The change in recent years to both CFLs and LEDs is in response to: 1) state efforts to encourage greater energy efficiencies through Demand Side Management Programs, including more efficient lighting options; and 2) federal law requiring light bulbs meet energy efficiency standards, beginning in 2012.
On a global basis, lighting accounts for almost one-fourth of total electricity use. Given the global attention to a sustainable energy future, it’s understandable that nations throughout the world are mandating greater lighting efficiencies. In the U.S. about 16 percent of residential electricity use goes for lighting. For the commercial sector, about 38 percent of electricity use is for lighting. So, you can see, If we reduce the amount of energy used for lighting by 30, 40 or 50 percent or more, we could make a sizeable dent in our electricity bills and defer building new generating capacity, saving $billions down the road.
Not everybody is eager, however, to abandon their 3-way incandescent bulbs in favor of CFLs or LEDs. Last year, Tea Party candidates took issue with the government’s role in condemning the incandescent bulb to an artificial demise. And, last month, the U.S. House of Representatives took up a bill to extend the life of Edison’s 100-year old technology. The “Better Use of Light Bulbs Act,” however, failed to get the supermajority vote required to pass the House.
A few months ago I attended a presentation on lighting efficiency by Daniel Henderson, president of a Scottsdale-based company called Relumination. Henderson’s company works with customers to implement energy efficient lighting solutions. Henderson is sold on the benefits of LEDs as the best alternative to conventional incandescent light bulbs. LEDs are more efficient and have a longer useful life than any of the alternatives. While CFLs have essentially reached maturity on the product development life cycle curve, LEDs are in the early stages of development and have great upside potential for further design and cost improvements. The biggest obstacle for LEDs today is price – a 60 watt LED bulb costs about $40 compared to $1 for an equivalent CFL. Henderson admits price is a big hurdle for consumers to overcome when deciding on replacement lighting. Most of Relumination’s business is with commercial customers who view the move to LED lighting as an investment – here’s why:
The manufacture of light bulbs has long been the domain of companies like Phillips, Siemens, and GE Lighting. But, LEDs have been used for backlighting and other uses for years in consumer electronic devices (cell phones, laptop computers, televisions). The Economist points out that electronics companies like Samsung, LG, Toshiba, Panasonic, and Sharp will bring competition to the manufacture of LED bulbs for space lighting. It goes on to predict that with improvements to production processes and increased competition, the price of LEDs will fall sharply to about one-tenth of current prices within the next 10 years.
I can attest that replacing incandescent light bulbs in my household has been a struggle. The affordable option is CFLs, but I get complaints about the quality of light, the fact that they can’t be dimmed and can’t just been thrown in the garbage when they burn out. I’ve also written previously here about having to replace them sooner than advertised.
We’ve also replaced one fixture in a strategic location in the kitchen with LEDs and love it. It’s white, bright, and dimmable. The only problem is that to re-fit the entire house with LEDs at today’s prices would cost a fortune and take too long to recoup through lower electricity bills.
Here’s to the future of LED technology and a competitive market. In the meantime, I’m hoping the cosmetic improvements in the CFL bulb will at least lessen the resistance to adaptation in our home.
