Will LED be the future of lightings? How long it will be?

[rain5539]

I just got to know from a friend in Australia that the government is undertaking a policy to restrict and replace traditional lighing bulbs such as halogen bulbs with LED bulbs. Is that true?

So will other countries will do the same?

Will LED really be the future of household lighting?

Duo to the technical restriction, how may years we have to wait for LED lighting comes into truth?

[TorchBoy]

No, they're aiming to replace incandescent bulbs with CFLs.

Maybe, New Zealand is considering something similar.

CFL and fluorescent will be around for a while yet.

Due to what technical restriction? If you start selling them cheaply enough people will buy them.

[Daekar]

I've got a whole bunch of compact fluorescents in my apartment and overall I'm pleased. Of course, I bought them a while ago so they were more expensive than they are now, and the color temperature was adjusted to simulate the light of incandescents (WHY!!??) so they're not what I want now.... I have one "natural light" one in a lamp and it's much nicer. I believe the CFLs available now are generally 3500k and 6500k...

As far as LEDs, they have a long way to go - they have to have their form factor adjusted to fit a standard light socket, they have to run on AC current, and they have to get brighter. I think LEDs first foray into household lighting will be in hidden strips, like under a line of cabinets to illuminate the countertop beneath. The average 60w equivalent CFL bulb produces around 900-1200 lumens, so consider that your target LED output...

[2xTrinity]

As far as LEDs, they have a long way to go - they have to have their form factor adjusted to fit a standard light socket, they have to run on AC current, and they have to get brighter. I think LEDs first foray into household lighting will be in hidden strips, like under a line of cabinets to illuminate the countertop beneath. The average 60w equivalent CFL bulb produces around 900-1200 lumens, so consider that your target LED output...

The biggest potential candidate for LED lighting is NOT general area lighting of 1000 + lumens, but focused spotlighting using optics -- that's something that a fluorescent light can do. Eventually, I think that things like light strips, and lights built into fixtures -- rather than screw in bulb replacements -- will be how we see LEDs take over. One of the whole advantages of LEDs is that they don't require being screwed into bulky fixtures that waste a lot of the light. That and the fact that they're sensitive to heat buildup makes them a poor candidate to repalce CFLs, IMHO dedicated LED fixtures, many of which taking advantage over the ability to effectively direct the light (which CFL cannot do) is a better approach.

As for the incandescent ban, we'll see which ones are banned. I woudln't be surprised if just the most inefficient ones get banned, and things like IR-reflective halogen bulbs still meet efficiency standard -- those can be about double the efficiency of most other incandescent lamps (though they still can't touch a well-deigned linear fluorescent fixture for color temperature and efficiency... nor can the typical CFL for that matter...)

[AndyTiedye]

Added to LED Fixed Lighting Threads

[Ken_McE]

I just got to know from a friend in Australia that the government is undertaking a policy to restrict and replace traditional lighing bulbs such as halogen bulbs with LED bulbs. Is that true?

No. A number of governments are looking into banning incans because they are inefficient. What you replace them with is your business.

So will other countries will do the same?

It's being talked about already.

Will LED really be the future of household lighting?

We don't know. Other contenders include EL, Fluorescent, and CFL. Let the games begin...

Duo to the technical restriction, how may years we have to wait for LED lighting comes into truth?

We don't know. I just put in a 65 watt LED light this week.

[LED-FX]

Have a feeling that all this move to `ban` incandescents is more to do with taxing them than banning them......

Adam

[Carabidae]

Heres an interesting article today on yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/...e/led_lighting

[2xTrinity]

Heres an interesting article today on yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/...e/led_lighting

I think this article made some great points -- pointing out the niche uses where LEDs are more useful, and making the point that LEDs as a screw-in replacement is a "waste of talent" -- due to issues with heat buildup, and not taking advantage of potentially more efficient light distribution that can come from using dedicated specially-designed (and properly heatsinked and regulated) fixtures.

