| Cross-posted at Prairie State Blue
A little discussion is warranted here on what the challenges are. In a single word, heat. LEDs put out much less heat than an incandescent bulb, however, the heat needs to be evacuated away from the chip. It doesn't radiate away efficiently on it's own, as in a traditional light bulb, and the chip will have a short life and operate poorly with too much heat.
Array Lighting takes a very interesting approach to the heat issue. First, they use a large array of very small but densely packed LEDs. They produce less heat all in one place compared to a small number of high brightness LEDs. They have also developed a new way to channel the heat away from each of the small LEDs on the board, which they call Selective Heat Sink Technology. The result is the elimination of the heavy, bulky, and somewhat costly aluminum heatsinks typically used in high brightness LEDs, and a bulb putting out 900 lumens consuming only about 10 watts. The other end of the equation, as always is price. With fully automated production and cheaper heatsinks, these could be reasonably priced when production is scaled up. Some models have a nifty feature that with normal light switch, you can select from several brigness levels. Keep an eye on them.
EvoLux takes a different approach. The bulb uses a single, high powered Cree R2 LED, powered at 13 watts. They address the heat issue by building in a small, quit, reliable fan, like the ones which cool computer microprocessors. It costs about $80, or $100 with the ability to switch between three levels with an ordinary light switch. Clearly, costs need to fall dramatically for this to be much more than a novelty.
The GeoBulb is another interesting newcomer. It appears to have series of mesh-like fingers around the exterier of the bulb to sink away the heat. It's specifications say it uses 8 LEDs, outputting 800 lumens consuming under 8 watts. It's listed at $119.95, a price only a collector could love.
The same high power CREE LED (bin "P4") which cost $7.25 18 moths ago now costs $5.05, a drop of 30%. Meanwhile, several iterations later the CREE Q5 is available, more efficient and brighter than the P4, costing $6.98. There are already products out with even later models, such as the R2.
In the last 18 months, activity in the industry has been furious. Lighting giant Philips, a major player with its Lumileds products, has made several acquisitions. They bought LED lighting companies Color Kinetics and TIR systems. They also acquired the giant lighting manufacturer Genlyte, making Philips the largest lighting supplier in the United States. Some Genlyte subsidiaries, such as Lightolier, focused on LED lighting. Philips clearly sees that LEDs are future of lighting, and fully expects to cannibalize its existing dominant lighting business in the inevitable shift to solid state.
On the government side, we've seen the L-prize. This kind of constructive incentive certainly can't hurt. The DOE (Department of Energy) seems to be doing some good work to develop standards which will enable lighting manufacturers to make verifiably accurate claims about their products, and allow consumers to know what they're getting.
On the downside, george bush's EPA seems to be throwing a wrench into the process by issuing poorly conceived, contradictory standards. Apparently, since they refuse to do anything to protect us from ever increasing carbon emissions changing the climate and jeopardizing the continuatino of human life on Earth, they have the necessary resources to screw up work being done by other agencies:
LEDs Magazine, June 6, 2008
Sources who have been intimately involved in the development of the DOE's Energy Star program for SSL indicate that the EPA document both replicates and contradicts much of the work that has been put in place by DOE. If EPA goes ahead, effectively creating two sets of criteria covering the same products, there is huge potential for confusion in the market place.
DOE runs a highly successful Solid State Lighting program and developed its Energy Star criteria after extensive public consultation with, and feedback from, industrial partners and other interested parties ? see Energy Star for SSL gets energetic start. However, EPA seems to have skipped most or all of this consultation phase in a rush to grab a stake in the SSL market. There is no clear reason why they have decided to do this.
Our initial studies of the EPA criteria suggest that they would allow rapid qualification of many low-performing LED-based products, which is certainly not the case with the DOE criteria. There is considerable risk of damage to customer confidence in SSL technology and products, not to mention potential harm to the Energy Star brand.
Heckuva job EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson, former Director of Operations at Hazelton Laboratories Corporation. Do nothing about carbon emissions. I'm sure you'll be fascinated to watch the effects of climate change as we experience them. It's be like a big experiment. And all of us will be the research animals.
Fortunately, it seems Congress may be on to these and other shenanigans going on at the EPA, and there are calls for Director Stephen L. Johnson to resign. LEDs Magazine said "There is no clear reason why they have decided to do this." But that is a charitable assessment. Whether it's sheer incompetence or malicious intent, SIGN HERE: Tell EPA Administrator Johnson: "You're Dismissed!" and tell your congresspersons you care about this.
Ugh, let's try to chase that distasteful digression away with some optimism. LED's are poised to revolutionize lighting. They contain no mercury, and can be expected to continuously get better and cheaper for many years to come. They can last many times longer than the alternatives, justifying a higher upfront cost, and they will produce higher energy efficiency, too. If my predictions holds up, in another 18 months, you'll be ready to replace the lighting in your home at an affordable price. |
