 |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Lime Energy Retrofits Harrah's Rincon Resort and Casino with LEDs |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Avago Technologies Introduces 3-Watt Moonstone Cool-White and Warm-White LEDs
LIGHTimes Staff
November 11, 2008...Avago Technologies is showcasing its new LEDs at Electronica, a trade fair in Munich, Germany. The company has added new 3-Watt high power Cool-White (ASMT-Mx20) and Warm-White (ASMT-Mx22) low-profile LEDs to its Moonstone product family. The company's ASMT-Mx20/-Mx22 surface-mount LEDs are designed for solid-state lighting applications. Avago says that they can be driven at high currents with typical light output of 145 lumens (lm). The company says that its 3W LEDs are ideal for use in streetlights, architectural, portable, retail, and lighting applications. Company News Release... SSL Design PageTwo members login for more. Guests can view membership details.
Philips Color Kinetics Puts an LED Luminaire Electrical Installation Video on Website
SSLDesign News Staff
November 7, 2008...In an effort to reach electricians, Philips Color Kinetics has placed a ten-minute video on its web site which explains how to install LED luminaires. It has only been recently that connecting LEDs to AC current has been made easier. Philips Color Kenetics has taken the added step of explaining the installation of several of its LED luminaires. The video in effect provides much of what an electrician might see at a lighting conference presentation. The demonstration includes using dimmer switches, and various DMX-based computer controllers. The video shows a considerably easier installation than some electricians and even some LED experts might anticipate. While this is among the first companies to have done such a demonstration on web video, it will not likely be the last. You can view the demonstration at: http://test3.electricsmarts.com/philips/tstg/
ilumisys Signs Reseller Agreement with LED Lighting Inc.
SSLDesign News Staff
November 7, 2008...ilumisys, Inc., a developer and producer of patented LED-based replacements for fluorescent tubes, announced that LED Lighting Inc. is now a reseller of its lighting. LED Lighting Inc. of Chicago, illinois USA, will now offer the ilumisys line of patented light emitting diode (LED) tubes designed to directly replace standard T8 and T12 fluorescent tubes. illumisys points out that unlike the fluorescent tubes they replace, the ilumisys MK1 tubes are mercury-free in addition to being more energy efficient. illumisys boasts that its lighting offers an easy transition from traditional fluorescent lighting while taking full advantage of attributes of LEDs such as: long life, temperature robustness, vibration tolerance, and energy efficiency.
"There has never been a more stable, higher yielding investment than solid-state lighting used in the proper application," said Bill Hood, founder and CEO of LED Lighting. "We chose to partner with ilumisys for its commitment to patented LED solutions and the highest level of integrity that goes into its designs and products."
SSL Design PageTwo members login for more. Guests can view membership details.
D. Light Design Receives $5.5 Million in Funding
SSLDesign News Staff
November 7, 2008...D. Light Design an LED lighting startup from Silicon Valley doing business in New Delhi, India, announced it has secured Series A financing led by Nexus India Capital, along with Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Garage Technology Ventures, Mahindra and Mahindra, and social funds Acumen Fund and Gray Matters Capital. The funding came from the same team of investors that provided seed funding for its original mission, providing safe, clean, and affordable light to 1.6 billion people worldwide without electricity.
D. Light hopes to eradicate the kerosene lantern and replace it with a much brighter light for millions of households in the developing world. The company says it will use innovative solar and LED technologies for this replacement.
Earlier this year, D. Light introduced several series of AC and solar-chargeable LED lighting products, custom-designed for the families living on just a few dollars a day.
SSL Design PageTwo members login for more. Guests can view membership details.
