backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by R0B0Ninja.. on Jul 27 at 5:56 AM

New competitor may enter the lighting fray thanks to new research

The future of LED lighting is looking bright.  Endorsed by a $20M USD U.S. Department of Energy "L Prize", commercial powers and startups alike are eying LED lighting as a replacement for the decrepit incandescent light bulb technology, which is only 10 percent efficient and has remained almost unchanged for over half a century.  Recent breakthroughs, which may allow LEDs of all kinds to be processed on silicon wafers, may help to bring down costs.

One player that remained largely unconsidered in the LED v. fluorescent/incandescent battle was LED's organic brethren: OLEDs.  OLEDs have many advantages over LEDs -- the ability to flex, improved color, and the potential to be manufactured by cheaper organic ink printing processes.  However, they also have a couple key disadvantages.  One, lifetime, has been steadily chipped away, and with the first generation of OLED TV displays, the problem has become almost a nonissue.  However, one key obstacle to OLED lighting remained -- brightness.

Typically with OLEDs, only 20 percent of the light generated by the device is emitted.  This makes there brightness inferior to LEDs, making them a poor choice for lighting.  However, in a significant breakthrough, researchers at the University of Michigan and Princeton University have developed an OLED/microlense combination material that boosts illumination by over 60 percent, bringing it into the realm of respectability.

The research was led by Stephen Forrest, a professor of electrical engineering and physics at Michigan, and Yuri Sun, from Princeton University.  The pair observed that in OLEDs light is generated by applying electricity to a thin organic layer, analogous to the semiconductor in an LED.  However in OLEDs the material character internally reflects the light, forcing it to run parallel, instead of perpendicularly out of the bulb.

To get the light to come out, researchers first use an organic grid meshed into the material.  The light is guided by this grid to 5 micrometer domed microlenses, which focus it and project it out as rays. 

The results are respectable.  The researchers reported that the device produced 70 lumens per watt, compared with 15 lumens per watt for incandescent lighting, and 90 lumens per watt for fluorescent lighting.  While it might seem that fluorescent beats the new OLEDs, fluorescent has other problems -- harsh light, less longevity, and the use of environment-damaging substances like mercury.

The team plans to next scale the technology to more efficient OLED designs.  They are confident the process can be affordably adopted for mass commercial production.

The DOE is curious about the new technology, seeing as a way to possibly more affordably reach its LED adoption goals.  If LEDs are widely adopted, according to the DOE, U.S. energy consumption for lighting could be cut to a third of current levels, resulting in a 10 percent total reduction in power use and a  258 million metric ton reduction in carbon emissions.

As both LED and OLED technologies are rapidly advancing in terms of production and efficiencies, it remains to be seen which will ultimately prove themselves the eventual victor via performance and cost.  However, in Professor Forrest's eyes, the future of OLEDs has never looked better.  He is confident that OLEDs will thrive, and that his team's breakthrough will aid in that success.  He states optimistically, "Luckily, OLEDs are the light that just keeps giving.  There is so much to be done and so much that's been done, but this is nonetheless a quite exciting advancement."

The team's research will be reported in the August issue of the journal Nature Photonics.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Slowly stepping in the right direction
By wordsworm on 7/24/2008 9:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If LEDs are widely adopted, according to the DOE, U.S. energy consumption for lighting could be cut to a third of current levels, resulting in a 10 percent total reduction in power use and a 258 million metric ton reduction in carbon emissions.


I think they're missing the fact that the heat that conventional lighting has to be compensated for by airconditioning on warm days. In the winter, of course, that extra electricity spent gets used since you need the heat anyways. So, the amount of reductions are likely under-estimated.

The real trick to this is for Canada/USA, et al, to ban incandescent lighting altogether, as has Australia, Cuba, Brazil, etc.




RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 10:16:42 AM , Rating: 1
> "So, the amount of reductions are likely under-estimated."

It essentially balances out, except in very hot climates. In cold weather, incandescent lights provide free heat with the "wasted" electricity not generating light, meaning the cost is actually drastically overestimated. In warm weather, it's underestimated.


By AnnihilatorX on 7/24/2008 11:04:33 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt there is significant over or under estimation if any.

A 100W incadscent lamp is the power output of 1/15-1/30 of a conventional heater. Human is too insensitive to such a small effect on temperature and he/she would have turned on the aircon/heater regardless whether be that an incadescent lamp or a super energy efficient lamp is in the room since the room temperature.

