|
|
It’s hardly breaking news that most common incandescent lamps will be phased out by 2014. Yet, the jury is still out on what will replace them for residential use.
Several years ago the obvious answer might have been CFLs. The most common one-for-one replacement for screw-base incandescents currently available, CFLs are steadily gaining recognition from residential consumers. The technology has even garnered the support of the government’s Energy Star program, which launched a national campaign in 2007 to enlist homeowners to switch to CFLs.
 The effort seems to have paid off. Recent NEMA reports show that CFLs now hold 26.6 percent market share for residential lighting and continue to grow in popularity despite the overall decline in lighting sales due to the recession (p.12). Offering purported energy savings of up to 80 percent more than incandescent sources, CFLs seem to be an increasingly viable replacement.
Then there are LEDs. Though still relatively underdeveloped and untested in residential applications, LEDs have experienced such tremendous growth in the past few years that many believe it won’t be long before they steal the residential spotlight. A recent statement on solid-state lighting from the U.S. Department of Energy touched on just how far LEDs have come: “At the start, white LED devices were no more efficient than the incandescent bulb, but, by 2008, typical LEDs had already achieved source efficacies three to four times that of incandescents with similar quality warm light.”
With the real advent of LEDs for residential lighting still to come, can CFLs hold their ground over the next five to 10 years? LD+A asked four lighting professionals their take on whether CFLs are occupying a temporary seat until LEDs are ready to take over, or if are they the true successor to the incandescent throne.
—Elizabeth Hall
DON PEIFER
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
LUNERA LIGHTING
CFLs are at the zenith of their popularity. Considering their role in the traditional supply chain, CFLs will enjoy support from the lighting industry, retailers and even the government, whose marketing efforts have favored the technology (e.g., “Change a Bulb, Change Everything”). But, in order to continue proliferating, CFLs will need to overcome a perception of poor quality and address any application issues stemming from heat build-up in common residential fixture types.
LEDs also enjoy a significant degree of popularity, but face a different challenge: Other than a few early adopters, consumers are largely taking a wait-and-see approach. For most people, LED technology remains an abstract concept. The first generation of products may fall short of expectations due to quality and application issues like heat. Any initial backlash could retard the acceptance of the LEDs. That said, it only takes a couple of attractive, efficient LED products—several already exist—to gain momentum and change the conversation surrounding adoption.
Core to the success of both of these technologies is an immutable truth: Consumers want quality light at the lowest price. Until LED fixture manufacturers wrestle cost to the ground, LEDs will be relegated to niche applications like under-cabinet lighting.
In five years I foresee a technological scrum, in which both the CFL and the LED still trail the incandescent. However, in 10 years it will be quite a different story. Haitz’s Law—the LED equivalent of Moore’s Law—holds that LEDs will become 20 times more efficient and cost 10 times less by that point. Over the same term, fluorescent gains will remain relatively static. Considering these factors, dominance in the lighting market will hinge on quality. Simply put, a CFL is still going to look like a CFL in 10 years. Because of their small scale, LEDs lend themselves to variability of platform, aesthetics and quality of light, which, I believe, a creative industry will shape into a wave of disruptive, cost-effective solutions.
The Verdict: The CFL-LED battle will still rage in five years, but in 10, LEDs will likely emerge as victor.
EMLYN G. ALTMAN, LC
ASSOCIATE
FORRESTPERKINS
Despite the current fascination with LEDs, people are still hurting from the recession and may not have the money to invest in new technologies—not to mention that residential consumers typically lag slightly behind commercial consumers in new technology purchases. Given this, I believe that CFLs will be more dominant than LEDs in residential applications five years from now. Although LEDs are more energy efficient and have a longer lamp life than CFLs, there’s still the issue of initial cost, which is a big factor when people are tightening their belts.
Residential consumers have only recently started to migrate to CFLs. This is partly due to enduring negative stereotypes of fluorescent lamps including consumers’ fear of “green” color temperatures or the “flickering” lamps of the past. Now that people are becoming more educated about lamp selections, bulk stores are giving discounts for purchasing CFLs, energy companies are offering special incentives to save energy by using CFLs, and people in general are striving to find ways to save money, residential consumers are gravitating towards CFLs instead of incandescents.
I do think that the balance of residential lamping may shift towards the LED niche in the distant future (10 years). By then, the economy will hopefully be stronger, LEDs will have more consistent white color temperatures and CRI values, lumen outputs will be higher, there will be more product offerings, and the difference in cost between CFLs and LEDs won’t be as extreme. Heck, I remember back in 1999 when I saw my first LED MR16 lamp—it cost more than $400 a lamp! Now, 10 years later, it’s possible to purchase an MR16 lamp with higher lumen output and better color for a fraction of that cost. The types of lamp shapes also may be greatly expanded a decade from now. I recently saw advertisements for “T10” LEDs as a replacement for halogen lamps. Ten years down the road, we may even have LED replacements for T5 or T8 fluorescent tubes.
One of the biggest ways that the shift from CFLs to LEDs will be expedited is if the residential market demand is high. Consumer demand—regardless of the niche—is what pushes technology developments; however, the converse is also true. If there is no consumer demand, then manufacturers phase out technologies because they don’t see their value.
Members of the lighting community can facilitate technological developments by educating the layman on the benefits of LEDs (longer lamp life, lower energy consumption and no mercury disposal issues). The future of lamp development in the residential market doesn’t fall solely on the lamp manufacturers. It rests on all of us!
The Verdict: CFLs will continue to dominate in the short term, but may be overshadowed by LEDs once the cost drops.
STEVE KLEIN
PRINCIPAL DESIGNER
KLEIN LIGHTING, LLC
I’ve never been a fan of “upgrading sockets” and prefer sockets that are dedicated to a specific lamp type. Both CFLs and LEDs are exciting when used in fixtures designed specifically for them. Thus, I must make the distinction between CFLs that replace incandescent lamps in medium-base sockets and those with “G”-style bases.
The medium-base socket is so universal in consumer-grade applications that there is a great temptation to succumb to the siren call for energy responsibility and replace an incandescent lamp with a CFL—that is, one purchased at a mass merchandiser. There are good reasons to make this switch: energy savings, longer lamp life and less mercury. And, there are frustrating drawbacks: confusing labels, deceptive rebate offers, inadequate explanation of toxicity and disposal recommendations, reduced performance based on application, and generally poor color rendering, to name a few.
Then there are “G”-base CFLs, which are mated to sockets with optical systems and distribute light specific to the application. These CFLs are indispensable and should be profuse. If used properly, CFLs would rule.
Still, CFLs will never behave as point sources do. While they are useful for ambient illumination techniques like direct and indirect lighting, wall washing, under-cabinet task lighting and silhouetting, they aren’t useful in highly integrated places where small size matters. CFLs can’t be compact enough for accent or art lighting, regardless of how well they render color or at what color temperature. Their light is too diffuse.
LEDs, on the other hand, can cover all of these applications and exhibit color. The bugaboos of LED sources are expensive initial cost, heat management and the lack of universal performance standards.
In the future, both CFLs and LEDs will have their applications. Both lamp types need better labeling before they satisfy residential consumers as replacements for incandescents. The best way to promote energy- efficient light sources is to introduce appealing new fixtures that make the most of CFLs or LEDs so that these lamps are no longer “second-best” to incandescent.
The Verdict: No clear winner; both CFLs and LEDs will survive.
NADARAJAH NARENDRAN, PH.D.
DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH
LIGHTING RESEARCH CENTER (LRC)
The residential lighting market presents an enormous opportunity for both LEDs and CFLs to provide energy savings from lighting. Presently, incandescents are the most common source found in U.S. homes since residential customers purchase lighting based on appearance, initial cost, lamp wattage, and ease of purchasing and replacing lamps.
Another reason for the incandescent’s popularity is that its physical dimensions can be scaled down to fit a specific space; for example, incandescent sources can be miniaturized to fit into holiday lights, nightlights, small chandelier lamps, under-cabinet puck lights and MR16 lamp luminaires. While CFLs aren’t an option for these small-lamp applications, LEDs could be.
For applications such as ceiling-mounted luminaires, recessed downlights, wall sconces, pendant lights, table and floor lamps, and outdoor porch lights, both CFLs and LEDs are options. However, for most of these applications, properly designed LED luminaires have already demonstrated that they can outperform CFL luminaires in terms of total system efficacy. Because of their large source size, CFL luminaires suffer from low luminaire efficiency. With further improvements in LED light output, efficacy and efficiency of system components like the driver, LED systems will grow to become a better option in terms of energy savings.
Considering the types of luminaires homeowners purchase, it is certain that over the next five to 10 years, all light sources mentioned will coexist, but LEDs will displace a greater proportion of incandescent lamps and will thus comprise a greater proportion of the number of lamps, not just medium screw-base lamps, used in residential applications. In 10 years, a three-way split between incandescent/ halogen, CFL and linear fluorescent, and LEDs is a reasonable to expect. However, if legislation and incentive programs favor one technology over the other or mandate certain energy-efficiency criteria or lamp disposal methods, the three-way split may be skewed.
Aside from the LED vs. CFL debate, solid-state lighting (SSL) offers the opportunity to rethink the way we light our spaces, rather than creating replacement solutions to fill sockets. We could benefit much more in the long run by revamping the electric power infrastructure and integrating SSL with other building components like walls, ceilings and floors, allowing the lighting to be changed in a room, just like rearranging furniture. The Alliance for Solid-State Illumination Systems and Technologies (ASSIST) (www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidstate/assist) has been working on such concepts and other new opportunities to showcase the true potential of SSL.
The Verdict: A three-way split between incandescent/halogen, CFLs and LEDs may be the outcome.
October 09
|
