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."
Sooo..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of energy efficient lightning, but what the hell?
Err , LEDs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Solid-state? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps someone wanted to sound smart by using more words than needed in that press release.
Re:Sooo..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Err , LEDs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sooo..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sooo..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The $5mil was a tiny part of their total budget, and the lab was inevitably going to be downsized considerably next year, once the Tevatron is shut down.
Also, energy-efficient lighting is a higher priority than particle physics for the DOE at the moment. Given the energy/oil crunch at the moment, it only makes sense that they're funneling a larger portion of their money into short-term projects to find new methods of generation and energy conservation, rather than funding "hard science," which technically isn't even their job to do in the first place.
Prizes probably help little (Score:5, Insightful)
The main reason was that there was no need to develop any new technology. It was only necessary for previously developed tech to be implemented cheaply. Any great NEW technology like efficient light bulbs or a cancer cure or whatever will usually have such a huge payoff to its developer that a few extra million isn't likely to add much extra incentive. If funders think it can be done then they'll fund it even without the prize. If those who would fund it see it as a long shot then the prize won't change the equation much.
The other reason the X-Prize was successful was that it wasn't clear that a manned suborbital rocket could be profitable. Boeing or Lockheed could have easily built such a rocket. If they thought it would be profitable then why wouldn't they? Maybe they thought that anything less than a very careful and therefore prohibitively expensive development project would have left their deep pockets open to excessive liability. Again, concerns like this are not a problem for a lighting technology or a cancer cure or an efficient car technology.
Oh well, best of luck anyway. Even if these prizes are a waste at least they aren't wasting all that much in the grand scheme of things.
Re:Significantly bright LEDs are very expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress, not DOE makes many of these decisions (Score:3, Insightful)
SolidState: Re:Why not fluorescents? (Score:1, Insightful)
Imagine being able to set up & tear down a command post without needing to waste time installing and collecting all the fragile lightbulbs or tubes inside. This would be a boon to troops in the field.
Re:Yes, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Say a $Billion bounty for a very effective and cheap to produce HIV vaccine or cure, and the same for various cancers. Sure, the patent would be owned by a company, but it would be in their interest to sell the product, so it would get out into the market.
I'm certain the world as a whole could easily scrape together multiple billions of dollars for a HIV or cancer cure. The savings alone would make it a no-brainer.
Re:Err , LEDs? (Score:2, Insightful)
People keep telling me that there are dimmable CFLs, but people keep telling me that there's Sasquatch too.
Re:Prizes probably help little (Score:3, Insightful)
My large problems are the chandeliers. I tried LED but they were too dim and I can't use CFL because they would e just plain ugly plus they are on a variable dimmer and CFL only seem to do well on two stage dimmers.
So yeah