A Winning (LED) Light Bulb With the Potential to Save the Nation Billions

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://energy.gov/articles/winning-light-bulb-potential-save-nation-billions

A Winning Light Bulb With the Potential to Save the Nation Billions

August 4, 2011 - 3:09pm

This 10-watt alternative LED bulb (which glows white when turned on) could save the nation about 35 terawatt-hours of electricity or $3.9 billion in one year and avoid 20 million metric tons of carbon emissions if every 60-watt incandescent bulb in the U.S. was replaced with the L Prize winner. | Photo Courtesy of Philips Lighting North America

…

I'm referring to a revolutionary 10-watt light emitting diode (LED) bulb developed by Philips Lighting North America -- the first winner of the Energy Department's Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize (L Prize). The L Prize challenged the lighting industry to develop high performance, energy-saving replacements for conventional light bulbs that will save American consumers and businesses money.

“The L Prize challenges the best and brightest minds in the U.S. lighting industry to make the technological leaps forward that can greatly reduce the money we spend to light our homes and businesses each year,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “Not only does the L Prize challenge innovative companies like Philips to make LED technology even more energy efficient, it also spurs the lighting industry to make LEDs affordable for American families.”

…

“We looked at the L Prize challenge as an opportunity to innovate and develop an energy efficient alternative to a product that has remained largely unchanged for over a century,” said Zia Eftekhar, CEO of Philips Lighting North America. The Philips LED bulb was successfully completed after 18 months of intensive field, lab and product testing to meet the rigorous requirements of the L Prize.

And the LED bulb passed the test, including having a useful lifetime of more than 25,000 hours (compared to 1,000 to 3,000 of a 60-watt incandescent bulb) and a series of stress tests in extreme conditions such as high and low temperatures, humidity, vibration, high and low voltage, and various electrical waveform distortions.

…

[Historic NY]

1. I hope they got the cost down...I have some LEDS in the kitchen.

[glinda]

2. Electrical Company already raised our rates to take any savings we had away.

[Purveyor]

4. Here too. Michigan's Consumers Energy announced just this morning avg. bill going up by $8 a month

by Christmas.

Happy Holidays!!!

[txlibdem]

5. Your electric bill goes up every year or two like clockwork -- that is why so many want off the grid

There will soon come a time when the cost of solar panels and their associated equipment will be cheap enough that the average American family can make a decision whether they want to stay on the grid and continue paying higher and higher costs... or get off the grid, eventually paying off your investment in solar and enjoying *free* electricity from then on.

The only thing you'll ever get from an electrical grid is higher costs year after year... and occasional power outages.

And if you're building a new home that doesn't have power lines coming to it, you'll pay between $5000 to $20000 just so they can bring a line to your lot... and then charge you for the electricity, raise their rates whenever they want, etc. In other words, that's the time to get off grid.

PS, don't believe me? http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/at_a_glance/sales_tabs.html

Here's a graphic that shows the rise in electricity rates from 2007 through 2011:

... from this page http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_factors_affecting_prices
... notice that even though price rises and falls, the trend is up, up, up.

[kristopher]

15. That isn't what your graph or the historical record of electric prices shows

http://www.eia.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0810.html

The price of electricity is incredibly stable.

[txlibdem]

17. Get your eyes checked and look at the graph again, and you are looking at the chart wrong

The graph clearly shows an upward trend in electricity prices, perhaps too masked by seasonal ups and downs for some to follow... it only covers a 4 year span so how much of an increase do you need in order to be able to "see" it? All 4 lines are higher in 2011 than they are in 2007. Period.

As to your chart, if you look at the "Real" column you are not seeing the actual price but instead the price: "6In chained (2005) dollars, calculated by using gross domestic product implicit price deflators in Table" So it bears zero resemblance to the actual price a consumer or industrial customer would pay for electricity. The actual price you would pay is in the "Nominal" column, which shows almost a 450% increase.

PS, 1960 it was 2.6 cents, 2009 11.55 cents. Yup, I'd call that really stable (a stable increase that you could bet on that is).

We are talking about getting off the grid, that means putting money up front to avoid the inevitable price increases in the future. You're basically pre-paying for your electricity -- except at some point your electricity will be *free* 100%. You'll never get that deal from the electrical utility.

[kristopher]

21. Fascinating...

Why do you think they bother calculating "real" values and including the information in the table?

[txlibdem]

22. "Real" per the chart: "calculated by using gross domestic product implicit price deflators"

Note 6: "In chained (2005) dollars, calculated by using gross domestic product implicit price deflators in Table"

What does that even mean? It looks like lobbyist jargon to me but I'm not going to waste time trying to decipher it.

The facts are that electricity rates go up every so often, due to whatever reason. I don't care why they raise the price but every time they do it just makes me want to be off the grid even more.

As I wrote in an earlier post: when you buy solar you are pre-paying for that amount of electricity. But, even more important, you are locking in the price from the day your system is installed. The electric company can raise the rate 100%, 200% even and you won't care: it won't affect your pocket book (as long as you are 100% off grid).

It gets a little bit more complicated if you have a grid-tied system.

[kristopher]

33. "Real" as in a meaningful measure over time.

Just like this measure of "real" income in chained 2009 dollars.

[idiotgardener]

6. I don't see a price listed in the article.

I think it's interesting that it only took them 18 months to develop it. Does this mean the technology only allowed it 18 months ago, or does it mean we could have had these years ago and no one was interested?

[txlibdem]

8. Price, the technology and could we have had these years ago

The retail price of the Philips LED light bulb shown in the picture is $40. But don't let that scare you off because it's going to last for 25,000 hours or more, versus a traditional incandescent that lasts usually 1000 hours but costs you an arm and a leg to power it.

The Osram Sylvania bulb is also $40, I linked to a cnet article about it in my previous post.

But the one to watch is Switch Lighting Group in Florida. They have bulbs to replace 40, 60, 75 and 100 watt bulbs. They may use a watt or two more than the Philips or Sylvania but only cost $20 or $30 depending on the bulb light output. They'll be selling at Home Depot by the end of 2011 (press release says Fall 2011 but I didn't see them in my local HD store).

But even the $40 bulb pays for itself in energy savings in a surprisingly short time (exactly how much time, of course, depends on your electricity rate).

Now to whether they could have done this years ago... LED's have been around since the 1950s. So I have a feeling that they could have done this decades ago. But I'm not gonna gripe too much because I'm glad the "big name" companies have finally announced LED lighting products. Prices will begin to fall steadily as mass production ramps up.

/edit to add: (forgot the link to the article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20063623-54.html )

[idiotgardener]

11. Thanks for the info!

Yeah, $40 is steep... but I'd probably buy it. My CFLs have lasted a long time.

I just talked to my dad, who is a scientist in a different field. He told me that when he was in grad school (in the 60s) he had to do a research project on a subject outside his field and he picked diodes and the idea that you could get light out of them.

[hunter]

19. High intensity blue LEDS weren't available before 1993.

Without them white LED lamps were not possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuji_Nakamura - inventor of the high intensity blue LED

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. I remember it like it was yesterday (seriously, I remember who told me the news)

However, there have been important developments even since then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode#Efficiency_and_operational_parameters

…

In September 2003, a new type of blue LED was demonstrated by the company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cree_Inc.">Cree Inc. to provide 24 mW at 20 milliamperes (mA). This produced a commercially packaged white light giving 65 lm/W at 20 mA, becoming the brightest white LED commercially available at the time, and more than four times as efficient as standard incandescents. In 2006, they demonstrated a prototype with a record white LED luminous efficacy of 131 lm/W at 20 mA. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul_Semiconductor">Seoul Semiconductor plans for 135 lm/W by 2007 and 145 lm/W by 2008,<36> which would be nearing an order of magnitude improvement over standard incandescents and better than even standard fluorescents. …

[txlibdem]

28. Blue was the most difficult LED to develop IIRC

I read about the difficulties a few years ago and like many things it's drained out of my brain by now. But I seem to recall that they didn't want blue LEDs to get white LEDs (which I thought they'd had already), I seem to recall that they were primarily interested in data communications and data storage. Higher frequency, faster data transfer.

Now we have the Blu-Ray players so that's old hat nowadays :-)

And it's interesting that the Philips LED light bulb pictured in the OP uses blue LEDs; that's why the glass is yellow, so the actual light will be white but not harsh.

[Ready4Change]

9. Nor a lumens rating.

I checked out some LEDs at a local hardware store. I forget the exact numbers, but the LED replacements for incandescents were rated at something like 2/3rds of the lumens. I checked out the CFLs, and they were similarly rated down from the lumens of incandescents.

No wonder, when I switched most of my bulbs to CFL, that I started having to sit closer to lights, and squinting, etc. Part of that is my eyes getting older. But another part is that the bulbs are dimmer.

I love the idea of replacing old style bulbs with more efficient ones. I love the idea of LEDs, with their promise of far longer lives. But I'm going to have to uprate those replacements before I go blind.

[idiotgardener]

12. I haven't noticed a significant difference

I'm sure once they become more common there will be more choice.

[kristopher]

14. I don't think that is true.

It may be your perception, but the actual performance is the same within pretty narrow parameters.

[txlibdem]

16. I share your experience with CFL lights, that's why I'm so happy LED light bulbs are finally here

About 3 years ago I bought a 3-pack of "40 watt replacement" LED bulbs from some no-name company. Long story short, they are just barely more than nightlights. I have one in the hallway that leads to the garage and the other two are in lamps that get used so infrequently they'll never pay themselves off.

But times have changed. The no-name companies are still out there selling their "specs unknown" bulbs, some are cheaper and some are over $100 with no guarantee that the company will be around in 5 years. So you're right to be skeptical. The change in the LED landscape, however, is the entry of the biggest names in light bulb manufacturing. Names like Philips, Sylvania, NEC, Sanyo, GE, etc., are putting millions into LED light bulbs and that will push out the companies that can't be competitive, and those who can't live up to their marketing claims.

For instance:

Osram Sylvania today showed off a prototype of an LED bulb that gives off 1,500 lumens--as much light as a 100-watt incandescent--and consumes 14 watts. It also said that its 75-watt equivalent will be available in July.

Another company, Switch Lighting, today announced its own 100-watt equivalent which it said produces 1,700 lumens of white light and will be available in the fourth quarter, according to a representative. A version with a warmer light is due in mid to late 2012.

...

Philips yesterday announced that its EnduraLED A21, which gives off as much light as a 75-watt incandescent, will be available in the fourth quarter for about $40.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20063623-54.html#ixzz1UbqsTkoN

Here's a link that contains a LOT of info but the page loads to the Lumens info
... http://www.power-sure.com/lumens.htm#Led0
... scroll for tons more info, but they left out 75 watt bulb lumens = 1100

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. “18 months of intensive field, lab and product testing”

(Not 18 months of development.)

[Firebrand Gary]

3. I learned that the best way I can give corruption the finger.

Is to take away their ability to corrupt. I have LED's in every part of my home, as soon as the variety expands to the same lumen output as a 120 Watt bulb (very bright) I will change all of the bulbs on the outside of my home.

[txlibdem]

7. Switch, a Florida company, will start selling their 100 watt replacement in the fall 2011

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20063623-54.html

[kristopher]

10. I think LEDs are getting ready to get a strong, unanticipated boost.

The Japanese press has been spreading the word that if Japan moves from fluorescent lights (incandescents have been rare for decades) they will save power equivalent to the output of 4 nuclear reactors. I'd be willing to bet money that several hundred million LED lights will be retailed in the next 2 years there. That should be good news for prices everywhere.

It also underscores the amount of good this one change could result in if adopted universally here where we have enarly 3X the population and incandescents still rule. Has anyone seen an estimate of the total amount of energy used in lighting that would be saved by going totally to LEDs here?

[idiotgardener]

13. We may as well get started convincing our conservative friends, family and neighbors

that switching to LEDs is not a freedom issue.

As to your question, this article says "lighting energy savings potential" would be 35% for the US, but it's from 2002.

http://eetd.lbl.gov/Emills/pubs/pdf/global_lighting_potential.pdf

And this article is from 2011 and has lots of related info:

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/nichefinalreport_january2011.pdf

[caraher]

23. Actually, anti-CFL propaganda may help LED adoption

So many RW acquaintances of mine seem really excited about LEDs because they'd like to save money on their electric bills, but won't use CFLs because their sources have convinced them they're Al Gore's mad plot to give their kids mercury poisoning (or something like that). I don't think LEDs have to get all the way down to present CFL prices before they start to overtake them in sales.

[kestrel91316]

24. Just wait til the anti-LED propaganda starts. You KNOW it's coming.

[txlibdem]

29. In truth, CFLs are their own anti-CFL propaganda campaign

I've talked to quite a few of my neighbors who complained about the (up to) 2 minutes it takes for CFLs to reach full brightness, and they are not equivalent to the light given off by the same rated incandescent bulb. Quite a few have taken the CFLs back to the store and put the incandescents back in.

Personally, I've tried all the brands from the $1.49 cheapies to the $10 "quality" CFLs and found no difference in longevity, which is never what they claim. I replaced 4 CFLs in one area over a period 6 months, gave up and now have halogens there again.

CFLs will not tolerate being used outside if you get hot days and chilly nights, or freezing nights. The longevity goes way down or you get instant failure.

And now that I've seen how clean the light from LED light bulbs look I just can't tolerate the yellowish, dim light from CFLs. I'm firmly in the LED camp now.

[Nihil]

30. Depends on the situation.

> In truth, CFLs are their own anti-CFL propaganda campaign

The truth is that CFLs are not the "everywhere" solution that was
initially claimed. As time has gone on, I've realised how susceptible
they are to the local conditions - and how fortunate I am in that
respect.

> CFLs will not tolerate being used outside if you get hot days and chilly nights,
> or freezing nights. The longevity goes way down or you get instant failure.

Temperature will affect them in extremes but the worst environmental problem
that they suffer from is power line quality: voltage fluctuations seem to
kill them far more easily than even temperature issues. Obviously, there is
an indirect link there too: as the weather gets colder, the demands on
power for heating increase and that has an impact on the supply quality;
as the weather gets hotter & more humid, the demands on power for cooling
increase and the supply quality is affected again. To cap it all, the more rural
the location, the more extreme the weather impact and the lower the supply quality
in the first place so whilst CFLs are pretty ideal in urban environments, they
are much less so in rural ones.


> Personally, I've tried all the brands from the $1.49 cheapies to the $10 "quality"
> CFLs and found no difference in longevity, which is never what they claim.
> I replaced 4 CFLs in one area over a period 6 months, gave up and now have halogens
> there again.

Again, (counter anecdote!) I have only had one "dud" CFL - one that died within
a few months - and the rest have lasted years & years. That includes the outside
light (which gets a fair share of temperature fluctuations) that has only been
replaced once (so far) in the sixteen years I've been in the house.

On the other hand, I've had two DOAs & one 2 month life from LED lamps (guess it
was a bad batch as they were all bought from the same store) and have had to
replace three LEDs in my son's bedroom fitting in the last year alone.

(I'll have to try to work out why they are so sensitive there as they are fine
in all of the other locations that I'm using LEDs yet these haven't even lasted
as long as one of the halogen bulbs that I have been trying to replace through
"natural wastage". I guess it will be something to do with the voltage in this
case too as although the house supply is excellent, this fitting has a fan so
I suspect that there may be spikes during spin up / spin down that are burning
out the guts of the LED lamp.)

:hi:

[txlibdem]

31. We both have our anectodal evidence it seems

But since the LEDs you bought were surely no-name brand (as was the 3 that I found to be too dim) it makes perfect sense to me. As I posted earlier that this is exactly why I am so glad that the big names in light bulb manufacturing are just starting to provide LED light bulbs. You can go to a store or shop online and purchase the Philips LED 60 watt replacement (which uses 10 watts per the OP).

One thing all of my no-name brand LEDs have in common: no or inadequate heat fins.

My lesson from all of my early experimentation: 1. Life on the bleeding edge of technology can bring joy or disappointment; and 2. I'm going to stick to the "name brand" products from now on.

BTW, your son's fixture with the fan will have equally brutal effects on incandescents and CFLs in all probability: fan lights have to be specifically rated for that use.

[Nihil]

32. Definitely.

> But since the LEDs you bought were surely no-name brand (as was the 3 that
> I found to be too dim) it makes perfect sense to me.

I tend not to buy a no-name anything unless I am sure that it completely replaces
the corresponding brand equivalent but they would have been fairly early releases.


> BTW, your son's fixture with the fan will have equally brutal effects on
> incandescents and CFLs in all probability: fan lights have to be specifically
> rated for that use.

I have no doubt that CFLs would have suffered just as badly if they'd ever done
them with the appropriate base to plug in to the fitting but the halogens
(incandescent) seem to weather it better. Ho hum ... if I really get fed up with
it I'll fit alternative lights in the room that can work fine with LEDs and just
leave the fan fittings empty!

:hi:

[txlibdem]

36. I used to think that CFL would be my stepping stone till LED bulbs came down in price

but for some applications I guess I'll have to stick with Halogens. Just FYI, they come in all types:
http://www.1000bulbs.com/category/halogen-light-bulbs?gclid=CM-W8pymy6oCFc1L2godihpn2g
... PAR, flood, xenon, MR8, MR11, MR16, Bi-Pin, Bayonet, Festoon and Wedge

I'm thinking of expanding the halogen recessed lights on the roof soffits. They're only in the front now but I'd really like to have them around the entire house. ( ref http://www.homeimprovementhelper.com/roof/roof_parts.htm )

PS, I was wrong about the lights above the kitchen bar top. They're Philips DuraMax Par 20 floods which claim to have a long life of 1 1/2 years. But if they do last that long it'll be about 8 times longer than any of the CFLs I've tried there. I even tried the ones without the glass and reflective coating (regular spiral). That one lasted the shortest time IIRC about a month.

So it looks like we're both searching for the best bulbs for the various needs in our house.

Just as an aside, here is a side-by-side lightbulb shootout (pardon the pun) pitting an incandescent, an LCD and a $116 C-Crane LED light bulb.
http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2009/02/10/the-light-bulb-showdown-leds-vs-cfls-vs-incandescent-bulbs-whats-the-best-deal-now-and-in-the-future/
... Surprise! Even at $116 the LED saves you money over the long run compared to incandescents.
... The tester uses 8000 hours and $1.24 for the CFL bulbs -- I've never bought one that cheap nor had it last that long but YMMV.

[dbackjon]

25. Any downsides to LED?

Such as in disposal, breakage?

[caraher]

26. I think the main issues are cost and directionality. And maybe weight.

Single LEDs don't emit light uniformly in all directions, so the LED bulb is heavily engineered with optics and multiple emitters, which works better in some models than others.

I've also seen a few complaints about some bulbs being too heavy (mainly because of heat sinks in their bases).

[txlibdem]

27. Breakage, no. Disposal, they should be recycled

They are an electronic device after all so they contain a small amount of gold, a fair amount of aluminum, etc. so there is value in recycling them.

Break them over your head if you want... no mercury. (I'm just kidding about that, it's still glass ==> stitches, trip to emergency room, etc.)

[IDemo]

37. The fabrication process is far from environmentally friendly

LED's are made using the same type of facility used to make memory chips, microprocessors and any other semiconductor devices. While they are promoted as clean technology, these plants can consume huge amounts of electrical energy and millions of gallons of water daily. They use some highly toxic substances like hydrochloric acid, trichloroethane and arsenic, among a host of others. All under the most careful of chemical handling procedures, to be sure, but workers at semiconductor fabs have been exposed to some of these substances in the past and have reported elevated miscarriages and other health issues.

[kestrel91316]

34. The only valid comparison for me is equivalent lumens from a CFL, since

I long ago switched to them and don't use any incandescents at all at home or work.

[kristopher]

35. I'd add temperature to that...

http://www.lightbulbsdirect.com/page/001/CTGY/ColorTemp