backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 33 comment(s) - last by Souka.. on Apr 9 at 7:24 PM

Chinese researchers have LED manufacturing breakthrough that could lead to new white LEDs for indoor use

Chinese researchers are working on a new LED that consists of cheap, inexpensive plastic-like organic materials that could help boost efficiency.  The new "tandem" structure allows it to produce up to 50 percent more light as LEDs used today, including white light that is necessary in homes and businesses.

"This work is important because it is the realization of rather high efficiency white emission by a tandem structure," said Dongge Ma, who is a researcher at the Changchun Institute of Applied Chemistry at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Details about the new LED technology have been published in the latest issue of Journal of Applied Physics, which is published by the American Institute of Physics (AIP).  LEDs traditionally consumer less power than fluorescent bulbs, don't contain mercury, and last significantly longer than regular light bulbs.

It's believed about 20 percent of all electricity used across the world is currently used to light homes, businesses and other buildings.  For households and buildings still using incandescent bulbs, it's possible 95 percent of the energy flowing through them is being wasted.  

To counter less-efficient technologies, researchers hope to one day be able to develop cheaper, more efficient white LEDs that can be used to help reduce power consumption.  It has been easy to develop red and green LEDs, but creating "natural" white LED lights that can be used indoors has proven to be quite challenging.

Manufacturers and researchers are now racing to try and develop lower-cost LEDs, with companies aiming to lower cost and energy consumption but at the same time not sacrificing the amount of light emitted.

Furthermore, the US Department of Energy previously said LEDs could help reduce the country's national energy consumption by 30 percent by 2025.  If true, that will help households in the U.S. save $125 billion total in power bills per year.



Comments     Threshold


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

By KingofL337 on 4/8/2009 8:50:16 AM , Rating: 5
It feels like we hear about something like this at least once a month and we are still no closer to LED lighting technology becoming mainstream. I can't wait, till it gets here, but for now it seems like just a pipe dream at $120.00 for just a single bulb.




By arazok on 4/8/2009 9:15:12 AM , Rating: 3
That’s how all new technology is. You read and read and read about it in all the technical journals. Break through this, major advance that, but you never see a product.

Then…one day…BAM! The crap is everywhere and CNN won’t shut up about it.

Realistically, I think we are 5-10 years away from seeing these at Home Depot.


By TheFace on 4/8/2009 10:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
I think we're 5-10 years away from Home Depot crashing and burning like Circuit City. Been in one lately? They're ghost towns in any area that has competition.


By inighthawki on 4/8/2009 1:11:23 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think home depot was the highlight of his post...


By Souka on 4/9/2009 7:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
I saw Costco selling LED bulbs in a variety of shapes and sizes just the other day...5-15 per bulb if I recall

However...these were not the spiffy Chinese bulbs of this article I rekon


By Souka on 4/9/2009 7:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah... for those who use electric heat in their homes...incadecent bulbs are room heaters, so the engergy is not being wasted.

This is especially true if you have central electric heat... by switching to LED or flourescent, inaddition to the cost of the bulb itself, yoy may end up using more energy overall...

My $.02


By teldar on 4/8/2009 4:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Nardelli tried to drive HD into the ground and he did a pretty good job.

I think congress needs to tell him to quit his post with chrysler before that money pit gets any more cash..

As far as HD goes, they'll do better, I'm sure, once they cut back on some of the expansion that happened under nardelli.


By inighthawki on 4/8/2009 10:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
You have to keep at mind that while they found a cheap way to make it, a company still has to invest in the technology to make them, especially in mass production, this can be expensive. In this matter, the startup time is slow, and while cheaper to produce than before, they still need to have a production to sell ratio enough to make up for lost costs and continue building the production lines. Things like this can take years.


By phazers on 4/9/2009 12:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't wait, till it gets here, but for now it seems like just a pipe dream at $120.00 for just a single bulb.


Huh? I saw a 3-pack of LED lightbulbs designed to replace 40-watt incandescent bulbs, at Sam's Club, for $19.99 I think. Since I have a bathroom fixture bulb out, I thought I would pick up a pack tonight and see how they work. Don't want to use CFLs because my wife claims they make her look look a bit greenish when she's putting on her makeup in the bathroom mirror.


I'm confused
By Shadowself on 4/8/2009 9:22:05 AM , Rating: 4
Title:
quote:
Researchers Develop Cheap, Efficient White Light LEDs


Then within the article:
quote:
To counter less-efficient technologies, researchers hope to one day be able to develop cheaper, more efficient white LEDs that can be used to help reduce power consumption.