[JonnyLight]

well, from what I see here, LEDs are going to replace fluorescents fairly quickly.... a "drop-in" LED fluorescent tube replacement that works with all ballasts? Amazing.

www.everledTR.com

[2xTrinity]

well, from what I see here, LEDs are going to replace fluorescents fairly quickly.... a "drop-in" LED fluorescent tube replacement that works with all ballasts? Amazing.

www.everledTR.com

IMHO that's one of the worst possible applications -- transformer losses in the ballast, then transformer losses AGAIN to convert that to DC to power the LEDs. No heatsinking, no taking advantage of the inherent focusability of LEDs, and I very very highly doubt any of those tubes can produce nearly 3000 lumens from 32 watts for 12,000 hours at 90CRI, for $2...

[jtr1962]

IMHO that's one of the worst possible applications -- transformer losses in the ballast, then transformer losses AGAIN to convert that to DC to power the LEDs. No heatsinking, no taking advantage of the inherent focusability of LEDs, and I very very highly doubt any of those tubes can produce nearly 3000 lumens from 32 watts for 12,000 hours at 90CRI, for $2...

Agreed 100%. Besides the focused applications you mentioned, one area ripe for immediate replacement by LEDs are those small base candelabra bulbs of 15 to 60 watt. Besides being the most inefficient incandescents going (6 to maybe 10 lm/W), they only put out anywhere from about 90 lumens (15 watt) to 600 lumens (60 watt). A 15 to 25 watter could easily be replaced by a single Cree XR-E using 1/10 the power. 1.5 to 2.5 watts of heat can easily be gotten rid of with a reasonably-sized heat sink. Even a 60 watt might be feasible once we get to 100+ lm/W. And with a properly designed circuit I'm sure they can be made to work on a standard lamp dimmer.

LEDs do have the potential to replace CFLs and even linear fluorescents. However, I don't think that will be feasible for a few years at least. We need to get the efficiency up so as to reduce the waste heat, and we need to get both the color rendering and color temperature consistency up as well. I don't necessarily agree with some of the articles which state that mimicing incandescents will be necessary, but we at least need to have LEDs available in common color temperatures like 3500K, 4100K, 5000K, and 6500K. Of course, a RGB source with infinitely variable color temp would be even better, but as you say the efficiency of green emitters is simply too low to make that feasible. We need to hit at least 25%, better yet 40% to 50% as already exists with red and blue.

[JonnyLight]

IMHO that's one of the worst possible applications -- transformer losses in the ballast, then transformer losses AGAIN to convert that to DC to power the LEDs. No heatsinking, no taking advantage of the inherent focusability of LEDs, and I very very highly doubt any of those tubes can produce nearly 3000 lumens from 32 watts for 12,000 hours at 90CRI, for $2...

Umm perhaps you didn't look at the actual product...

1) Transformer Loss -
Any LED Driver will also have loss...any electronics will have loss, period.
2) Heatsinking - it is in an alluminumn extrusion and very well heatsinked.
3) Focusability - There is no loss of focusability
4) Lumens - I have four of these bulbs in my office and have used a light meter on them....they do in fact put out as much light as a fluorescent that is rated at 3000 lumens.
5) With the ballasts that are in my over head fixture, it is running at 25watts, not 32...so it is more efficient than fluorescents.
6) They cost me $149 per bulb, not $2 (?) and they are rated for 50,000 hours.

I am damn impressed with the product, and the fact that I could convert to LED lighting for general illumination without tearing up my cieling and rewiring was worth the expence. It took me two minutes to have a completely LED lit office.

[JonnyLight]

Agreed 100%. Besides the focused applications you mentioned, one area ripe for immediate replacement by LEDs are those small base candelabra bulbs of 15 to 60 watt. Besides being the most inefficient incandescents going (6 to maybe 10 lm/W), they only put out anywhere from about 90 lumens (15 watt) to 600 lumens (60 watt). A 15 to 25 watter could easily be replaced by a single Cree XR-E using 1/10 the power. 1.5 to 2.5 watts of heat can easily be gotten rid of with a reasonably-sized heat sink. Even a 60 watt might be feasible once we get to 100+ lm/W. And with a properly designed circuit I'm sure they can be made to work on a standard lamp dimmer.

LEDs do have the potential to replace CFLs and even linear fluorescents. However, I don't think that will be feasible for a few years at least. We need to get the efficiency up so as to reduce the waste heat, and we need to get both the color rendering and color temperature consistency up as well. I don't necessarily agree with some of the articles which state that mimicing incandescents will be necessary, but we at least need to have LEDs available in common color temperatures like 3500K, 4100K, 5000K, and 6500K. Of course, a RGB source with infinitely variable color temp would be even better, but as you say the efficiency of green emitters is simply too low to make that feasible. We need to hit at least 25%, better yet 40% to 50% as already exists with red and blue.

When I bought the product, they had 5 color temps; 2900,3500, 4100, 5000, and 6500.

I think LEDs have come further than most people here realize.

[2xTrinity]

1) Transformer Loss -
Any LED Driver will also have loss...any electronics will have loss, period.

My point is that a fluorescent drop-in is gonig to have double losses -- losses from the ballast used to drive the fluorescent, and in the bulb itself, if the way I understand the product dropping it into a fluorescent ballast) is correct. A well-designed dedicated LED ballast (essentially, a rectifier with some kind of current sense to prevent overdrive) would have very minimal losses -- less than a fluorescent ballast of any kind.

2) Heatsinking - it is in an alluminumn extrusion and very well heatsinked.

Many fluorescent fixtures however might trap in heat, which could be a problem, though you are right, an extruded aluminum tube would be better than most LED products sold now, many of which are enclosed in glass.

3) Focusability - There is no loss of focusability

It doesn't lose focusability compared to fluorescent, but it doesn't gain anything either. Say you want a downlight -- rather than using these with reflector, LEDs with optics pointed directly onto your workspace would be more compact and distribute the light more efficiently.

4) Lumens - I have four of these bulbs in my office and have used a light meter on them....they do in fact put out as much light as a fluorescent that is rated at 3000 lumens.
5) With the ballasts that are in my over head fixture, it is running at 25watts, not 32...so it is more efficient than fluorescents.

3000 lumens from 25 watts? 120 lumens per watt is significantly higher than the specs on ANY LEDs on the market right now (and that's based on data sheets -- in the lab, with no fixture losses, with ideal heat sinking) This may be an exceptionally good product, but I'm skeptical that it's that good.

If this product is even half as efficient as that, I'd love to see this company start making some dedicated fixture. Almost all other LED products after driver losses, heat inefficiency etc. are around 50 lumens per watt, or less. Worse than a CFL at 60 lm/W.

6) They cost me $149 per bulb, not $2 (?) and they are rated for 50,000 hours.

$2 is how much a decent 5000K T8 lamp costs me. Two 32w tubes in a high-efficiency reflector in my garage is putting out as much light as the four old 40W T-12s they replaced in a typical (poor efficiency) fixture.

That's why I think fluorescent will be the last thing replaced on a wide scale with LEDs. While the LEDs are much better than a lot of older fluorescent systems (especially ones that were flickery, noisy, low efficiency etc) the best fluorescents are very high quality by comparison, have none of those drawbacks, and still very affordable.

Where LEDs have the potential to win is by taking advantage of their inherent features in dedicated fixtures. One Idea that I've read about is to use essentially blue LEDs, and then a translucent panel containing red and green phosphors to make a luminescient ceiling-panel fixture for offices to replace bulkier fluorescent panels. Separating the emitter and the phosphor allows for a lot of design creativity not possible with fluorescent (as a UV-emitter with no built-in phopshor would be dangerous).

Along the same lines, common fluorescent back-lit signs could instead be side-lit with blue LEDs, and emit different colors using different colored fluorescent paints -- much more efficient than producing white light in an inefficient fixture and filtering most of it, and it would allow signs to be much smaller.

[yellow]

Wait for the reactions of our gonvernments, when the Aussies have all turned into creatures like "the hills have eyes" within just a few years --> for going mad on the light emitted from the Leds

While all my lights I use now are high power leds, I can not even think of living under such a light.

what a great idea to bring attention away from the real methods to save way more energy than with lighting (even when considered on large scale society basis)

[TorchBoy]

Say you want a downlight -- rather than using these with reflector, LEDs with optics pointed directly onto your workspace would be more compact and distribute the light more efficiently.

Sure, but if you wanted a downlight why would you have a fluro fitting there?

[brickbat]

....they do in fact put out as much light as a fluorescent that is rated at 3000 lumens.
5) With the ballasts that are in my over head fixture, it is running at 25watts, not 32...so it is more efficient than fluorescents.
6) They cost me $149 per bulb, not $2 (?) and they are rated for 50,000 hours.

