Is This the Light Bulb of the Future?

September 24, 2009, 9:00 am
Is This the Light Bulb of the Future?
By Eric A. Taub
Update | 3:15 p.m. Added correction and additional information.

Philips, the Dutch electronics giant whose products range from clothes irons to medical equipment to light bulbs, believes that it’s about to become $10 million richer.


That’s the value of a prize the company thinks it will win with its entry in the L Prize, a U.S. Department of Energy contest to create a viable LED-based alternative to a 60-watt light bulb.

Philips announced today that it is the first company to submit an entry in the contest. The company has first-mover advantage, because if their lamp is shown to meet the rules, then Philips wins, even if another company enters later with better results.

In May 2008, the Department of Energy announced that it would award $10 million to the first company that developed a solid-state lamp that could replace a standard bulb. Among the criteria: The lamp can use no more than 10 watts to create the equivalent light of a 60-watt incandescent bulb; the color of the light output must mimic that of today’s incandescents; and the bulbs must last at least 25,000 hours, as much as 25 times as long as today’s standard bulbs.

While $10 million is nice, the lighting companies are not in it for that prize. The contest winner will, more importantly, get access to potentially lucrative federal purchasing agreements.

In addition to the lighting specs, the company must also manufacture at least 75 percent of the value of the lamp in the United States, and package the product in this country.

“I want the Secretary of Energy to hold this thing and say it’s made in America,” said James Brodrick, manager of the Department of Energy’s Solid State Lighting Program.

To prove its prototype, Philips has shipped 2,000 samples to the Department of Energy, plus around 100 pages and a CD of supporting documents, according to Kevin Dowling, vice president of innovation at Philips Solid State Lighting Solutions. The tests will take close to one year to complete as the department independently evaluates Philips’s claims.

But to make that time frame, the government will need to cut at least one test short. To test the life span of the lamp would take close to three years of continuous lighting, so the Department of Energy will make sure that the lamps last at least 6,000 hours, or eight months, and then extrapolate from there.

“This will be the most publicly tested bulb ever,” Mr. Brodrick said.

Mr. Brodrick hopes that the L Prize has sped up the creation of an LED-based equivalent that is a quality product. The department is still smarting over mistakes made when compact fluorescent bulbs were introduced to the market. Consumers rebelled when they found the light output from C.F.L. bulbs to be cold and unpleasant, with much shorter-than-claimed lifetimes, and the potential to pollute due to the mercury in each lamp.

By setting the L Prize’s criteria, “we’ve probably eliminated almost 25 products that were horrible,” Mr. Brodrick said. “We test LED bulbs today that claim on the package that they’re equivalent to 40 watts, but are really like 20 watt bulbs.”

Before you plan on replacing your lighting with new LED lamps, know that the first products won’t be cheap. Today’s LED-based lamps cost up to $100 each. To get the cost down, Mr. Brodrick has enlisted 27 utility companies around the country as L Prize partners. Once a winner is chosen, the utilities will help promote and possibly subsidize the cost of the lamp.

It’s in the utilities’ interests to do so, both for P.R. reasons and because if enough people buy LED lamps, there will be less demand for power and for new power plants. In several states, such as California, profits are “decoupled” from consumption. Profits are made based on a fair rate of return, and energy rates are adjusted to meet that level.

How much the new bulbs will eventually cost is anybody’s guess, but clearly there’s no market if they’re too expensive. “Over the long term, we can absolutely get the cost down to the $20-25 range,” Mr. Dowling said.

A Box of Memory, Available Anywhere
Next post

Marathon Tech Review: FM Radio Comes to the iPod
From 1 to 25 of 47 Comments
1 2 Next »
1. September 24, 2009
9:28 am

Link
Way cool (literally; vide infra).
In addition to the nominal, obvious energy savings, the bulbs will be cooler–run at lower temperature–and result in lower energy costs for cooling. Furthermore, a bulb that lasts 25,000 hours means you might change it 1/25th as often as you used to change your old incandescent bulbs, saving you many hours of not-so-productive time.* Overall, the bulbs may well be a big plus for us all.

New joke: how many people does it take to change an LED bulb? Three; one to change the bulb, one to go ask grandpa to remember for the olden days how light bulbs get changed, and grandpa, to rummage though his papers for the instructions.