Lansing Expands Trial of Luxeon-based Street Lighting
SSLDesign News Staff
November 7, 2008...Lansing Expands Trial of Luxeon-based Street Lighting
Philips Lumileds of San Jose, California USA, announced that the Lansing, Michigan Board of Water and Light (LBWL), recently expanded its trial of street lamps from Philips Lumileds, which utilize Luxeon Rebel LEDs. The expanded trial includes six new Luxeon-based street lamps with neutral white Luxeon Rebel LEDs. The first 17 were installed in 2007 to explore the possibility of using LED street lights to reduce energy, maintenance, and bulb replacement costs.
The LBWL is considering expanding the trial even more to determine if the city's 34,000 high pressure sodium and metal halide street lamps should eventually be replaced with LED models.
Midwest Circuits a maker of LED light engines based in Ferndale, Michigan, designed the LED light engines for outdoor lighting applications.
In a recent survey, 85 percent of the respondents said that the new fixtures had a pleasing glow, sufficient brightness, and a safe light pattern. Not surprisingly, the vast majority therefore supported the installation of LED street lamps in other neighborhoods.
SSL Design PageTwo members login for more. Guests can view membership details.
Sunovia to Provide LED Light Engines for Flood Lamp
SSLDesign News Staff
November 6, 2008...Sunovia Energy Technologies Inc. of Sarasota, Florida USA has finalized an agreement to provide its EvoLucia LED light engines to Precision-Lighting for use in their TMD Series flood light. Under the terms of the $2 million agreement Sunovia will deliver 20,000 light engines to Precision, who will integrate them into a completed luminaire. Sunovia notes that a loading dock lighting is an ideal market application for the TMD flood light. Sunovia, a maker of cadmium telluride solar cells and owner of the EvoLucia LED light engine technology says that a a Fortune 100 global freight logistics company, is currently deploying Precision's TMD flood light across the U.S. SSL Design PageTwo members login for more. Guests can view membership details.
Lebanon’s Future TV Studio is Decorated with Martin's EvenLED Panels
SSLDesign News Staff
October 31, 2008...Martin Professional's system of bright LED light panels for uniform projection, has reportedly been used in several TV studios around the world. Future TV in Lebanon has also implemented the modular system in its newsroom. In a design created by Wanzani & Associates, two columns of five EvenLED panels rise around a video wall, forming a distinctive, decorative background.
“Originally, the client wanted simply to change the set of the daily news show from a studio-based set into a newsroom environment set,” said Ali Wazani, Managing Director of Wazani & Associates, an architectural firm responsible for some of the region’s top television studio designs.
“Most of today’s TV stations, international events and productions base their design on a branding and identity brief. It is the exceptional image that we are all striving to achieve,” Wazani explained.
SSL Design PageTwo members login for more. Guests can view membership details.
Our news features are reported
by the SSL Design staff writers.
For submissions or content suggestions, you can contact us using
editor -at - solidstatelightingdesign.com
For more information and to reserve promotion space contact
Info7 -at - solidstatelightingdesign.com
or call +1 (512) 257-9888
|
Commentary & Perspectives...
EPA's position on Energy Star for LED lighting: Commercial users are smart but consumers are stupid...
Tom Griffiths - Publisher
November 13, 2008...So the EPA's battle to separate the consumer and commercial Energy Star LED lighting specifications continue, and paraphrasing one insightful industry participant, "With the top EPA and DOE agency folks likely packing bags and looking for jobs, don't expect it to get resolved until next year." We recently spotted some commentary that gave a good overview of the US Environmental Protection Agency's position on why it was correct to have one Energy Star criteria set for the residential market (known as "the technical amendment to version 4.2 of the Residential Lighting Fixture specification, or 'RLF v4.2') and another for the commercial/industrial markets, which is the US Department of Energy's SSL 1.0 (DOE SSL has recently been expanded to residential fixtures, as planned and announced in advance). I don't think the commentary came down in favor of splitting the specs and believe the intention was to add some clarity to the EPA's side of the story. Nonetheless, I'm concerned it might have been perceived as a endorsement of the approach "because the consumer market is different". At least the EPA answered them... I'm still waiting for my promised call back. On the heels of that article, the DOE responded in one of its regular newsletters by fairly effectively tearing the EPA's argument to technical shreds (we've reposted Jim Brodrick's note here). My objective here is to hopefully boil it down into even simpler terms which will hopefully result in a consumer and lighting-manufacturer uprising against the EPA's involvement with Energy Star. I acknowledge that this may further delay the EPA getting back to me, and appreciate everyone letting me know if you see a news that a toxic wasted containment zone has suddenly been declared surrounding a certain suburban home northwest of Austin. (Maybe DOE will come to my defense and subsequently buy it up for some kind of alternative energy research site). While there are a number of rational-sounding points in the EPA's defense of RLF 4.2, they all seem to built on two key assumptions, and if those assumptions are proven false, the rest of the points become irrelevant.
