Incandescent lighting has been around well over 100 years, fluorescent lighting easily 50+ years and candles are still used also so I wouldn't consider them temporary or transitional at all as there is way too many fixtures in buildings and cars out there using them to go away anytime soon. I see LEDs over the next two decades to start becoming the go to technology in most applications that can take advantage of them as energy prices and energy production concerns arise more. I do not see any other technology improving at the rate nor matching the proven track record LEDs have at this time. I wish there was some other technology in a lab touting 200+ lumens/watt figures in the next few years even being produced so by that I don't see anything else usurping LEDs future dominance of the market. I don't however see LEDs taking over the market anytime soon as the cost/lumen is still too high such that you cannot recoup your investment in 5 years on them over other efficient light techologies that have a dramatically cheaper cost/lumen ratio.
What technology will replace LED's as most efficient light source
- Thread starter ebow86
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Incandescent lighting has been around well over 100 years, fluorescent lighting easily 50+ years and candles are still used also so I wouldn't consider them temporary or transitional at all as there is way too many fixtures in buildings and cars out there using them to go away anytime soon. I see LEDs over the next two decades to start becoming the go to technology in most applications that can take advantage of them as energy prices and energy production concerns arise more. I do not see any other technology improving at the rate nor matching the proven track record LEDs have at this time. I wish there was some other technology in a lab touting 200+ lumens/watt figures in the next few years even being produced so by that I don't see anything else usurping LEDs future dominance of the market. I don't however see LEDs taking over the market anytime soon as the cost/lumen is still too high such that you cannot recoup your investment in 5 years on them over other efficient light techologies that have a dramatically cheaper cost/lumen ratio.
EZO
Flashlight Enthusiast
True, but this may become an invalid argument in a few short years. Well known venture capital firm Vantage Point Capital Partners claims that LED prices will fall by 90% by 2015.
Vantage Point has backed four LED companies Huga Optotech of Taiwan, Glo of Sweden, and the US companies Switch Bulb Co and Bridgelux.
BTW, considering their track record it is interesting to see Switch Lighting on their list (Liquid filled LED Light Bulb) a technology dismissed as an "interim gimmick" and a "solution in search of a problem" by a CPF member who likes to make such pronouncements. Vantage Point Capital is also a backer of Tesla Motors and helped bring them public.
Last edited:
jtr1962
Flashaholic
And if you recall here's the reason I gave for that assessment:
"With LEDs becoming ever more efficient, this seems like an interim gimmick to deal with a heat issue which won't even exist in 2 or 3 years."
I don't deny that if LED efficiency was stagnant, then the liquid-filled light bulb might be a long-term, elegant solution. In fact, I plan to eventually buy one or two of them in the clear version just because I think it looks cool (but I'm waiting for 3500K or 4000K because I just can't stand 2700K). Anyway, the fact is it looks like LEDs will hit 80% to 90% conversion efficiency by the end of the decade. This means perhaps 1 watt of waste heat to deal with in a 100-watt incandescent equivalent. You don't even need anything beyond a small heat spreader to deal with that amount of heat. Besides, the long-term trend is towards purpose-built LED fixtures, or even OLED luminescent ceiling panels. As LEDs take over the market, brand-new fixtures based on screw-base lamps will likely disappear altogether from the market. Eventually, as existing screw-base fixtures wear out or break, they will be replaced with purpose-built LED fixtures with better thermal properties than a screw-base bulb. In short, not only do I not see the liquid-filled bulb as anything more than an interim solution, but also screw-base LED retrofits in general I see only as sort of a middle-term type of thing. In time they just won't be needed in large numbers (or at all) because the fixtures they're used in will largely be replaced. This already happened in the commercial sector starting after WWII. Fluorescents and other discharge lamps gradually replaced incandescents until the point that they were pretty much the only thing in use.
As for Tesla Motors, I recall being one of relatively few here saying that electric cars will be big, to the point that they'll likely obsolete gas cars within a decade or so, when Tesla Motors first started. Now that EV technology is proving itself, that looks likely to happen. Difficult to put a date on these things, but I'll give a 2020 to 2025 time frame for when the last ICE vehicle will see production. Anyway, it's not like I'm not forward thinking about new idea, it's just that with my engineering background I know what's likely to be viable and what isn't. Generally complex, expensive solutions to existing problems don't stay in the marketplace long unless the simple approach has serious drawbacks. That was the case, for example, with electric cars for a long time. They lacked the range, and had other issues, until perhaps 15 years ago. This is why the horribly complex, breakdown-prone ICE, mated to an equally complex multigear transmission, dominated the market. The much simpler battery plus electric motor just couldn't deliver until recently. For much the same reason, I'm not seeing why you would need a liquid-filled bulb once the heat issue with LEDs is solved (and it largely is because we know what to tweak in order to reach extremely high efficiencies).
