12345

      chuckcameron
      05/14/2007
      Posts:2
      • Re: What about the waste heat?
        Agreed, what these stories always fail to mention is the quality of light (especially color rendering) of these products.  The CF lamps that are aimed at the home market have tended to be very poor in this category.  I fear the same with LED's.  Not all white LED's, even when they are supposed to be the same color, will have the same color rendering capabilities.  Also, the home market will be the first place that bad products which don't manage heat well will be sold, causing the LED lamps to fail quickly & likely resulting in people moving away from them (as many have from CF).
        Rate this comment: 12345

        dvgmacdonald...
        05/14/2007
        Posts:1
  • Manufacturing overhead?
    what is the manufacturing overhead for each particular type of device? no one seems to look at the total energy used to produce a bulb of ether type or LED at the factory, how about the Co2 output to produce a bulb compared to a LED, what is the comparison on resources used to manufacture the device that then probably wont be recycled in any way.

    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Viv
    05/14/2007
    Posts:12
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Contribution to Global Warming?
    I like all the news about the LED developments and I watch this technology with great anticipation. However, I have difficulty with the article starting out with the statement, "...as lawmakers in the U.S. and abroad are talking about banning the century-old technology because of its contribution to global warming."

    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
    Rate this comment: 12345

    TheWhale
    05/14/2007
    Posts:1
    • Re: Contribution to Global Warming?
      Focusing on the politics and the looks like this: Banning of the cheap incadenscent bulb will be a regressive tax to the poor who won't as easily afford the more expensive CP bulbs or LEDs.  The politicians then will subsidize the poor with "advanced technology" payments to be used for retrofitting the home, funded in part by an energy waste tax which will be levied against those bulbs that don't meet an annual energy efficiency rating criteria indexed to some political target.  Black market incadenscents will hit the streets.  "Hey bub, want to buy a bulb?"  Energy police will scan houses with thermal monitors and will start levying fines, and building inspectors will issue discrepancies.  Supply and demand will take a backseat to legislative fiat. 
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      RD
      05/14/2007
      Posts:112
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Some comments
    Hi!
    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 ???
    Rate this comment: 12345

    scandiviking
    06/02/2007
    Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Laser-Triggered Chemical Reactions
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.