False assumption #1: Consumer lighting is mostly about aesthetics and preferences, so the overall light output doesn't really matter. An efficient source is the most you can reasonably ask for without harming the market for "decorative home lighting". Remember what we are talking about here... This is about manufacturers being able to apply an Energy Star label to their light fixture so that consumers who purchase them have an assurance that the fixture (luminaire really), will save them money through its energy savings, will be eligible for local rebate programs, and in the case of builders, will support the criteria for green building, include LEED or other certifications. All of that is the value of the Energy Star label. None of that is assured with the EPA's RLF 4.2 Energy Star label.
Here is an illustrating example that might make the point clear. Imagine three similar fixtures of any type (chandelier, table lamp, "Tiffany's style", whatever). One has an LED source in it, another a compact fluorescent bulb and the third has a basic 30-watt halogen, but they are designed differently. The halogen version incorporates materials that transmit light effectively, and has been thought through with regard to its geometries to let the light out, plus there are no ballast or driver losses. 30 watts in gets, say, 400 lumens out. The other two are "cheaply designed" without much thought to light transmission or output. You can see the light, the fixtures look pretty in the bright showroom, and they have the EPA's Energy Star label based on the efficiency of their bulbs. In reality, due to the poor optical design and materials, the CFL-equipped version uses 15 watts, but might only give you only 200 lumens out. It's source met the RLF 4.2 specification, but where's your savings? Now to make it worse, let's say the LED version has had its source (lamp, driver and control circuit) certified to the RLF 4.2 required 40 lumens/watt. It was designed with a driver spec'd to operate at nice high temperatures to help the lighting manufacturer eliminate any concerns about the driver's reliability in whatever fixture they happen to install the LED engine into. The fixture provides very little airflow, since the lighting manufacturer is "old school", and is used to heat being dissipated through the bulb (big surface area) and in the beam, neither of which work for LED light engines. Result: A hot "in-situ" environment which results in 30 lumens per watt from the LED engine. Now factor in the inefficient fixture design that in our example only lets out 40% of those lumens (since it wasn't really designed for the highly directional LED source, but tries to bounce the light around to get it out 360-degrees) and do the math. True, it only uses 15 watts, but add the source drop from 600 lumens to 450 lumens due to heat, and the 40% optical efficiency and we have a final output of less than 200 lumens. The halogen, that is categorically unable to get any Energy Star label for its inefficiency, powers the light fixture that produces the most lumens per watt.
Some of the largest US energy program providers such as California's Pacific Gas and Electric, have made it clear that fixtures "certified" to RLF 4.2 will not be eligible to participate in their rebate programs. It's not a stretch to see their ineligibility for LEED participation and California's Title 42 coming as soon as those entities figure out the flaws in the EPA approach. So in our example, the consumer takes it home and sends in the online generic rebate form like they did for their other Energy Star lights and then gets no check back because that fixture isn't one that's qualified under a useful Energy Star program. Shocking? Hopefully not, considering the totally non-public development of this "revision" that bypassed all the real stakeholders. EPA chalks it all up to "consumer preference". I call it "doing whatever it takes to stake some SSL-turf inside an agency that has no place being involved at all." (I'm pretty sure I'll never get that call back...)