Which is it? They have been developed or they are hoping to one day develop?




RE: I'm confused
By MrPoletski on 4/8/2009 10:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a real tense-twister to me...


RE: I'm confused
By diego10arg on 4/8/2009 12:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they are cheap, and they hope to get it cheaper...

</sarcasm>


LED lighting is here today, and it's real
By JeffS on 4/8/2009 9:34:00 AM , Rating: 4
LED fixtures are still expensive for residential use, but they are a viable option in some residential situations and many commercial applications. Cree, for example, sells the LR6 6" can light fixture for about $85. It is equivalent to a 75 watt bulb in my experience, and it only consumes 10 to 12 watts (I measure 10 W and they claim 12 W). This is one of the best fixtures out there today. The fantastic thing about it is that it lasts for 50,000 hours (to 80% brightness, I think), so it's ideal for any location that is hard to access. If you have 15' vaulted ceilings with recessed can lights, that's a prime application. Install the fixtures once (say, when the house is built) and you're golden for 20 years. If you install them in a more accessible location, just take them with you when you move to a new house. These things are not like CFLs that seem to have a high infant mortality rate.

In the case of a commercial application, such as a 24-hour restaurant, these lights make even more sense. The light quality is MUCH better than a CFL, and they pay back that $85 price in about 3 years just in terms of electricity savings versus incandescents. They're also dimmable, which is important for restaurants and residential applications.

And finally, for street lighting, LED fixtures can't be beat. The cost of having a utility company lineman change one bulb far outweighs the cost of installing an LED fixture. A normal street light lasts for something like 10,000 hours, so this is really a no-brainer. In addition, if you can dim a street light, that opens up a bunch of usage models that are not possible today. Maybe dim the light in the middle of the night, but don't turn it off completely, for example. Make it motion-sensitive. Existing street lights can't turn on quickly enough to respond to motion sensors.

The thing that's happening with LEDs from companies like Cree is that they are still ramping up the lumens per watt pretty quickly. Fluorescents are maxed out in their efficiency, but LEDs have a lot of improvement in them. Even still, they are as efficient as tubular fluorescents today, if not more efficient. The biggest problem with LEDs is that existing light fixtures are designed to radiate heat from the light-emitting surface, and LEDs need a heat sink on the back side. That will change as new fixtures are developed (like that LR6 can light) and as LEDs get more lumens per watt.




RE: LED lighting is here today, and it's real
By FITCamaro on 4/8/2009 10:03:35 AM , Rating: 2
Good ideas.

The only issue with the street lights is that you have to create a system of motion sensors and controlling software. That would be pretty expensive. You have to wonder if the cost to do this would create enough savings to justify it. Sure over 100 years it would but if the light is going to always be on, there's no point to it. I guess in neighborhoods it'd be useful. But I'd want it to react to people as well as cars.


By JeffS on 4/8/2009 11:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the motion sensor system is a bit far-fetched, but it's just an example of a capability that LED lighting brings that doesn't exist today. Even if you just replace the street lights with un-featured LED fixtures, you're saving a lot of money in power and maintenance. It's exactly the same business case as LED traffic signals and how they've nearly eliminated incandescent traffic signals almost everywhere I travel.


Hey
By Ammohunt on 4/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hey
By Cr0nJ0b on 4/8/2009 5:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
didn't they invent that GhostNet thing? That's pretty cool.


RE: Hey
By jconan on 4/9/2009 12:53:59 AM , Rating: 2
The mainland Chinese invented KIRF products... Your way of putting it is quite racist and incorrect as to imply that the Chinese stole and since a lot of inventions, discoveries and patents in the US were by done by Chinese from drugs to OLED for instance like Kodak's Dr. Ching Tang who discovered OLED display. The proper term should say that the PRC or Researchers in China.


Misleading Title strikes again
By adiposity on 4/8/2009 11:31:57 AM , Rating: 3
It's getting to be a habit on Daily Tech, post a story and claim more in the title than the story actually substantiates.

My only conclusion is that the poster doesn't read the story (that he apparently copies) carefully before titling it.

Please stop doing this!

