Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Power Technology

Making Strides Toward Low-Cost LED Lighting 398

Posted by timothy
from the brightly-walk-among-the-clouds dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "You all know that incandescent bulbs are pretty inefficient, converting only 10% of electricity into light — and 90% into heat. Light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, could soon replace incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs in our homes. They are more efficient and environmentally friendly. But LED lights are currently too expensive because they are using a sapphire-based technology. Now, Purdue University researchers have found a way to build low-cost and bright LEDs for home lighting. According to the researchers, the LED lights now on the market cost about $100 while LED lights based on their new technology could be commercially available within a couple of years for a cost of about $5. It would also help to cut our electricity bill by about 10%."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Making Strides Toward Low-Cost LED Lighting

Comments Filter:
  • $100,00 - no way (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bvdbos (724595) on Sunday July 20, 2008 @02:58PM (#24264657)
    I don't know about the USA, but if LED-lights cost about $100,00 over there I'm going to set up an export-company. They're like E 10,00 in the Netherlands. Of course, with the current exchange-rates that could well be $500,00 tomorrow.
  • by sdpuppy (898535) on Sunday July 20, 2008 @03:29PM (#24264911)
    Solution - make the LEDs as an array/matrix on a chip, similar to the way CPUS are made now. A million or so LEDs glowing should be fairly bright.
  • by nasor (690345) on Sunday July 20, 2008 @03:39PM (#24264995)
    Uh...the linked article is on a purdue.edu page and has zero adds. Am I missing something?
  • Re:Yea, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aaron B Lingwood (1288412) on Sunday July 20, 2008 @04:19PM (#24265319)
    >2003 called, it wants it's CFL stereotypes back.

    >CFLs don't flicker...

    CFLs cause me migraines and other visual problems. I recently changed all my home lighting, where possible, to CFLs.

    After a week, I began suffering from an extreme migraine. As the CFL's made it difficult for me to read or focus on small objects - I instantly held them suspect. To test my theory, I changed all the lighting back, and by the next day my life had certainly improved.

    I gave it a month and tried the CFL's again, and again after a week a migraine set in. I intend to remove them tomorrow. My girlfriend (as in a living 3D female human-being [facebook.com]) who doesn't normally suffer from migraines has been complaining of symptoms while I had the CFLs in.

    I think CFLs definitely have a use but not as a be all and end all of general home lighting. The most pleasant affordable technology for me is halogen lighting. I am looking forward to what LED and OLED technology has to offer in the near future.

    --
    Deceive the rich and powerful if you will, but don't insult them.

  • Re:Yea, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kesuki (321456) on Sunday July 20, 2008 @05:36PM (#24265871) Journal

    'Me: "I live in Canuckistanbul - we NEED the heat, you ignorant clods!" '

    um, that heat really does you a lot of good up there on the ceiling, that 60 watt desk lamp is probably too far away from you as well.

    just pointing out that thermodynamics mean that all that waste heat is really wasted, unless you want to sit directly above your light source, you're getting 0 benefit.

    besides, there are plenty of efficient electric heat sources that let you heat just one room, or 'just one person' not to mention you could just wear a parka all the time.

    electric blankets don't cost much, and are nice and cozy even from the couch. although in practical terms, you need to keep the pipes from freezing etc, you can keep a place nice and cold, without risking bursting pipes.

  • Re:Yea, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ivan256 (17499) on Sunday July 20, 2008 @05:47PM (#24265945)

    Intensity and light output are two different things. LED lighting doesn't exceed the efficiency of fluorescent lighting in terms of lumens per watt yet. Many LED manufacturers continue to announce products they claim exceed the efficiency of fluorescent lighting, but they haven't actually managed to do it yet. That said, they're getting very close.

  • $100 to $5? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Flentil (765056) on Sunday July 20, 2008 @06:07PM (#24266131) Homepage
    According to the blurb, current LED bulbs sell for $100 and they expect this new breakthrough to lower the cost to $5. I can see that being possible for the manufacturing cost, but the cost to the consumer will always be set to one click below 'haha yeah right'. It's the way of business. Look at how many times in the past couple years we've been told that the cost to manufacture solar panels will be cut in half. You'd think with all that progress we'd be able to roof a house with them for about $10, when actually the cost remains one click below 'are you insane?' as always.
  • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Sunday July 20, 2008 @07:05PM (#24266641)
    ... used in their manufacture.

    Unbroken florescent tubes can be collected and safely disposed of.

  • Ya know, the whole Roland thing has been kicking around for a few years, and I'm starting forget why I was ever annoyed with him. I mean, really, how is what Roland does different from what Slashdot itself does? He's finding content and pointing it out to us. Slashdot does the same thing. He gets ad profit from hits. So does /. Big deal.

    So, what is the big deal? Sure, someone did something similar last year. I'll clue you in to something: someone has always done something similar last year. It's called science. It's mostly evolutionary, not revolutionary. And do you really have to dis what the Purdue folks have done just because you're annoyed with Piquepaille? That's kinda petty, bubba.

  • Re:Yea, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ullteppe (953103) on Monday July 21, 2008 @09:02AM (#24272465) Journal
    The chemical definition of organic is (almost) anything that contains carbon. So, organic substances are not alive, and they don't die. That OLED displays have a short lifespan does not have anything to do with them being made of organic substances.

    Ordinary LEDs do stop working eventually. Take a look at some of the early streetlights, you will see dead LEDs (somebody suggested they be called DEDs - Dark Emitting Devices). They have a finite lifespan, and gradually become more dim. That said, they will often last 10-20 years in ordinary usage.

MATH AND ALCOHOL DON'T MIX! Please, don't drink and derive. Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving

Working...