EZO
Flashlight Enthusiast
jtr1962, I don't necessarily disagree with you here. I just think it interesting that a venture cap firm with the level of experience and expertise of Vantage Point would back this firm. Perhaps as far as the marketplace is concerned "interim" could be a long time. Just because a technical milestone will be achieved within a certain time frame doesn't mean it will make it to the market right away. In the meantime we have Switch Lighting and others. Personally, I enjoy watching the different approaches being taken whether they will survive or not. In fact, here is another one, (watch the video) a nanotech nanofiber/blue LED hybrid that may provide for very high CRI numbers and some interesting new luminaire design possibilities. Again, there are other considerations in the marketplace beyond pure engineering, but indeed, the engineering part is cool.
Did you happen to read the article I referenced in another thread titled "Solid-state lighting: 'The case' 10 years after and future prospects"? It seems like something that would be right up your alley.
Respectfully, jtr1962, my post was primarily about the dramatically falling prices of LEDs which essentially supports many of your comments on these boards. I only mentioned Switch Lighting as a "BTW" remark with no intention of potentially derailing the thread into a long winded discourse on electric vehicles.
Did you happen to read the article I referenced in another thread titled "Solid-state lighting: 'The case' 10 years after and future prospects"? It seems like something that would be right up your alley.
Respectfully, jtr1962, my post was primarily about the dramatically falling prices of LEDs which essentially supports many of your comments on these boards. I only mentioned Switch Lighting as a "BTW" remark with no intention of potentially derailing the thread into a long winded discourse on electric vehicles.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Thanks for the links. You are correct that what I call "interim" could be considered a long time in today's marketplace. Remember that many CEOs nowadays don't look much past the next quarter. From that perspective, the liquid-filled light bulb, which I say should be viable for at least 3 to 5 years, does indeed look like a good long-term investment. I'll admit sometimes my comments tend to be biased because my thinking tends to mirror the East more than the West. In Eastern nations things are often planned in terms of many years, decades, or even centuries (i.e. the Great Wall).
oldwesty4ever
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- May 24, 2010
- Messages
- 110
I have read that the screw in socket actually violates the most basic electrical safety standards as they pose a major shock hazard. Remember it was designed in 1881, well before electrical safety standards went in effect. However, there are 4.5 billion screw in sockets in the USA, I doubt they will disappear that fast. Maybe in new construction intergrated fixture will be required to meet environmental regulations as they already require GU24 sockets in current LEED certified buildings.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
EZO,
Commenting on that solid-state lighting paper you linked to, I found it interesting that the "pessimistic" view is that LED efficiency will plateau at around 200 lm/W, while the other, more optimistic author, said he felt 250 to 300 lm/W was more likely (I tend to agree). Even at 200 lm/W, plus decreased cost per lumen, LEDs should pretty much dominate the market except for niche applications. I thought the vacuum tube analogy particularly apt. Vacuum tubes haven't entirely disappeared, but are relegated to niche applications like microwave ovens which so far haven't proven amenable to a solid state solution. I suspect some niche lighting applications, especially those with high temperatures, will still use traditional solutions.
oldwesty4ever,
I agree 100% about the shock hazard. That might be the one thing which effectively regulates sockets out of existence, particularly in new construction. As for the installed base, generally people seem to replace their lamps/fixtures on a 15-25 year cycle. If socketed fixtures are no longer sold by, say, 2015, then they'll just about be gone by 2040 or so, with many gone by 2030.
Commenting on that solid-state lighting paper you linked to, I found it interesting that the "pessimistic" view is that LED efficiency will plateau at around 200 lm/W, while the other, more optimistic author, said he felt 250 to 300 lm/W was more likely (I tend to agree). Even at 200 lm/W, plus decreased cost per lumen, LEDs should pretty much dominate the market except for niche applications. I thought the vacuum tube analogy particularly apt. Vacuum tubes haven't entirely disappeared, but are relegated to niche applications like microwave ovens which so far haven't proven amenable to a solid state solution. I suspect some niche lighting applications, especially those with high temperatures, will still use traditional solutions.
oldwesty4ever,
I agree 100% about the shock hazard. That might be the one thing which effectively regulates sockets out of existence, particularly in new construction. As for the installed base, generally people seem to replace their lamps/fixtures on a 15-25 year cycle. If socketed fixtures are no longer sold by, say, 2015, then they'll just about be gone by 2040 or so, with many gone by 2030.
EZO
Flashlight Enthusiast
Indeed, it will take a long time before we see the end of E27 screw in lightbulb sockets. It will take someone to come up with an innovative new design or paradigm. Helieon Corp is an early entry with an attempt to offer a line of LED products that are not E27s but "that are as easy as changing a light bulb".
Last edited:
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Efficiency and heat are intertwined. This is why efficiency really needs to be bought up to at least 150 lm/W in order to get the waste heat from a 150 watt incandescent replacement manageable.
Remote phosphor is the answer here. You put the blue LEDs inside the globe, coat the globe with phosphor, and you have diffused light without a heavy efficiency penalty.
The reason why LEDs are being pushed, besides the mercury issue of CFLs, is because we're nearing capacity of our grid/generating capacity. It's far easier to replace inefficient lighting than to beef up the grid, or even worse, build new power plants. I'm not really sure incans would have dominated forever even in the absense of this factor. The unit cost is low, but try brightly lighting, say, a kitchen with incans. You're talking 500 to 1000 watts, compared to something like 4 32 watt linear tubes. That translates into an enormous expense in electricity, plus added air conditioning bills. Besides that, let's say you have 10 bulbs with an average life of 1000 hours. On average then you'll have one lamp burning out every 100 hours. If you run the lights in the kitchen 6 hours a day, you're replacing one lamp about every 2 weeks. This is a royal PITA. On the flip side, I put new tubes in the 4x32W fixture in the kitchen in 2001. I finally changed them out last year. 3 of the 4 were still lighting, so I kept them for utility duty since I wanted to start off with all new fresh tubes. I'm home all the time. The kitchen light is on at least 10 hours most days. I hate to think how many incandescents I would have went through in that time, not to mention the cost of the electricity. Same thing with my workshop. Another reason I went to linear tubes 25 years ago over incandescents was to have a more natural, closer to sunlight, color temperature. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. No, as flourescent and later LED technology improved, it was inevitable it would eventually go from commercial to home use. Remember that industry largely abandoned incandescents after WWII, long before any energy or grid crisis. There were many compelling reasons, most of which are somewhat applicable to residential lighting as well.
In theory some new battery technology can charge in 5 minutes. In practice as range increases the need for fast charging becomes less and less. If your vehicle has a range of 150 miles, and the longest trip you make 99% of the time is 100 miles (this matches the driving patterns of nearly everyone), then overnight home charging is sufficient. We can probably do 300+ miles at this point, effectively making the fast recharge issue moot. Nevertheless, we are working on charging stations where you can charge in 30 minutes, about the same amount of time you might spend at a once every few hours rest stop. Anyway, there's a great thread on EVs over at CPF Green. No need to discuss them further here.
There must be some reason why LEDs are being used in street lamps instead of these bulbs....
Yes that is for the most part why LEDs are making it into stoplights for sure now and streetlights also but as the efficiency improves to the point of matching or beating current low pressure sodium and metal hydride lamps then both longevity and energy savings will add to the mix. We don't have LED streetlights here yet but we do have LEDs in stoplights in places and it is not easy to tell which ones but typically they more richer colors.
I think LED as a lighting source will have a much longer history , As we see , it is still very new for normal family , and it is not widely applicated here and there,even many goverment announce to use LED lightings .
LED is saving energy and protecting environment , i personally hope we can popularize the led lighting . Make our earth more safe!
LED is saving energy and protecting environment , i personally hope we can popularize the led lighting . Make our earth more safe!
peruandarts
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1
I guess the plasma light bulbs. Try to find more information about it.
Greetings,
Marcelo
Greetings,
Marcelo
hellachinese
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3
Excuse me for such the newb question; what physical properties limit LEDs from getting brighter and more powerful?
[video]<iframe width="960" height="720" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/J762PX7drB8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/video]