The over/under estimation occurs when the airconditioner or heater has automatic temperature stablising control.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By wordsworm on 7/24/2008 12:13:40 PM , Rating: 1
How do you mean it balances out? Nothing balances out. In the winter it balances since it gives off some heat which assists the heating elements throughout the house, but in the summer the AC has to fight the lighting. That's not balancing out. It means you waste energy 2x in the summer, but you don't waste energy in the winter. Using your words, it balances out in the winter. However, in the summer it adds to your energy costs. So, unless you live somewhere where it's always cold, there is no balancing of energy.

Look, truth is that I like incandescent better. The warm glow sure beats the LEDs or OLEDs that I've seen. However, I've gone over to fluorescent and LED simply for economic reasons.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By adiposity on 7/24/2008 12:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think what he means is, if you DON'T have the incandescent lighting, you have to cool in the summer, and heat in the winter. If you DO have it, you have to cool 2X in the summer, but not heat in the winter. So it "balances" in that the same amount of energy is used either way.

Obviously it's an oversimplification, but try this:

Incandescent Lighting:
Winter: 0 units of energy used for heating
Summer: 2 units of energy used for cooling
------------------------------
= 2 total units

LED Lighting:
Winter: 1 unit of energy used for heating
Summer: 1 units of energy used for cooling
------------------------------
= 2 total units

Since 2 = 2, whether you use a light that heats or not, it balances out to about the same amount of energy. Obviously, if you have shorter winters, or warmer winters, it doesn't balance. Basically, given the right climate, any additional energy you waste to cool in the summer (due to lighting) should be offest by energy you save in the winter (due to lighting).

Dan


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By wordsworm on 7/24/2008 4:29:08 PM , Rating: 4
I know what he means. The problem is that the balance only works in the winter. So, let's try your math again.

INCANDESCENT (100 watts of heat generated by incandescent lights in the house)
winter
heater 900 watts
lights 100 watts of heat
----------------
= 1,000 watts

summer
lights 100 watts of heat
AC 1,100 watts of cooling (to compensate for the lights)
-------
= 1,200 watts

PERFECT LIGHTS (hypothetical no heat generating lights)
winter
heater 1,000 watts
lights 0 watts
-----
= 1,000 watts

summer
AC 1,000 watts
lights 0 watts
-----
= 1,000 watts

That's the correct way to simplify things. There is no 'balance' except in winter. Every summer you'll be wasting electricity in order to cool off the amount of heat energy generated by the lights. Of course, this is an oversimplification. I doubt heartily that it takes 100 watts of electricity to cool off 100 watts of heat. Nothing ever works that well. Surely it would take a lot more energy than that. However, as I said before, and in terms that are simpler, there's no balancing of energy trade off throughout a given year. Only in winter will the heat from the lights actually reduce the energy required by a heating device. This is, of course, based on 100 watts of lighting energy. Surely most people who use incandescent lights have more than 100 watts of lighting in their house.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By ZmaxDP on 7/24/2008 7:08:49 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, air conditioning isn't a closed system either if you're using a typical compressor. So, it can actually take less energy in the summer to offset the heat of the lights than what the lights emit. So, if your lights put out 100W of energy converted to heat, your AC compressor can move that heat outside and replace it with cool air at a cost of maybe 30 to 40 Watts.

Your argument still stands though as it would take more than 4 times as much energy to generate the same amount of heat from incandescent lighting as it would to generate that heat with a heat pump. So, while the AC is more efficient in removing heat from the house than the light is at generating it, the heat pump is also more efficient at heating the house in the winter.

Of course, if you're using natural gas in the winter then all bets are off...


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By fic2 on 7/24/2008 7:21:44 PM , Rating: 3
There is also the fact that there is a lot of lighting in rooms that are always air conditioned - server rooms (hopefully with occupancy sensors), chillers in stores for food/wine/beer, etc. These systems are always fighting the heat given off by the lighting system.


By DragonMaster0 on 7/24/2008 7:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
But server rooms use HID lamps, much more efficient than CCFLs.