False assumption #2: The source-based approach worked for compact fluorescent lighting, so it will work for LED-based lighting as well. This one is really simple. CFL and other fluorescent sources had already experienced the tragedy of missed consumer expectations, and made their corrections to provide a quality "light engine". CFL twist-style bulbs, for a specific example, are designed to go where an incandescent bulb already fit, so if the fixture manufacturer replaced the incandescent 360-degree light source with another of the same general lumen output, you do reap more fixture efficiency from the more efficient source. Fluorescents dissipate the vast majority of their heat on the bulb surface, so airflow and fixture cooling aren't really a big issue, and don't effect the light output. From the market-side, poor quality sources can't be hidden by the fixture. Fluorescents are designed with a replaceable bulb, so the bulb manufacturers are held accountable to the consumers by the variety of fixtures they find themselves in. Poor quality bulbs will be snubbed and eventually the manufacturer is weeded out.
Perhaps most importantly, the earlier versions of RLF do a disservice to the consumer because they never let them compare apples-to-apples for different fixtures, just for incandescent versus fluorescent sources in the same fixture. Consumers were never given access to the total light output from a fixture. Commercial operators demanded it because it really matters a lot to them. It matters less so to consumers, but that isn't an excuse to provide misleading information in an attempt to make them "feel good" about supposed energy savings. The RLF has been a tool for lighting manufacturers to fool the consumer into thinking they are getting "more light for their money" in order to falsely differentiate their product and increase their sales or profits. EPA went along with it because it helped with the incandescent to fluorescent transition, but once you break from that one instance, there is no value in the RLF for comparing one type of source to another. The continuation of a poor approach that was applied to a technology that was at a different state of its market development does not make sense. Clearly the EPA knows this or they would have put this through a public process in which this fundamental flaw would have been exposed.
Here's where we get to the "consumers aren't stupid" argument. Would it, just maybe, be possible to give the consumers a little credit for being able to factor in the quality and efficiency of the light? Right there on the label they could see that product X provides a total output of 350 lumens for its 10 watts, while product Y provides 300 lumens and uses 15 watts. Right there on the label, just like on the washer or refrigerator, it could say: At 15-cents per kilowatt hour, and a typical usage of 4 hours per night, this 350 lumen fixture will cost $2.19 to operate for a year. The label for fixture Y tells us it will cost $3.28 to run for the same year for its 300 lumens. (Yes, the math is correct...). The consumer thinks about it (rather than letting the government think about it for them) and decides that even with 50 less lumens, they like fixture Y better and aren't too worried about the extra $1.09. Is it just possible that the consumers can still exercise their preferences when presented with the whole truth instead of a series of false assumptions presented by a government bureaucracy that put its need to hold onto some regulatory turf above actually serving their constituency?
If the incoming US administration doesn't resolve this by forcing the EPA to
rescind its nonsense spec, and the inspector general's continuing investigation
into the complaint of EPA waste and lack of open process filed by the SSL Industry
Trade Association doesn't find them wasteful and fraudulent enough, then I'd
suggest it is up to the LED and lighting industries to look out for themselves.
Sharp lighting manufacturers will choose the DOE version and be bold in their
labeling. I would suggest something like: "Conforms to DOE SSL 1.0, which
reports the actual light output from this luminaire and is eligible for all
applicable rebate programs. Be aware that products certified under EPA RLF 4.2
do not report actual light output and are often not eligible for rebate programs."
Be one of the sharp ones...
The perma-link to this article is www.solidstatelightingdesign.com/documents/view/news.php?id=11133#editorial. Always feel free to pass it on or post a link to it.
Current PageTwo members may access extended content by logging in here
or Sign up for a SSL Design PageTwo membership now
Copyright 2007 by Veriphos Communications. LLC
Content under license