backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jul 3 at 5:26 PM


LED lightbulbs are already available on the market, such as the one shown here (manufactured by the C. Crane Company, available from discoverpower.com) which retails for $34.95 and lasts ten years. DiscoverPower advertises that you can run it 12 hours a day for a cost of 80 cents a year.  (Source: DiscoverPower.com)
New work blazes the trail for LED lighting to take a place in the consumer market

DailyTech has been following the field of solid state lighting.  Solid-state lighting, or using LEDs instead of traditional filament incandescent or fluorescent tube designs, promises long bulb lives, energy savings, and monetary savings thanks to the lower power consumption.  The light bulb, largely unchanged for decades, is finally on the verge of evolving.

Leading the way in the lighting renaissance is the U.S. Department of Energy, which announced millions in prizes in its new "L Prize" competition for solid state lighting.  Its programs also encompassed working with standards organizations to develop certifications and standards for the new devices.

Now researchers with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) working with experts worldwide have delivered two key standards.  These standards will help legitimize the form of lighting in the commercial industry.  The more recent of the two was completed last month.  The new standards dictate color specifications of LED lamps and LED light fixtures and testing methods for determination of total light output, energy consumption and chromaticity, or color quality.

NIST scientist Yoshi Ohno, who chairs the groups that developed the standards, explains how a little solid state lighting will go a long way, stating, "Lighting uses 22 percent of the electricity and 8 percent of the total energy spent in the country, so the energy savings in lighting will have a huge impact."

The new solid state designs will be twice as efficient as the touted fluorescent bulbs and ten times as efficient as incandescent bulbs.  To put it in perspective, current models can deliver 12 hours of light over an entire year for only 80 cents.  Further, they last ten years.  Over its lifetime, one bulb is advertised to provide consumer savings of over $370.  While most manufacturers are currently in the prototype phase, the technology is incredibly promising.

One additional benefit of LED lighting is color.  Solid state lights can produce a richer more full color than incandescent or fluorescent bulbs.  This can not only help with visibility, but has been shown to psychologically improve mood among many.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has partnered with NIST to achieve the goal of reducing energy consumption by lighting by 50 percent by 2025, by helping to establish LED lighting in the market.

The first standard was the work of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA).  The all-encompassing standard on testing details required environmental conditions, applicable test apparatus, methods of measurement, and how to stabilize and operate the lights during testing.

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) created the second standard C78.377-2008, which covers color standards.  It offers recommendations for color of cool to warm white LEDs with various correlated color temperatures.

This fall the Department of Energy (DOE) will begin certifying LED designs with its Energy Star certification.  This process will be assisted by the NIST-developed standards.  Says Ohno of the need for more standards and the new standards that work towards this end, "More standards are needed, and this will be the foundation for all solid-state lighting standard."

Ohno and other scientist are continuing to work hard on developing more standards.  They hope to soon release a standard on LED lifetime.  Further, they hope to develop an additional standard about performance measurements of high powered LED chips and arrays.



Comments     Threshold


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

A bit misleading
By arazok on 6/30/2008 11:44:08 AM , Rating: 3
What you don't tell the readers is that the pictured bulb only produces 60 lumen's of light. A 60W bulb is apx 800 lumen's. In other words, of $30.00 you get a bulb that can be used only as a pen light.

The http://www.ccrane.com/geobulb/index.aspx GeoBulb LED Light Bulb (also from from C. Crane) is 119.95 (!!!) and is an equivalent to a 60W bulb. It uses 8 watts. I can get a CFL to provide the same output using 15W.

You do NOT save money with these bulbs....yet. Give it 5-10 more years.




RE: A bit misleading
By Cogman on 6/30/2008 11:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
This is true. but considering how closely linked LEDs are to the computer manufacturing process, I don't think it is too far in the future. (2 years maybe) before these things become affordable. Eventually I see them becoming cheaper upfront then CFLs.


RE: A bit misleading
By daftrok on 7/1/2008 2:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
Lumens are a tricky business. The thing with incandescent and compact fluorescent light bulbs is that they aren't directional lighting, they glow. Here is a better option:

http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-light-bulbs/cc-vi...

Its meant to be pointed in one direction and 150 lumens is more than enough for ceiling lights.


RE: A bit misleading
By mindless1 on 7/3/2008 4:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
That linked light is not sufficient for lighting much, 150 lumens is not even close to enough for ceiling lights. Obviously you don't have one nor much experience implementing LED lighting.

Also, the price is ridiculously high for what it is. 30 typical LEDs should not cost remotely close to $30, let alone $40. A hobbyist could build such a light except for the glass-like housing for less than that.


RE: A bit misleading
By rudy on 7/1/2008 4:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
maybe but standards is a real issue.

CFLs are great cause they save money and do not have the flicker but they are expensive because they must have the base to work. What really needs to happen is for a CFL bulb only with no base standard to come forth where the base is in the socket as is the case with incadecent bulbs and you just screw or slip a florecent tube in and it runs at a high frequency to reduce flicker. Then CFLs would easily come down in price to near incadecent bulbs and there would be much less waste.


RE: A bit misleading
By rudy on 7/1/2008 4:19:01 PM , Rating: 3
I should also add hopefully they will be going toward that with LEDs, wouldn't it be much less wasteful if the individual LEDs could be replaced but the back electronics would be built into lights and sockets. This would also allow you to upgrade LEDs when more efficient versions come out.


