DoE Announces 'L Prize' For Solid-State Lighting 220
erikaaboe notes that the US Department of Energy has announced a competition to develop efficient solid-state lighting technology. The "L Prize" program will allocate as much as $20 million in cash prizes for innovations to replace the common light bulb. Further details are available at the L Prize website. From the press release:
"Lighting products meeting the competition requirements would consume just 17% of the energy used by most incandescent lamps in use today. The plan also includes a rigorous evaluation process, including testing of proposed products by independent laboratories (conducted through DOE's CALiPER test program), as well as field evaluations by DOE and utility partners to assess products in real world conditions. Four major California utilities ... have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with DOE, agreeing to work cooperatively to promote high-efficiency solid-state lighting technologies."
Re:Solid-state? (Score:3, Informative)
It'll take a lot of research and effort to figure out how to make a better LED with only (up to) $20m in rewards.
Re:Solid-state? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sooo..... (Score:5, Informative)
Significantly bright LEDs are very expensive (Score:5, Informative)
They work great for flashlights, and the headlight and taillight on my bike use LEDs.
But I researched LED lights a couple months ago, and found that a "60 watt replacement" LED light was expected to cost well over a hundred dollars, and at that time was still in development, and not yet available.
I finally settled for a couple twisty bulbs, but I'm not too happy about it because they contain mercury.
I'm also not too happy that the mercury warning on the package just advised me to dispose of them "according to local laws". As if it would be OK to let the mercury into the groundwater if there wasn't a law specifically against doing so!
Decades? Not really (Score:4, Informative)
It takes about 1000 hours for the led to reach 50% light output. The time from 100% to about 85% is measured in single digit hours!
So, no, light fixtures that last for decades are right out. With current technology, that is.
Re:Significantly bright LEDs are very expensive (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Significantly bright LEDs are very expensive (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why not fluorescents? (Score:2, Informative)
If you have trouble with this, I suggest you either get your eyes tested, or stop smoking whatever it is.
Alternatively, try riding a bicycle (even during the day) for an hour or so a day, for a couple of weeks. You will discover that it doesn't matter how visible you are, ignorant arseholes in cars will actively try to run you down anyway.
Re:Decades? Not really (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prizes probably help little (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Significantly bright LEDs are very expensive (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Significantly bright LEDs are very expensive (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Err , LEDs? (Score:5, Informative)
Regarding CFLs... I was at the hardware store getting stuff to fix a lamp and decided to put down $5 for a pair of 23W CFLs (7000 lumen/100W equivalent). I have to say that, having owned one of the very early CFL types several years ago and being very disappointed with it, I was VERY surprised at these new ones. Instant-on brightness was equal to the 100W incandescent it replaced, and it actually got BRIGHTER after a minute or so. The light has a slight tint to it - not quite as "yellow" as sunlight but not white/blueish like the 4' tubes in most offices.
All I can say is give it a try. Made a believer out of me.
=Smidge=
Re:Significantly bright LEDs are very expensive (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, please. There's more mercury in your watch battery than in the CFL. And it's not like its posing any actual danger to you. The mercury isn't released into the air when the CFL is broken. If it does break, you can clean it up with a vacuum and a pair of rubber gloves, just like a non-CFL. No need to call in a hazmat team [financialpost.com].
Unless you're going to get down on the floor and lick up the broken CFL, it doesn't pose much a risk to you.
Environmentally, the tiny bit of mercury is far outweighed by the massive energy usage and packaging savings the CFL gives you over its life time. The CFL can either be disposed of with your paints and batteries (ie: safely), or some places even have CFL recycling programs to reclaim the materials.
Take a gander at the Natural Resources Canada [nrcan.gc.ca] FAQ about CFLs. It includes a link to a health study about the effects of CFL's mercury [nrcan.gc.ca].
Re:Significantly bright LEDs are very expensive (Score:3, Informative)
Just about all LED lamps available now are made from discreet white LEDs that cost about 50 cents each in bulk. Factor in PCB, power supply and assembly and they're still stupidly expensive.
What they need is a purpose-build manufacturing method to form dozens of LED junctions as a single unit specifically as a bulk light source.
=Smidge=
Re:Why not fluorescents? (Score:3, Informative)
=Smidge=
Re:Lasers (Score:2, Informative)
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser [wikipedia.org]
BTW, (Score:5, Informative)
Now, we have a NEW genetic disease up and rising: Psoriasis. Evey drug company is screaming that it is genetic. And they have all sorts of new drugs that treat the symptoms. But everybody seems to ignore several little things about:
This is the next ulcer. And while HIV does have a lot more basic research going on, it is obvious that the majority of the research is devoted to solving the symptom issues and not the issue of the bug itself.
Re:Significantly bright LEDs are very expensive (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Significantly bright LEDs are very expensive (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Err , LEDs? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Solid-state? (Score:3, Informative)
Hollow state [think vacuum tube] actually. Solid state is like an LED.
Mod this down--this isn't insightul, it's just a question.
Re:Lasers (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Lasers (Score:3, Informative)
"Despeckling" means spreading the frequency of the light. The speckle comes from interference patters from the monochromatic light from the laser bouncing off surface textures. Broadband sources have speckle in each frequency, too. But the speckle from a swath of minutely different frequencies averages out to a non-speckled reflection.
So combining a laser with nanoparticles to efficiently swap the energy around between frequencies until it's smeared out into a plesant white light should do the job. B-)