— Joe

2. September 24, 2009
9:35 am

Link
Here in the Netherlands these LED lamps are not just experimental, we are required to use them in place of the old tugsten lamps. To be precise, the tungsten are illegal to sell above certain wattage and it is the idea to use LED in place. The illegal wattage value will be lower and lower until no tungsten are available (except in certain specialised cases)

— Chris dart

3. September 24, 2009
9:40 am

Link
Read the above with great interest. That was, until I read the following statement. It’s in the utilities’ interests to do so, both for PR reasons and because if enough people buy LED lamps, there will be less demand for power and new power plants. If the new LED’s are to save power, then how could more power plants be built to support same? And to even half expect the power folks to support such a product, is just ludicrous.

— Ted August

4. September 24, 2009
9:48 am

Link
$20 each?! That’s about $2000 to light my home, and only the light of 60W bulbs. That doesn’t sound economical.

— Ralph in Glen Cove

5. September 24, 2009
9:50 am

Link
They have been around for a while, even C.Crane has them in heir mail-out catalog and on-line, but they cost too much now. Maybe in the future the price will come down?
http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-light-bulbs/

— Phil

6. September 24, 2009
9:50 am

Link
The other problem with CFL’s is they emit electric fields of about 2000 Volts per meter, with a frequency of 50 kHz or so. This creates electrical interference and dirty power which has been linked to cancer (Milham and Morgan, 2008). Most LED bulbs I’ve looked at do generate harmonics but no radiofrequency radiation. Some bulbs optimize the brightness using PWM, and those do emit RF. The FCC or some agency should ban unfiltered PWM (and switchmode power supply-based) products for residential and office use.

— JoeScientistPhD

7. September 24, 2009
9:51 am

Link
A laudable goal and a good structure to incentivize innovation. However, the article postulates that “It’s in the utilities’ interests to do so, both for PR reasons and because if enough people buy LED lamps, there will be less demand for power and new power plants”. This argument implies that utilities would prefer less energy demand from customers, and therefore, they would prefer less revenue and profits. The government would actually have to provide the subsidies in some form for the utilities to pass it on to the customers.

— Anand

8. September 24, 2009
9:53 am

Link
Yes, but will it work with a dimmer control? Today’s LED bulbs exhibit a nasty threshold effect. Although they work with a dimmer, they do so poorly. To get smooth light level control over the entire range would require a new type of dimmer for every one that’s installed in America today, and they won’t be cheap. Incandescent dimmers cost around $7-$8, and it’s likely that a redesigned LED dimmer will cost at least $25, due to higher complexity. If they get the cost of the bulbs down to $25 each, and one needs to get a new $25 dimmer for an 8-lamp chandelier, you’re looking at $250 to save a few cents worth of electricity a month, not to mention all the energy and CO2 that will be needed to manufacture the dimmers and the considerably more complex lights. These energy- and money-saving lights are starting to look like a colossal waste of money and resources — brought to you by a bunch of greenie-weenie wackos in your federal government, of course!

— Andrew

9. September 24, 2009
10:04 am

Link
I wish the US would do this with space based solar energy systems…or shall we just let the Japanese or Chinese take the lead in that too?

— doug l

10. September 24, 2009
10:19 am

Link
I am amazed these companies think government $10 million is more valuable than market place. Just imagine the market for such products.

The only question I have is if we implement such a drastic reduction in electric usage; why is my electric bill remains the same? Unless, the utility companies are part of this equation, this is an exercise in futility.

— jarugn

11. September 24, 2009
10:21 am

Link
How do you say “Yes We Can” in Dutch?

— VinnyC

12. September 24, 2009
10:37 am

Link
The article makes no mention of whether the bulbs are dimmable. I have dimmers on every light in my house. I reduce my electric consumption considerably simply by turning off lights I’m not using, and dimming the others. I’ve tried using LED and CFL’s but since they don’t dim (even CFL’s that say they do, don’t!) I’ve found them impractical.

— Rob Lang

13. September 24, 2009
10:48 am

Link
$20-$25 for a light bulb? Ain’t gonna happen in our marketplace. Please get real.

— dennis

14. September 24, 2009
10:49 am

Link
I didn’t understand the argument: “… if enough people buy LED lamps, there will be less demand for power and new power plants.” could somebody please explain?

— Mr. Jones

15. September 24, 2009
11:07 am

Link
Er, how about people just turn the danged lights off when they leave a room? And why doesn’t the DOE lobby for federal law mandating that office towers and other businesses not remain lit all hours of the day?

— brennan

16. September 24, 2009
11:09 am

Link
To Mr. Jones question, lighting is a large component of electric power draws. Over the years each household in the US has typically used more power and the country’s population has grown - so it requires more power plants to be built to supply it. If enough people were to use bulb’s like these it would reduce overall consumption noticeably and reduce or eliminate the requirements for additional powerplants - saving money, resources and eliminating additional large sources of pollution….at least that is the idea.

— Sasparilla

17. September 24, 2009
11:14 am

Link
Yesterday I bought a case (24) of the “40W” LED bulbs for $103 at the local grocery store. Last night, I installed fifteen in my chandelier. While they are probably not really equivalent to 40W incandescent bulbs, their 22.5W total power consumption is a huge improvement, even compared to the 10W incandescents I replaced. If the lifespan of the LEDs is anything like advertised (30,000 hours), I will be quite pleased with my purchase, and very happy to have done something to conserve a significant amount of energy.

— Jeff Stahoviak

18. September 24, 2009
11:19 am

Link
The new incandescents may prove to be a big competitor.

On CFLs:
I’ve been pleased by the CFLs - a handful died early but the rest have been operating 2 years or longer including areas where the light is on most of the day. As for the “odd” light hue, people are funny: they like what they’re used to but there is nothing inherently wrong or right about incandescent vs. CFL hues, vs. candles, vs. kerosene, vs. gas. A lampshade sort of makes this point moot. As for the slowness to full light, I actually find that makes me smile as it gets brighter over 20 seconds or so. Newer ones supposedly get to full light “immediately”. As for the mercury content, that is the same for the long fluorescents that no one seems to complain about; I put the dead ones in a bag (very few) and drop them off at my local hardware store when I go - no big deal, really. If one is really concerned about the mercury in CFLs regarding a young child, then they need to keep their children out of buildings where there are fluorescent lights since they all have mercury - but of course, no one does that, do they?

Good points of CFLs:
1. saves me money over the life of the bulb after the initial higher cost, in terms of energy savings and buying fewer bulbs
2. saves me time changing bulbs and buying them
3. less heat which is easier on fixtures and AC in the summer
4. lower wattage/heat means I can use a brighter bulb than with an incandescent
5. lower energy use means I am helping to reduce the need for more power plants.

— David S (swatter)

19. September 24, 2009
11:28 am

Link
Well, if it’s as good as the sonic toothbrush, it is bound to be fantastic.

I will never accept phosphorescent light. It’s depressing & I believe contributes to stress, distress & paranoia. Halogen lighting is excellent. Xenon bulbs are interesting.

But this sounds like the best answer yet: if anyone can do it, Philips can. Incandescents have that beautiful diffuse white or diffuse yellow light that is so easy on the eyes, especially in the long darker months.

For students to do well, light has to be cheerful. Most schools are cutting back so much, lighting in schools is quite depressing.

So go for it, please!

— Maria Ashot

20. September 24, 2009
11:29 am

Link
On the point about less need for power plants:

In many states, power plants receive incentives to get customers to save power rather than incentives to increase the power use. This has worked in that they promote or in some cases subsidize the use of power saving items. It is not the textbook “private sector” model just as the water you buy is not. I don’t know how the incentive structure is set up.

— David S (swatter)

21. September 24, 2009
11:30 am

Link
I meant “fluorescent,” obviously, not “phosphorescent!”

— Maria Ashot

22. September 24, 2009
11:38 am

Link
I don’t think how it would be in the utilities interest. They make their money by getting a return on the power plant they build to meet growing demand. Utilties alway fight projects that decrease power demand.

— Bill Delamin

23. September 24, 2009
12:06 pm

Link
What’s so hard to understand about this? Lighting in the home accounts for about 9% of total electricity usage in this country. LED lamps provide the opportunity to cut that usage by as much as 85%, or 7.5% of our total usage. They last 10 time longer than standard incandescent lamps which means less energy and materials used to manufacture all those bulbs and less trash in the landfills. If the price drops to $20 or $25 the consumer will see a net gain over the life of the bulb when you consider operation and replacement costs. That is, if they’re smart enough to look past the initial cost…a real problem with consumers in this country. It’s in the utility company’s best interests because reduced consumption in lighting can help offset the natural increase in consumption caused by population growth. That means they have to build fewer new power plants, which are complex projects that present some fincial risk to the utility and are hugely expensive. Oh, guess who gets to pay for those power plants in the long run. Somebody please explaing to me where the downside is.

— Jeff

24. September 24, 2009
12:18 pm

Link
Why not just use “Energy Safe Bulbs” From for instance the same co. Philips???. 11 watt equals 60 watt.

Can it be because it contains mercury and it’s alright to dump it in Africa???

— Chris

25. September 24, 2009
12:29 pm

Link
At Costco I saw ten CFL’s for $2.
Edison was subsidizing them.
The same can be done for LED’s, eventually.
My energy bill this month was $400.
I’m happy for anything that helps cut it down.

Bring it on.