By adiposity on 7/25/2008 4:30:28 PM , Rating: 3
This is correct. However, it "balances" in the sense that the only cost incurred is that of the power of running the lights. The amount of energy used to run the heater balances in a perfect efficiency cooling situation.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By JonnyDough on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By wordsworm on 7/25/2008 8:14:20 AM , Rating: 2
That light gets emitted in two basic waveforms: infrared and the spectrum that our eyes perceive. The purpose of a light should be to light up a room, not heat and light up a room. In the winter, there's no wasted energy, so afaik, if you're in the Antarctic where it's perpetually cold, you're just as efficient using one or the other in terms of electricity being spent. In the summer, the electricity is wasted two fold. That's my beef with them. Of course you wouldn't use lights to heat up a room. That's a consequence of using lights - greater for some forms than others. If I'm wrong on any count, maybe there's an inbetween spectrum where barely visible and barely warm burns up a lot of electricity that I don't know about.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By JonnyDough on 7/26/2008 2:45:28 PM , Rating: 1
Do some research on heating elements and coils. Apparently you're confused again there Mr. English teacher.


By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 12:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
No need to call me "Mr." My students call me by my first name followed by 'teacher' if they use my name at all. Usually it's just 'teacher.' Also, I'll be retiring for about 6 months in about 2 months.

In any case, most of the physics is beyond a simple glance for me. I tried to find a paper that would show me exactly the thermal differences between a 100 watt light bulb and a 10 watt LED with a 90 watt coil heater, and this is what I've come up with.

An incandescent light bulb is essentially a coil heater which heats up to several thousands of degrees Celsius, causing the filament to emit white light. The production of light is about 5% of the electricity, and the production of infrared, or heat, works out to about 95%. In any case, it's your turn to do a little reading. So, in summation, your 100 watt light bulb is 95% coil heater, and 5% light energy.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By Generic Guy on 7/24/2008 10:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The real trick to this is for Canada/USA, et al, to ban incandescent lighting altogether...


Congress did effectively ban incandescent bulbs with last year's energy bill. More like, they set efficiency standards which regular filament bulbs can't meet. Of course the cutoff date is in 2012 to hopefully provide time for substitutes to be found.


By StevoLincolnite on 7/24/2008 1:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
The Australian Government are doing a slow phasing out of the "Traditional" Light bulb.

Plus Electric Hot Water Systems will be banned from being installed in South Australia, and any new houses bought after the end of this month, have to have an Alternative Hot Water System that is not electric.


By Oregonian2 on 7/24/2008 7:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sure hope the light bulb in our oven doesn't burn out.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By markitect on 7/24/2008 11:12:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The real trick to this is for Canada/USA, et al, to ban incandescent lighting altogether, as has Australia, Cuba, Brazil, etc.


The real trick is to make an alternative that doesn't give you a headache, current CF bulbs output horribly obnoxious light so at the moment I refuse to switch.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By JonnyDough on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
By taropie on 7/25/2008 3:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well, then get some CF bulbs from ikea. 3 for $3.99. Pretty value for money for me even if it gives way after awhile.


By sprockkets on 7/26/2008 11:42:24 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, the first CFL's that came out from Lights of America and Phillips were around $18 each. Yet, even after 7 years, they still work, and show no signs of dying. Those new ones? Lucky to last over a year.

Just goes to show you, if you commoditize something and make them all in China for cheap labor, quality goes way downhill. Not saying China can't make good stuff.

That and those CFL's have Mercury in them. Does anyone recycle them? No. Save energy but with more mercury in our landfills. Perfect.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By Grast on 7/24/2008 11:48:20 AM , Rating: 1
Word,

I have a better idea. The real trick is to ensure the U.S. government DOES NOT ban ANYTHING. If a better light whether from LED or another technology is created and economical to use, the free market will expedite its entrance into the economy.

The idea that my government telling me what product that I can buy and use is repugnant. This is especially offensive when concerning products and services which are NOT a threat to public safety. This is by the way the only realm in which the government has the right via legislation to limit my rights; Public Safty.

Your statement goes against the very spirit of what this country was founded on. The government has NO right to tell me what, when, how, or where I buy any of my products.

Lets look at your examples.

1. Australia (Love the people) but Socialist - No thanks
2. Cuba (Are you kidding) Communist/Socialist - No thanks
3. Brazil - Socialist - No Thanks

Later.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By wordsworm on 7/24/2008 12:26:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The idea that my government telling me what product that I can buy and use is repugnant.


Go buy yourself a Cuban cigar and tell me about it. Then stuff it full of marijuana and we can continue the conversation. When you get sick, even if you know what's making you sick and you know the medication you need to keep or regain your health, you *still* have to fork over mad cash to some ignorant white coat so that he can append his name to a slip of paper. You don't live in a free country. You're not free to buy anything you want. Freedom is a relative term that applies only to countries whose governments spend enough money convincing its people that it's free. The whole notion of freedom is one of those things that seems easily touted about by many, yet understood by few if any.