Let's see here... They are claimed to save 7 watts per bulb, and claimed to last 50000 hours. That's 350 kWh of energy, which at an average rate of $.10 per kWh is worth about $35 in avoided costs. So you spend $149 and save $35 in energy costs over the next 10 years.

What is the advantage of these?

Oh, and what's the manufacturer's guarantee?

What if they burn out after, say 2000 hours?

What's the CRI?

and what do we know about lumen maintenance?

[2xTrinity]

Let's see here... They are claimed to save 7 watts per bulb, and claimed to last 50000 hours. That's 350 kWh of energy, which at an average rate of $.10 per kWh is worth about $35 in avoided costs. So you spend $149 and save $35 in energy costs over the next 10 years.

What is the advantage of these?

The only advantage I might be able to think of is that the lamps could (in theory) be less sensitive to being switched off and on. Running the lamps on motion detectors rather than leaving fluorescents on all day, might save a lot more money. (Although, simply placing the fluorescents on motion sensors, and possibly replacing $2 lamps more often would probably save money as well).

Light being on when not needed, or light being thrown where it is not needed, are both areas that can be improved using LED technology (insensitivity to being switched off and on, and the ability to focus the light more effectively).

Switching street lights over to LEDs eventually is where there is room for big improvemnt -- more efficiently directly the light, and also turning the lights OFF when they are not needed, and switching them off/on with motion sensors would be just as effective, yet cut way down on light pollution, and energy use.

[yellow]

I mentionned this at some other tread, but maybe its of interest here:

just for some time, we have traffic signals for tramways started to be switched from incan to white led-clusters.
Signs usually are this way:
upper line: three clusters side by side,
lower line: one cluster.
stop is upper line running, go is middle upper and lower running together.
... means: the upper middle burns all the time.

Dont ask me how long they are there now, but I realized them somewhen at the end last of year.
While they still are quite more eye-catching than the old incan version, the middle cluster is obviously dimmer than all the others around.
--> will happen to street lighting also
--> money burned for nothing within some years time, bureacracy on its best (if used instead of light tubes).
Hope they will do a test run with just a few lights be4 changing everything

[2xTrinity]

While they still are quite more eye-catching than the old incan version, the middle cluster is obviously dimmer than all the others around.
--> will happen to street lighting also
--> money burned for nothing within some years time, bureacracy on its best (if used instead of light tubes).
Hope they will do a test run with just a few lights be4 changing everything

This is the problem with integrated phosphor LEDs. The phosphors degrade over time, just like the phosphors on fluorescent tubes. The direct color-emitters don't have the same problem of dimming over time (at least not necessarily... LEDs that are overdriven or poorly heatsinked do). IMHO the street lights will be a much better bet if they use RGB rather than phosphor LEDs (the problem with that for the time being is that efficiency on the green component is terrible).

The other option would be to design street light with SEPARATE phosphors and separate blue emitters. The phosphor could be built into the diffuser (which would make for more nicely diffused light -- important to cut down on glare), and it would be cheaper to replace a phosphor-panel than dropping in entire new LEDs every time. Even then though, the LEDs shuld be potted and easily swappable, similar to standard lamps, rather than the current design philosophy of engineered obsolescence where the entire fixture must be replaced if an LED dies.

But finally, to take full advantage of the LEDs, I think it would be wise to build in the ability to switch the street lights off and on using motion sensors -- that way, the lights would only be burning when someone is actually present (extending the life of the LED, reducing light pollution, and saving energy).

[TorchBoy]

Switching street lights over to LEDs eventually is where there is room for big improvemnt -- more efficiently directly the light, and also turning the lights OFF when they are not needed, and switching them off/on with motion sensors would be just as effective, yet cut way down on light pollution, and energy use.

FWIW around here most street lights are high pressure sodium vapour, at 150 lm/W. If motion sensors meant lights were off for 2/3 of the time it would save on electricity even with current LED tech. But you'd need a lot of LEDs to make up that brightness. And then there's heat...

Edit: ?

[OCEANBEAMER]

Canada passed a law requireing led's after 2012.

[brickbat]

Canada passed a law requireing led's after 2012.

