 |
Get instant access to the latest news on energy- efficient, durable, comfortable, and green homes.
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
  |
| 01-10-2010 12:55:17 PM - 6 Comments | Posted By: Alan Meier |
| January/February 2010: LEDs: Avoiding the CFL Debacle |
 The lighting efficacies of LEDs have been rising steadily and are poised to overtake CFLs. Fluorescents and CFLs still outshine LEDs with respect to general applications and cost of light, but LEDs are already superior for some niche applications and offer many new exciting illumination opportunities. Now we need to ensure that the reputation of this new energysaving lighting source won’t be undermined by a tidal wave of shoddy products. Tests for quality, efficiency, and durability of LEDs have been mostly established but it’s still a jungle out there in the marketplace. Here’s what a recent DOE report wrote about one LED:
Product 09-65 is sold in big-box retail stores and home improvement stores, but includes blatantly misleading product labeling, claiming to replace 40W incandescent lamps. In fact, initial testing (per LM-79) reveals that it only produces the light output of lower performing 15W incandescent candelabras. Longer-term testing reveals that it depreciates to a level of negligible light output after 1000 hours of continuous operation, negating all cost-savings claims on the packaging because they are based on 30,000-hour bulb life.1
This is incredibly valuable information (indeed, the whole report is excellent) but wouldn’t you like to know who manufactured that LED? Sorry, that’s not exactly confidential, but it does take further research. If a consumer buys Product 09-65, do you think that she will soon buy a second LED? Not very likely. Does this sound like the history of CFLs? This leaves organizations eager to promote energy-efficient lighting in an awkward position. They want to promote purchases of energy-efficient lights with endorsements, incentives, and tax breaks. But in a scenario similar to CFLs, these actions will only accelerate a race to the bottom in quality… and in efficiency. These groups desperately need to attach minimum levels of quality, performance, and efficiency to the incentives before the market is awash in LED junk. We need to take strong action now to protect the reputation of future LEDs. In fact, a second DOE-sponsored report describing the lessons learned from CFLs recommended:
Be aggressive about dealing with technology failures that affect main benefit claims.2
OK, let’s be aggressive. Let’s name (and shame) manufacturers and retailers of shoddy LEDs (and CFLS for that matter). Third-party testing should play a crucial role. At the same time, we need international action to quickly establish temporary performance specifications for LEDs. Europe, Japan, Australia, and China are also confronting underperforming LEDs, so the action must be global. LEDs are particularly attractive replacements for kerosene lamps and candles, so we want good lights in Africa, too. An informal global agreement could create interim specifications that would fill the void until the standards organizations and regulatory agencies catch up. These interim specifications won’t be perfect, but they will be far better than none. A simple quality mark must appear on all complying products. Consumers will buy more energy-efficient LEDs sooner if they are confident that the lights have consistent reliability, efficiency, and quality.
1. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/caliper_round-9_summary.pdf (page 25).
2. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/cfl_lessons_learned_web.pdf
(page iii).
Photo by Evan Mills
|
| |
|
|
|
| Date & Time |
Comment |
By |
01-12-2010
7:44:35 AM |
It's a shame that poorly manufactured LEDs and false claims run the risk of ruining the rep of the new technology before people have a chance to give solid LED lighting products a try. Thanks for highlighting this problem. It's definitely an issue that needs to be addressed.
|
Ginny Skalski |
01-17-2010
7:21:44 PM |
Thanks for the article. I've been working in the energy business for a few years now, and I've seen a lot of LED products on the internet that looks great; however, I'm always skeptical of recommending products that I haven't verified the performance of through other clients and/or manufacturer websites. Does anyone know of any sites out there that rate these products? Energy Star is one.... but can anyone think of any others? Thanks! |
Kivelin |
01-18-2010
12:56:38 PM |
Hi, thanks for the comments. We are working on a series of articles that will summarize some of the laboratory tests, naming names, and providing the guidance that you want. Needless to say, it's complicated because manufacturers don't like their products criticized (and Home Energy wants to make certain that our comments are technically sound). So stay tuned!
|
Alan Meier |
03-02-2010
11:08:31 PM |
We are remodeling our kitchen and would like LEDs in the ceiling and over the bar as recessed lights as well as undercabinet for over the counters. Trying to find somewhere that can give an accurate expectation of light placement and light distibution has been nearly impossible. The whole dimmable not dimmable debate is killing me too. I want the LEDs but not sure it I should put in regular cans and retrofit them later or try to find an LED can that will work now. Any website help would be great, thanks for trying to educate us on a greener way. |
Tom |
03-04-2010
10:05:00 AM |
The Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
from what I remember is a great resource for this kind of thing.
www.lrc.rpi.edu
|
Jim Gunshinan |
03-23-2010
9:47:36 PM |
I used Cree LED lights in can lights in a kitchen/dining remodel last summer. They are fantastic units. The lights dim well and provide a good warmish light at a claimed 3500 K. Colors show well, they are bright and reading under them is comfortable. My electrician loves them and the clients (National Lab employees) were quite pleased with their "all LED" kitchen. The City of Oakland building inspector passed the lights in the final with no issues. I'm told Berkeley still does not accept LEDs, (I hope that is wrong).
In my own home I just replaced an MR16 and a overhead dining room light (candelabra) with LED's from local Ace hardware stores. The packaging said nothing about color temperature, color rendering or the ability to work on dimmers. I got two lights with very cold temps but both dim well so far. The MR15 was $14.99, the candelabra slightly less.
Ikea now sells a linear undercounter LED system that switchs through about 7 colors but the setup seems not to be something a professional electrician would install. It is geared towared homeowner installations.
I certainly support keeping quality standards high so we don't end up with a situation like that of CFLs; people hate them and refuse to use them. LEDs can have good quality light, dim well, contain no mercury and last a tremendously long time. Let's support high standards that let buyers know what they are getting so we can achieve market transformation and make wasteful lighting a thing of the past.
|
George Matthews |
|
While we will do our best to monitor Weblog activity for accuracy and relevancy, Home Energy is not responsible for content posted by third parties. |
| Back | View All Blogs |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