-Dan




By nofumble62 on 4/8/2009 9:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have been buying $20 3W LED from eBay to replace 30W Halogen for my landscape. Hope it will last 100,000 hrs as advertised.




whats my benefit
By whatsinit4me on 4/9/2009 7:51:48 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, LEDs sound good, but they cost more. a lot more right now. If everyone used them we would save loads of power and be great for the environment and initially everyone might have lower electric bills. but you can bet the electrical companies would raise their rates so they could still cover costs. so whats my benefit? saving the future for my kids? why is it everything that is a breakthrough and has the potential for really doing some good always ends up costing us more. call me a cynic, but...




Lumen/watts?
By kontorotsui on 4/9/2009 8:15:31 AM , Rating: 2
What is the lumen/watt ratio expected to achieve?

Yet another article labeled "science" without a number. You better call that "gossip".




Let me just say...
By Moishe on 4/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: Let me just say...
By FITCamaro on 4/8/2009 10:05:00 AM , Rating: 5
I think what they're saying is that 95% of the energy going into the bulb IS NOT creating light.


RE: Let me just say...
By adiposity on 4/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: Let me just say...
By teldar on 4/8/2009 4:52:31 PM , Rating: 1
Are we in an energy crisis? California might be. Most of us are not.

Petroleum costs more.
Coal does not.
Most electricity plants in this country run on coal.

I'll just stick in there that we're using coal because of the tree-hugging and uneducated morons in the country believe that nuclear power is not safe or efficient and produces too much radioactive waste.

Fly ash from coal plants is worse than what comes from a nuclear plant.


RE: Let me just say...
By jconan on 4/9/2009 12:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
It's energy efficiency e.g. an compact fluorescent light bulb takes 20 watts to output the same amount of light as a 100 watt light bulb or 80% efficiency of a 100 watt light bulb. As for LEDs there isn't any official consumer study out there yet... Second LED lights seem to be less warm than incandescent and create more glare than a cfl bulb.


RE: Let me just say...
By PrinceGaz on 4/8/2009 1:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose you could say that 100% of the energy put into the bulb is creating light. Unfortunately a lot of it is in the infra-red part of the spectrum which isn't visible to most humans.


RE: Let me just say...
By Gumby16 on 4/8/2009 2:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly the right point. 95% of the energy put into the bulb is wasted by producing HEAT rather than LIGHT. So you're paying 100% of the cost of the energy but only getting 5% of that converted to light.

As for LEDs, they are already being mass produced and used. LEDs have replaced bulbs in car dashboards, in traffic lights, on household appliances, in simple applications like night-lights, and the list goes on. The key is developing a white LED in a bulb that is cheap enough for consumers to replace their conventional and CFL bulbs. While this breakthrough is interesting technologically and may offer high promise for energy saving, it must meet the investment and marketing requirements of a company to produce and distribute. There always seem to be more breakthroughs than products, but this is a reflection of the costs born between an idea being put forward and that idea being implemented on a mass scale. Not all breakthroughs are economic to produce and it's not immediately evident how to market some of them. On top of that, lab-scale things don't always translate easily to large-scale manufacturing. We'll have LED bulbs to use in home fixtures but it will take time, effort, and capital to get them from the lab into the home.


RE: Let me just say...
By VeauX on 4/8/2009 3:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
This is very simple and is the base of calculating efficiency.

What is the purpose of the bulb: creating light. so simply the efficiency is the energy received the way you wanted it vs the energy you had to supply.
I give 100W of electricity and I receive only 5W of it into light. -> efficiency 5%.

If you were looking at this bulb as a source of light + heat here yes the efficiency would be very close to 100%...


RE: Let me just say...
By Pandamonium on 4/8/2009 4:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
Heat is light for an incandescent light bulb. Search wiki for black body radiation. The only reason you see light is because the filament is some ~3000 degrees celsius. It's the same principle as how toaster oven coils glow red. If you could heat the coils up to 3000 degrees, you'd probably see white light.

I'm all for energy efficiency, but incandescents are tough to beat for color. CFLs are great for energy consumption; crap for color. (Wiki: "fluorescent lamp", click subsection "Phosphors and the spectrum of emitted light") This LED is getting closer, but it's still nothing like incandescent lighting.


RE: Let me just say...
By jimbojimbo on 4/8/2009 4:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say a higher percentage is actually being used if it's cold and you want to stay warm. Have an incandescent light bulb while having the AC on and you have devices fighting it out, all the while using up your electricity.


RE: Let me just say...
By Smilin on 4/8/2009 5:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
I won't bore the readers with another lengthy explanation. Half a dozen others have already done it. I'll just say this:

Your logic sucks.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki