Comments on: The Next Big (Light Bulb) Idea http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/05/16/led_light_bulbs/ Blogging the science and policy of global warming Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:00:21 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: cstirnckwr http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/05/16/led_light_bulbs/comment-page-1/#comment-218 cstirnckwr Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:59:55 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/05/16/led_light_bulbs/#comment-218 A 'follow up': Just bought a Chinese produced, LED Spot Light that will directly screw into the ordinary 'home' light fitting, & is supposedly able to be 'dimmed' -- for ~$16(incl tax.) in NYC. A CFL that can be dimmed was $17 -- likely to produce a lot more light, but not last nearly as long, & use substantially more energy. The LED is listed as a PAR 20, 36 LED, rated to last 20,000 average hours, & uses 1.8 watt. The light emitted is the usual 'flourescent blue-white' like light, with the package showing that at: 7ft. it yields an 18ft. 'cone' of light, at 10 lux 10ft. yields a 28ft. 'cone' of light, at 6 lux. I am using it as a desk lamp. At about 2 1/2ft. away from my computer keyboard, it is fairly dim, with the guesstimated equivalence of an ~40Watt incandescent bulb., and a restricted 'cone' of illumination. While it would be good to get much more light, at present it is sufficient to illuminate my keyboard, easily read printing/notes that are put under it, & not glare off of the computer screen. The 7 LED flashlight that I keep in my car is immensely valuable in reading roadmaps at night -- much better than the usual small flashlight. A 'follow up':
Just bought a Chinese produced, LED Spot Light that will directly screw into the ordinary 'home' light fitting, & is supposedly able to be 'dimmed' — for ~$16(incl tax.) in NYC.

A CFL that can be dimmed was $17 — likely to produce a lot more light, but not last nearly as long, & use substantially more energy.

The LED is listed as a PAR 20, 36 LED, rated to last 20,000 average hours, & uses 1.8 watt.
The light emitted is the usual 'flourescent blue-white' like light, with the package showing that at:
7ft. it yields an 18ft. 'cone' of light, at 10 lux
10ft. yields a 28ft. 'cone' of light, at 6 lux.
I am using it as a desk lamp. At about 2 1/2ft. away from my computer keyboard, it is fairly dim, with the guesstimated equivalence of an ~40Watt incandescent bulb., and a restricted 'cone' of illumination.
While it would be good to get much more light, at present it is sufficient to illuminate my keyboard, easily read printing/notes that are put under it, & not glare off of the computer screen.

The 7 LED flashlight that I keep in my car is immensely valuable in reading roadmaps at night — much better than the usual small flashlight.

]]> By: cstirnckwr http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/05/16/led_light_bulbs/comment-page-1/#comment-217 cstirnckwr Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:33:03 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/05/16/led_light_bulbs/#comment-217 Dear Erica, You noted that: "Obviously, prices need to come down, and for that reason, mass-market LED light bulbs are still 5 to 10 years away. And because their light is so directional, it remains to be seen whether they'll be able light up a room like incandescent bulbs and CFLs." 1) At current, the CFLs are much cheaper than they used to be, & at the same time, while they are touted to last for 5-7years, they frequently fail within a year -- which necesitates the saving of a lot of receipts -- assuming that they will be honored. That is -- the price of the CFLs has markedly decreased, at the same time as a 'built in obsolescence' has been incorporated into them -- what a surprise!(I actually have an old CFL bulb that has been going for well over 10 years -- while none of the 'new' ones have approached it) 2) So, with the ability to give enough light that they can be used in car headlights, I don't think that the bottleneck for LEDs is in their difficulty in providing light -- I tend to think that it rather lies in their working much too well!!! ie. at 50->100,000 hours per bulb, with a lot less use of electricity, I don't think that there is a real rush to get a conventional 'home' bulb to the market -- & it will likely be forced only by some co. that can make one outside the patent etc. restrictions. 3) For example, lets consider whether a LED 'spot' bulb would be so restrictive in not giving off 'general light', that it couldn't be used. Most of my bulbs are ones that I want to focus on work that I am doing, & not interfere with peripheral areas(eg. a computer screen) -- so for a lot, that shouldn't be a problem. Furthermore, if a more diffuse light was needed, at least one cheap possibility would be to put a diffuser in front of it. 4) If CFLs now have transformers built into their bases, it shouldn't be too hard to ditto rectifiers to convert AC to DC for the LED lights(if that is finally necessary) -- & I would think that 'solid state' ones should already be 'off the shelf' -- so making the transition to a 'home' bulb shouldn't be much of a problem. That is, I doubt that all of the electricity that is currently powering LED NYC traffic lights, NYC Christmas bulbs(on trees & bridges)etc. is DC -- Westinghouse won out over Edison in the 'transmission' fray a long time ago. 5) While LED are indeed expensive, I actually don't really know why. I don't know their means of fabrication, but my notion is that they can be 'printed' so that their 'masking' & 'interference' 'holes' that coerce the photons into certain radiant/visible frequencies shouldn't be anywhere near as complicated as the 'masking' etc. printing that goes into computer boards. So while finding out the ways to get a 'complete spectrum' might be difficult, the implementation of what is already at hand should be again, almost 'off the shelf'(except for patent or other voluntary restrictions). 6) So as for the general assessment that it will likely take another '5->10 years' to do any of this, has got to be only things being deliberately put 'on the slow track'. In '5-10 years, we're likely to have a completed space station, & operational somatic derived 'stem cells' -- & this is not anywhere near as complex. 7) I guess what I'm suggesting to ED, is that maybe this '5-10 years' scenario really shouldn't be accepted, & that with a little directed effort, LEDs for the home, at a more or less reasonable cost, for at least some significant 'niches' of use, should almost be available tomorrow. & this would be a HUGE saving for the environment, in all respects! Sincerely -- joel schiff -- cstirnckwr Dear Erica,
You noted that:
"Obviously, prices need to come down, and for that reason, mass-market LED light bulbs are still 5 to 10 years away. And because their light is so directional, it remains to be seen whether they'll be able light up a room like incandescent bulbs and CFLs."

1) At current, the CFLs are much cheaper than they used to be, & at the same time, while they are touted to last for 5-7years, they frequently fail within a year — which necesitates the saving of a lot of receipts — assuming that they will be honored.
That is — the price of the CFLs has markedly decreased, at the same time as a 'built in obsolescence' has been incorporated into them — what a surprise!(I actually have an old CFL bulb that has been going for well over 10 years — while none of the 'new' ones have approached it)

2) So, with the ability to give enough light that they can be used in car headlights, I don't think that the bottleneck for LEDs is in their difficulty in providing light — I tend to think that it rather lies in their working much too well!!!
ie. at 50->100,000 hours per bulb, with a lot less use of electricity, I don't think that there is a real rush to get a conventional 'home' bulb to the market — & it will likely be forced only by some co. that can make one outside the patent etc. restrictions.

3) For example, lets consider whether a LED 'spot' bulb would be so restrictive in not giving off 'general light', that it couldn't be used. Most of my bulbs are ones that I want to focus on work that I am doing, & not interfere with peripheral areas(eg. a computer screen) — so for a lot, that shouldn't be a problem.
Furthermore, if a more diffuse light was needed, at least one cheap possibility would be to put a diffuser in front of it.

4) If CFLs now have transformers built into their bases, it shouldn't be too hard to ditto rectifiers to convert AC to DC for the LED lights(if that is finally necessary) — & I would think that 'solid state' ones should already be 'off the shelf' — so making the transition to a 'home' bulb shouldn't be much of a problem.
That is, I doubt that all of the electricity that is currently powering LED NYC traffic lights, NYC Christmas bulbs(on trees & bridges)etc. is DC — Westinghouse won out over Edison in the 'transmission' fray a long time ago.

5) While LED are indeed expensive, I actually don't really know why. I don't know their means of fabrication, but my notion is that they can be 'printed' so that their 'masking' & 'interference' 'holes' that coerce the photons into certain radiant/visible frequencies shouldn't be anywhere near as complicated as the 'masking' etc. printing that goes into computer boards.
So while finding out the ways to get a 'complete spectrum' might be difficult, the implementation of what is already at hand should be again, almost 'off the shelf'(except for patent or other voluntary restrictions).

6) So as for the general assessment that it will likely take another '5->10 years' to do any of this, has got to be only things being deliberately put 'on the slow track'.
In '5-10 years, we're likely to have a completed space station, & operational somatic derived 'stem cells' — & this is not anywhere near as complex.

7) I guess what I'm suggesting to ED, is that maybe this '5-10 years' scenario really shouldn't be accepted, & that with a little directed effort, LEDs for the home, at a more or less reasonable cost, for at least some significant 'niches' of use, should almost be available tomorrow.
& this would be a HUGE saving for the environment, in all respects!

Sincerely — joel schiff — cstirnckwr

]]>