Cuba, Brazil, and Australia all passed these laws for the same reason: to conserve the environment. Damaging the environment is a threat to public safety. By reducing the amount of energy resources required for the public, the entire public is served. By banning fluorescent lighting, those three governments that I listed are doing a service to their people.

When even countries like Cuba understand the need for conservation, and have the political will to do something beneficial for both its people and for the common environment that it shares with the world, I feel humiliated that my own bushwhacked nation cannot find the will to do the same.

Now, we can argue all that garbage all day or it can be conceded that I have no problem with the government enforcing an act that helps repel an energy crisis and you have no problem letting individuals choose who gets to abuse the environment and who doesn't.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By Grast on 7/24/2008 6:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cuba, Brazil, and Australia all passed these laws for the same reason: to conserve the environment. Damaging the environment is a threat to public safety. By reducing the amount of energy resources required for the public, the entire public is served. By banning fluorescent lighting, those three governments that I listed are doing a service to their people.


Let's see here using an incandecent bulb is harming the environment and a threat to public safety. The summation only applied IF you believe in MAN made Global Warming.

I would take the opposite opinion. The banning of incandecent light bulbes and forcing people to use flourence is the threat. How many tons of mercury being injected into the environment do you need before it starts to be a bad idea. Incandecent bulbs may be ineffecient. However other than a bunch of glass and carbon, they are harmless and perform the function. The only issue is their ineffecient use of electricity.

I would combat that issue by building powerful, cheap and effecient nuclear reactors to generate the power. I would combine that with high voltage DC transmission in order to place the reactor away from population centers. I do not want anyone from crying NIBY (Not in my Backyard).

Solar and Wind are pipe dreams being pushed by people who do understand the scope of the issue. The solution is NOT adopting expensive stop gap solutions which do not begin to solve the problem. The solution is to build an infrastrcutor which provides large quantities of cheap electricity.

Once that solution is in place, electric cars, electric heating and replacement of most fossil fuels is reachable.

But since you are using CUBA as an example of what is right in the world, I guess our two points of few are too far apart to comprimise. If CUBA is the beacon of the world, WHY DO THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR RISK THEIR LIVES TRYING TO COME INTO THIS COUNTRY?

Later..


By wordsworm on 7/24/2008 10:49:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Solar and Wind are pipe dreams being pushed by people who do understand the scope of the issue.


Nuclear power is pushed by people who disregard the risk to life that comes with it. Solar and wind are downplayed by people who do not understand the magnitude of power that could be generated simply by using rooftops.

quote:
But since you are using CUBA as an example of what is right in the world, I guess our two points of few are too far apart to comprimise. If CUBA is the beacon of the world, WHY DO THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR RISK THEIR LIVES TRYING TO COME INTO THIS COUNTRY?


Cuba is a great example. It's not perfect, no country is. Cuba has been a stellar example of what happens when a country tries to take back its independence. Despite the difficulties that the US has caused Cuba, it has nonetheless become a fiercely independent nation which has been a backbone to the international communist community through its medical abilities. The funny thing about Castro is that the folks old enough to remember what Cuba was like when the US owned it still think of Castro as someone who saved the nation. The younger ones who cannot remember are often the ones who think he is/was a bad leader. I just wish my own country would have the courage to act more like an independent nation rather than just a territory to the US.

For all the people risking their lives to go to the US - a lot of them have a dream of living in a more modern community with more money. The US seems to offer that. Unfortunately, a lot of them end up facing a different lot of problems - gangs, prisons, crime, discrimination, and poverty await.

As far as mercury being a problem - it's only a problem if people dispose of the lights irresponsibly. If they're recycled, the mercury can be used again.

As far as man-made global warming is concerned, the people who 'don't believe in it' are always wont to point out how man is causing global cooling while saying that anthropogenic global warming is impossible. This just shows that they just don't want to change their way of life in any way that might make them do something, like get off of their chair to head over to the market at buy something that costs $10 more than they're used to, or sacrifice HP to get better gas mileage.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By StevoLincolnite on 7/24/2008 1:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yes Australia is a "Socialist Democracy" - But what happens if the Government does something we don't like? - We vote them out, and let the next guy come in and hopefully do a better job. (Like Johnny Howard with the stupid Industry Relations and then got stomped by Kevin Rudd in a land slide victory).

