LEDs emerge to challenge fluorescents as bulbs may be pushed from lighting throneContinued from page 1
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 Lighting Science Group: http://www.lsgc.com/ |









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:43
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:13
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:114
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