RE: A bit misleading
By mindless1 on 7/3/2008 4:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually no, the cost of the driver circuit is negligable compared to the cost of enough LEDs to provide whole-room lighting. Modularizing individual LEDs or arrays would just increase cost over having the whole thing as integrated as possible.

A better idea for cost savings would be to do away with the whole incandescent screw bulb type design instead opting for panel lights that the AC wiring is directly connected to, allowing for a larger surface area to more effectively mount and keep an array of LEDs cool - decent LEDs not the weak products C.Crane is selling. You simply cannot light up a room sufficiently with a mere 10W worth of LEDs, not even 20W to the standards of most people already accustomed to enough light to make the comparitive average energy savings calculations true.


RE: A bit misleading
By UNHchabo on 6/30/2008 12:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
60 lumens is not a pen light. Surefire (my personal favorite flashlight company) makes 60 lumen flashlights that are bright enough to be used as "compliance" devices in law enforcement.

http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/...

Granted, I know that the perception of brightness is greatly affected by unidirectional vs omnidirectional light, but if I point my flashlight at the ceiling, I get enough light to read a book. 60 lumens would probably be too bright for a desk lamp, though.


RE: A bit misleading
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 12:34:40 PM , Rating: 3
> "60 lumens would probably be too bright for a desk lamp, though. "

I used to have 40-watt bulbs in my desklamps, which put out nearly ten times that (500 lumens). I replaced them as they were all too dim.


RE: A bit misleading
By danrien on 6/30/2008 2:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Granted, I know that the perception of brightness is greatly affected by unidirectional vs omnidirectional light, but if I point my flashlight at the ceiling, I get enough light to read a book. 60 lumens would probably be too bright for a desk lamp, though.


Right, so if you combine a few of these, you would get a comparably bright omnidirectional light. I know that in class I have worked with some incredibly bright LED's that can cause some "blind spots" in your vision for a few seconds by looking directly at them... however, their ability to spread that light can be fairly weak compared to conventional lights.

But I mean, who doesn't get bothered by Blue LED's?


RE: A bit misleading
By zsdersw on 7/1/2008 6:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I mean, who doesn't get bothered by Blue LED's?


It depends on the application. :) My car has them in the overhead console.. they shine down at night, giving a very cool blue color to the car's interior. It's ambient lighting.

Obviously, though, you wouldn't want to stare directly at it.


RE: A bit misleading
By mindless1 on 7/3/2008 4:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
Have you used proper die-on-star LEDs or only the little plastic encapsulated ones? They are both already binned for color so you don't have to have blueish cast to the LED, although the more blueish the tint the more total light is produced if all else were equal.

60 lumens isn't remotely close to enough light for a desk lamp. My LED bike light produces over 5 times that and it "might" be close to bright enough depending on the user/use.


RE: A bit misleading
By Cobra Commander on 6/30/2008 12:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
I would consider that very misleading, but I only speak for myself. Glad other brains are in the building to finish the story when necessary. Thanks.


RE: A bit misleading
By Souka on 6/30/2008 12:10:57 PM , Rating: 4
Another advantage of LED lights is the tolerance to being turned on/off.

Incandecent bulbs might be rated for 2000hrs life..but that typically a 24/7 burn time, or 12hr-on 12hr-off.

CFLs might claim to be longer lasting, but if you frequently turn the light on-off you'll experience a short life, not to mention the light color/intensity changes during warmup...

I look forward to LED lights...but will stick with incandecents for now (with a few CFLs on lights left on long durations)


RE: A bit misleading
By kmmatney on 6/30/2008 12:44:22 PM , Rating: 4
IMO, the CFLs have gotten a lot better. I now use them in places where they are contanstly being turned on and off (e.g. recessed lighting in the kitchen) and I haven't come across any lifetime issues with the current generations of CFLs. The only annoying thing is the warm-up time, so a do tend to mix in a few incandescants. I have several different brands of CFLs and some start up quicker than others.


RE: A bit misleading
By kattanna on 6/30/2008 1:20:07 PM , Rating: 3
we have replaced all lights in our place with CFL and enjoy them very much. and while others seem to have an issue with the not full intensity when you first turn them on, we have in fact liked that very aspect of them so in the moring, i get up in the dark, or at night when it is dark, you dont have that glaring suddenness of total light from darkness.


RE: A bit misleading
By PrinceGaz on 6/30/2008 1:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100% with you. I consider it a plus that with CFL bulbs you get a sort of dimmer-like startup increase in brightness rather than being dazzled first thing in the morning. If I were to switch to LED lighting, I'd prefer to be able to buy bulbs that electronically increase to full brightness in a similar way.


RE: A bit misleading
By TomZ on 6/30/2008 3:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but I think that in many other circumstances, it is annoying. For example, we put CFLs in a lot of the fixtures in our home, and while some have been "well received," others have been rejected by my family. For example, in the bathrooms and part of the kitchen, everyone agreed that the warm-up time was really annoying, and we switched back to incandescents.

In our halls, the basement, and in my office, the CFLs were okay. These lights tend to be on for longer. Also, a lot of the bulbs that were replaced with incandescents were the more fancy/decorative shapes, and I think the CFL technology is not so well-developed for those as for the standard shape. Consequently, non-standard bulbs seem to have longer warm-up characteristic, at least in my experience.