Generally they DO a good job, They are saving our land in the long run, Ever been somewhere where Pollution has wiped out a vast land/sea area? What most people don't realize is that sometimes "Micro-Environments" are also wiped out, which is where rare organisms survive.
Plus The Earth is our Backyard, I don't think it would be nice to let our children run around in pollution.

Plus you are missing one important factor of Banning the Items, If they are BANNED, then companies will automatically fight over and make massive headway with R&D to grab themselves a large piece of the newly found pie, thus we get results faster.
If this was not done, the Average Joe would only buy the cheapest light-bulb they can find, which in the end, the Average Joe is the majority of the market, thus research into highly energy saving technology's would probably become fairly stagnant as they are not getting the required funds as fast from sales.
Plus the prices on Energy Efficient Light Bulbs would be still remaining relatively high.

So sometimes (like in this case) It might do more good than harm to do what you are "Told", in order to better the environment, your pocket and make everyone happy.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By Grast on 7/24/2008 6:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
Steve,

My main point is that people are clamering to have the traditional incandecent bulb banned. The only replacement is flourecent bulbs. I find flourecent bulbs to be a greater threat to the environment than incandencent. The amount of mercury in each one may seem small but an entire country useing in my mind is a nightmare.

How many of these users dispose of the bulbs correctly? Did Australia in response to the bad start a massive recycling program? Is the recycling program effective? Is the recycling program availalble in all areas? Is the government tracking the effects of mercury in the land fills?

In my world, a ineffecient technology which had little effect on the environment except for energy usage is swapped for a technology with dangerous environment issues if disposed improperly.

later....


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By Oregonian2 on 7/24/2008 7:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
The other thing about fluorescent bulbs is that a 40-watt one can cost about $1~2 or so (as well as fixtures for them being very inexpensive and common). So the question is whether OLED's can produce the same amount of light for the same price (or better than that to make them the better deal).

There also is the matter of the Sony OLED TV reports of it's screen not lasting anywhere near as long as spec'd (and the spec not that long either -- although it may be okay if it meets the $1~2 light-source equivalence I suggest above).


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By Zoomer on 7/24/2008 7:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
Where can I find a 40 watt CCFL for $1-2? That would put out, what, 4000 lumens of light?


By Oregonian2 on 7/25/2008 8:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
They go on sale for about that price from time to time. Sometimes you may need to buy a dozen-pack or maybe a half-dozen pack. If you go to Home Depot and go for the cheapie-style with just their normal prices and get a name brand tube, it's about $3 (I got one a month or two ago for our laundry room where the color spectrum was okay with that "lovely" cool white color). However businesses who go out and buy a few hundred at a time for ceilings probably get them for nearly nothing. :-)


By StevoLincolnite on 7/25/2008 3:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
Actually that's not the only Alternative to lighting.

1) Compact Fluorescent Bulbs. (Contains mercury) and last from 8-15 times longer than the traditional bulb, plus save a large amount of electricity.

2) LED Lighting - Expensive, and not mature enough.

3) Fluorescent lamp, Like the first which I use personally in my home. - Contains mercury.

4)Neon Lamp - Probably worth companies looking into.

5) Halogen - Not sure about it's power requirements though.

As for recycling, I wouldn't know of any such "Services" as I live in a Rural part of Australia, it might be a different story in the cities though.

But realistically, Mercury may have other uses in the real world, and I think that recycling would be an awesome idea.
However the bulbs themselves do save the environment in the long run, and do last allot longer, and do save -us- the consumer money.


RE: Slowly stepping in the right direction
By adiposity on 7/24/2008 4:25:52 PM , Rating: 3
The real trick is to ensure the U.S. government DOES NOT ban ANYTHING.

1. murder
2. Underage sex
3. Prostitution (ok, states are doing that)
4. drugs
5. speeding

WooT

If the government can stop people from doing the above things, why can it not stop them from doing things that (theoretically) damage the environment? There must be some things that should be allowed to be banned. Like giant bonfires to keep warm might not be the best thing to allow in people's backyards.

Dan


By wordsworm on 7/24/2008 10:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
You put that so much better than I did.


By DragonMaster0 on 7/24/2008 8:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
has to be compensated

Do you need to have an A/C in the first place ?

quote:
In the winter, of course, that extra electricity spent gets used since you need the heat anyways.