Got details?

[IMSabbel]

About to OP:

Yes, LED will be the future of lighting, and be it forever.

I wont say what kind (Multi-die, blue+phosphor, or quantum dot broadened...). But there just isnt any way to create photons more efficient than LED. (ok, some solid state lasers are, but thats the same principle as led, and not as well suited for general lighting)

Add to this the inifinite granularity (smaller== more efficient), which will revolutionize the way things are lit.

I can already imagine having ceiling panals that had 10cm grid of tiny 0.1W leds build in, or something. (would create awesome soft lighting without any real cooling requirements.

The old "you have one spot where all the light comes from" methology born form light types that scale in efficiency with size is going to go down.

[Daekar]

The old "you have one spot where all the light comes from" methology born form light types that scale in efficiency with size is going to go down.

As optimistic as I would like to be about this, I have to disagree partially. The reason is, if you only have light coming from one place, you only have to run wire and power to one place. If light is coming from many places and you still only run wire to one place, then you'll have to have huge fixtures or grids which will be a pain to install and almost impossible to replace. If you still want the modularity offered by single-point lighting without large fixtures, then you'd have to run lots of wire. If any of the above have a chance to take off in the current consumer market, its that which is most familiar and similar in nature to the lights in use today. A modular grid/large fixture would be nice - maybe somebody from here could design one...

Oh yes, if you have a grid of many many LEDs, you have more connections, more chances for failure, etc...

[2xTrinity]

As optimistic as I would like to be about this, I have to disagree partially. The reason is, if you only have light coming from one place, you only have to run wire and power to one place. If light is coming from many places and you still only run wire to one place, then you'll have to have huge fixtures or grids which will be a pain to install and almost impossible to replace. If you still want the modularity offered by single-point lighting without large fixtures, then you'd have to run lots of wire. If any of the above have a chance to take off in the current consumer market, its that which is most familiar and similar in nature to the lights in use today. A modular grid/large fixture would be nice - maybe somebody from here could design one...

Oh yes, if you have a grid of many many LEDs, you have more connections, more chances for failure, etc...

I do think that things will shift toward more diffused lighting. Consider the advantages of using essentially a thin LED panel (perhaps side-lit, or with lots of diffused emiters) designed as a replacement for in-ceiling fluorescent panels with diffusers. The ability for the panels to be thinner and light weight should make installation a lot easier in the long run than typical office fluorescent fixtures, for diffused lighting.

I also think there are advantages of say, track light fixtures being offered in something more efficient than halogen lamps, for applications where spot-lighting is important. Small LED lamps installed onto a track could be a lot smaller, and lower maintenance than say MR16 halogen tracklights (not as many burned-out lamps to replaces)

Unfortunately I do think that you are right, the market will probabyl be most interested in buying LED replacements to standard light bubls, which IMHO is a very very poor application for LEDs (no heatsinking, no taking advantage of the ability for LEDs to be more efficiently focused/directed)

[hotbeam]

LEDs will indeed be the future of lighting. Efficiency is increasing all the time. There will be (are) 2 types of LED lighting products, one for the huge retrofit market and one is for new installations. LED bulbs (MR16, E27, GU10, etc...) and flouro replacements (eg), although less efficient due to ballasts and double transformers, and generally have less thermal considerations, will flourish. LED fittings where the LEDs are integral to the fitting will cater for the new developments. These will generally have better thermal management and better efficiency (transformer) and should live up to the expectations of LEDs.

[TorchBoy]

I do think that things will shift toward more diffused lighting. ...
Unfortunately I do think that you are right, the market will probabyl be most interested in buying LED replacements to standard light bubls, ...)

+1 on both counts. I'd quite like an OLED ceiling. Nice diffuse light, and the cost for it (eventually) won't be very high.

Diffuse light off the ceiling was very nice on the occasions I've bounced a couple of 500W halogens off the ceiling. Bright, yes, but no glare because it was spread out.

[rain5539]

No. A number of governments are looking into banning incans because they are inefficient. What you replace them with is your business.


It's being talked about already.


We don't know. Other contenders include EL, Fluorescent, and CFL. Let the games begin...

We don't know. I just put in a 65 watt LED light this week.

WHAT IS THE COST OF A 65W LED LIGHT?