Not unless you have an heat pump, it's more efficient (over -20°C) than electric heating. (*A compressor exchanges energy, it doesn't produce it*)
In my case it's useful as I heat using oil, turning on the lights is cheaper.

As for one of the comments below, a light bulb may be 1/15th of a electric heater, but forgetting a 100W bulb on is able to rise room temperature a few degrees higher in summer.

I read somewhere that incandescent lights can make up 50% of your A/C costs.

Simply put, use CCFLs during the summer, and incandescents during winter.


Some errors
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 9:25:22 AM , Rating: 5
> ."..the decrepit incandescent light bulb technology, which is only 10 percent efficient"

Good luck finding an incandescent bulb that is 10% efficient. Normal ones range from 1-3%. There are some ultra-high temp variants that can hit 5%...but these see almost no use.

> "Typically with OLEDs, only 20 percent of the light is generated by the device. "

Eh? What generates the other 80% then? I think you mean "only 20% of the generated light is actually useable".




RE: Some errors
By pomaikai on 7/24/2008 10:22:24 AM , Rating: 3
in winter incandescents are 100% efficient in a house. The little heat generated helps the heater keep the house warm.


RE: Some errors
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 10:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
100% efficient? No...not unless you're using nothing but space heaters. An electric heat pump generates substantially more heat than it uses. For instance, a SEER 16 heat pump generates about 4 times as much heat as energy it consumes.


RE: Some errors
By twhittet on 7/24/2008 11:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
4 times as much heat as energy it consumes - wouldn't that be 400% efficient? Last time I checked the laws of physics still applied to light and heat.


RE: Some errors
By martinrichards23 on 7/24/2008 11:41:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
4 times as much heat as energy it consumes - wouldn't that be 400% efficient? Last time I checked the laws of physics still applied to light and heat.


Masher is correct, go and look up what a heat pump is.

Clue; What generate heat energy when you can more efficiently take it from outside.


RE: Some errors
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 11:48:52 AM , Rating: 2
The laws of physics (specifically mass/energy conservation) apply to a closed system. A heat pump operates by using the supplied energy (electricity) to transfer heat energy from outside to inside. The total energy of the "system" (outdoors+indoors) is still conserved, but the amount of heat energy added to the indoor half of the system is much more than the energy consumed by the compressor.


RE: Some errors
By twhittet on 7/24/2008 2:55:44 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, a closed system, as in electricity into the house, heat and light out. Light+heat generated in wintertime=100% efficient, as pomaikai had stated. Of course it could be used in better ways (heat pump), and heating a ceiling usually isn't as useful as heating a floor. Incandescent floor tiles anyone?


RE: Some errors
By Zoomer on 7/24/2008 8:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think most people would be more concerned about it being cost efficient, rather than just efficient.


RE: Some errors
By hellokeith on 7/24/2008 6:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
Stay far far away from heat pumps. Terrible idea. I'd rather have something that actually works all the time.


RE: Some errors
By martinrichards23 on 7/24/2008 11:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
in winter incandescents are 100% efficient in a house. The little heat generated helps the heater keep the house warm.


And in the summer you have to have extra air conditioning to remove the wasted heat, wasting yet more energy.


RE: Some errors
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/24/2008 10:30:40 AM , Rating: 4
The second quote is fixed. Only 20 percent of the generated light of standard OLEDs is typically emitted as it gets trapped in the material via internal reflections. This makes traditional designs rather useless for lighting.

As to:
quote:
..the decrepit incandescent light bulb technology, which is only 10 percent efficient"


I'm referring to heat to light efficiency. In a lightbulb approximately 10 percent of energy is converted into light, with 90 percent being lost by heat. This is one measure of efficiency.

Source:
Incandescent Lamps publication TP-110, General Electric, Nela Park, 1964 , page 23 (table)

I assume you are referring to lumen efficiency. The term "efficiency" is ambiguous, but I prefer the heat to light efficiency though for discussions of LEDs versus incandescent as their lower heat losses are one of several primary benefits of LEDs.


RE: Some errors
By aBott on 7/24/2008 10:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only 20 percent of the generated light of standard OLEDs is typically emitted as it gets trapped in the material via internal reflections.


So 80% of that light is released as heat?


RE: Some errors
By Denithor on 7/24/2008 4:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
Another error in the article:

quote:
The pair observed that in OLEDs electricity in generated by applying electricity to a thin organic layer, analogous to the semiconductor in an LED.


I'm guessing you meant "light is" ?


Dimmers?
By Homerboy on 7/24/2008 11:19:23 AM , Rating: 2
I currently use CFLs everywhere in my house that I can. However, I have about 4 dimmers in my house that are regularly used. CFLs, LEDs, OLEDs will not work in these.

Also the size/shape etc of these energy efficient bulbs needs to start using them in all locations like ceiling fans, under counter lighting etc etc.




RE: Dimmers?
By martinrichards23 on 7/24/2008 11:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
Well at least LEDs and OLEDs will be small.


RE: Dimmers?
By ironsavior on 7/24/2008 2:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that problem has been solved by one of my Electrical Engineering Profs at my (McMaster) University. He is currently making a killing in the Toronto area, as all of the new buildings are installing the technology in all the new buildings that are being built, so it's not even one of those things that needs to be further refined for the price to come down, as it already allows customers to break-even very quickly (assuming they actually need dimmers, of course).


RE: Dimmers?
By stlrenegade on 7/25/2008 11:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
They now make CFLs that dim.


By AnnihilatorX on 7/24/2008 10:15:43 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
258 million metric ton reduction in carbon emissions.


When reports writes so much weight of carbon emission is reduced, do they mean the weight of raw carbon element or the weight of carbon dioxide?




By martinrichards23 on 7/24/2008 11:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
CO2


??
By shiner on 7/24/2008 9:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
While it might seem that fluorescent beats the new OLEDs, fluorescent has other problems -- harsh light, less longevity, and the use of environment-damaging substances like.

Like?




RE: ??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/24/2008 9:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
mercury


By someguy743 on 7/24/2008 10:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
I just want them to hurry up and get these OLED and LED bulbs on the market. Get those big factories built so that the prices will start coming down. Wal Mart and Home Depot will probably sell them just as soon as they become available. Wal Mart stores already have huge aisles just for light bulbs. People will try them out if you put them on the market.

If the quality of the OLED (or LED) light is really good but not as bright as you'd like, I bet people will simply buy more lamps to get the desired amount of light in a room. You'd still be saving money even if you have to use more lamps.

Even if OLED lit rooms will be more expensive, I bet a bunch of people will buy them because of the QUALITY of the light, the energy savings overall, and the fact that it'll help out the environment by keeping the electric utilities from using current coal plants and building more coal plants. We need to START rolling out these new LED and OLED lights as soon as possible.




By AnnihilatorX on 7/24/2008 10:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather like the idea of dim OLED being used as wallpapers


another one
By louzamos on 7/24/2008 9:41:18 AM , Rating: 3
Typically with OLEDs, only 20 percent of the light is generated by the device. This makes there brightness inferior to LEDs, ...

it may sound the same, but it really isn't.




WOW!!!
By JonnyDough on 7/24/2008 9:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This makes there brightness inferior to LEDs


EDUCATION MUCH? Dude, you misspelled "TARGETING" with two T's just yesterday. Are you EVER going to graduate from high school?

Just so you know...

their = belonging to them
they're = they are
there = place

It's really not that hard. It REALLY shouldn't be hard for someone who is POSTING ON A PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE.

Just because DT kicked you down to the BLOG, doesn't mean you can get away with massive spelling errors. Please, graduate already!




What is the optimal efficiency
By R0B0Ninja on 7/27/2008 5:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
The article doesn't state what the maximum efficiency is in therms of lumens/watts.

If OLEDs efficiency are 60% (IE. 60% of the electrical energy gets transformed into visible light) , how can they produce less lumens/watt then fluorescent lamps (which I think have a efficiency at about 25%)?





Government prize? What a concept.
By mdogs444 on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Government prize? What a concept.
By therealnickdanger on 7/24/2008 9:29:11 AM , Rating: 4
mdogs... If you're trying to accuse Obama of hypocrisy, that's easy enough to do. What exactly are you wanting Mr. Mick to do? Apologize for the DNC? Any comments he has on the issue won't change the Obama campaign or anything in your day to day life. Stop trying to stir the pot...

Well, it's already been stirred, I guess.


RE: Government prize? What a concept.
By mdogs444 on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
By therealnickdanger on 7/24/2008 10:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
I suppose that would make for a great blog someday.

So... newayz... LEDs are neat!


By Thinkaboutit on 7/24/2008 10:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
MDOG,
This prize was appointed by DOE and the DOE is selected by the president. Not seeing the connection with Democrats, Obama and the “L Prize”. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.


RE: Government prize? What a concept.
By retrospooty on 7/24/2008 9:44:30 AM , Rating: 5
You know Mdogs, Not everything is politically motivated, and not everything is the fault of the dems... you have a way of turning any post on any subject into a liberal/democrat bashing session. this is about brighter LED's FFS!!!


RE: Government prize? What a concept.
By mdogs444 on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
By retrospooty on 7/24/2008 10:00:00 AM , Rating: 5
Nice try... but lets be real here. You arent really soliciting anyone's opinion on anything as much as you are doing your typical liberal bashing are you?

I don't expect you to honestly answer that question (I expect you to sidescate it like a good conservative FUD'er), but the answer is obvious to any regular visitor to AT/DT.


RE: Government prize? What a concept.
By andyjary on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
By retrospooty on 7/24/2008 7:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
Nice post, and totally agreed... (I am part of the 51% of America that doesnt vote republican). Too bad your post is wasted... Part of being neo-con is ignoring all logic and degrading anything or anyone that makes a point against you as "liberal" or "foreigner"... I am sure he's got plenty "whyte pryde" (heavy hic accent) though !1


RE: Government prize? What a concept.
By on 7/24/2008 10:31:04 AM , Rating: 1
Obama, McCain, we're scr*wed either way. From Matt Taibbi's book, "The Great Derangement."

"But after spending a great deal of time on the Hill, I began to develop a theory about American politics as a kind of closed loop of inside players, an oligarchy of commercial interests who ran Washington in conjunction with their hired hands in Congress as a closed shop.

The lawmaking process had evolved over time in such a way that almost all of the important decisions could be made behind closed doors by a few key players in both houses, without debate or discussion and certainly without any real input from the voting public. I was amazed to see that Congress spent most of its daylight hours naming post offices and passing resolutions to honor sports teams, while the important stuff it did—like gut the Clean Air Act as an “emergency” response to Hurricane Katrina—it did in late-night meetings of mostly anonymous committees, out of the (at least potentially) prying eye of the press and the public.

A key point I took home from my examination of Congress was that both parties, Democratic and Republican, were equally guilty in what was a conspiracy to run the government without outside interference. The only way the public could protest all the handouts and earmarks and fast-tracked tax breaks and other monstrosities was to vote for the other party—and the other party, it turned out, was inevitably whoring for the same moneyed masters.

Excepting a few rogue, quixotic members who eschewed the usual campaign donors, Congress was mostly a highly advanced, finely tuned mechanism for turning favors into campaign donations and vice versa. It was a system of formalized political tribute not at all unlike that of the old Supreme Soviet, where the daylight hours were occupied with “political debates” about how the USSR could best aid socialist friends in Mozambique or confront American racism in the South, while behind closed doors fat, bloated party functionaries conducted the real business of divvying up military contracts and highway concessions."


RE: Government prize? What a concept.
By Jellodyne on 7/24/2008 1:18:02 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, dems are bad, republicans are bad, sure. Common sense. But to say their same really downplays the level that the current guys have achieved. I refuse to believe that if Gore or whoever was in charge that the contry would be just as screwed up as it is now. Now this is a partisan statement, but I would lump quite a few republicans in with that 'whoever' as well -- Bob Dole and John McCain among them. Not all republicans are cheating, manipulative, self serving, evil repugnant liars more loyal to big oil and the military industrial complex instead of the American people, but there's a lot of guys hanging around the White House that fit that bill these days.


By andyjary on 7/24/2008 4:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well, to the rest of the world (and this guy) it seems to be the truth - shame on the lot of them!

Free country, eh?


By retrospooty on 7/24/2008 4:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
"Obama, McCain, we're scr*wed either way. "

I disagree entirely... Both of them are infinitely better than our current blunder in chief.


RE: Government prize? What a concept.
By Spivonious on 7/24/2008 10:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
The car companies don't need a government subsidy to develop higher-mpg cars. They already are based on the most powerful thing in the world: market demand.


RE: Government prize? What a concept.
By andrinoaa on 7/24/2008 8:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
The point most people would make is that some forsight could have made it less painfull. Thats what governments are for. When I see the blind faith americans have in their governments, I shudder in their naivety and enthusiasm for the status quo. Thats what happens when politicians are bought. And the US pollies are the highest paid!


By Spivonious on 7/25/2008 11:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
Governments exist to serve the people, not to help out people who were too stupid to see that gas prices were only going up the past 25 years and still bought that 12mpg truck to drive their 2 year-old around in.


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki