IKEA Puts LED Lighting Stats Together (No Intruction Manual Needed) March 4, 2011

As of this year, all IKEA stores in the US are no longer stocking or selling incandescent light bulbs. This move towards more energy-efficient CFLs and LED lights has been planned by the furniture giant since early 2010, and the decision was in part a response to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. (The EISA legislates that high-wattage lamps must become 30% more energy efficient, which means gradually phasing out many standard Edison bulbs. First to fade away will be the 100 Watt incandescent in 2012.)

In preparation for this company-wide changeout, IKEA commissioned Harris Interactive to conduct a lighting survey throughout December of last year. Over a thousand consumers were polled over the phone to gauge consumers’ reaction to the shift towards more efficient lighting. Some findings (via Business Wire):

• Nearly two-thirds (59%) of Americans have changed majority of light bulbs in their homes to energy saving lights. Women (63%) are more likely to have changed their bulbs than men (55%).
• More than half (61%) of Americans are not aware of the legislation to phase out incandescent light bulbs. And 84% of people, ages 18-24, are not aware of the legislation.
• More than two-thirds (67%) of Americans care about using energy saving lights. And more than half (56%) of Americans are ready to switch to energy saving lights.
• Nearly 8 in 10 (79%) Americans believe that using energy saving lights will save them money.
• 62% of Americans are not concerned about disposal of old bulbs.
• 81% of Americans say that using energy saving lights is a good environmental practice.
• Only 14% of Americans are “very concerned” about light color, in regards to the change from incandescent to energy saving lights in their homes. 51% of Americans are “not at all concerned” about light color.
• More than half (61%) of Americans are not concerned about light intensity, in regards to the change from incandescent to energy saving lights in their homes.
• 73% of Americans are not concerned about being able to dim the lights with energy saving lights.
• In regard to the change from incandescent to energy saving lights, more than half (56%) of Americans are not concerned about the bulb not being able to fit in their regular light fixtures.

Major props to IKEA, not only for illuminating some consumer concerns about lighting, but also for helping to spread the gospel of LED lighting. With over 300 IKEA stores in 37 countries, LED lights are now more affordable and available than ever. Here’s hoping that other corporations will follow suit in the coming months.

LEDs: Turning Cool Lights Into a Hot Topic January 13, 2011

LED lighting shares a ranking with solar paneling, building insulation, and hybrid vehicles as environmentally sustainable investments that often come with admittedly high sticker shock. Though these expenses are accompanied by guarantees to pay for themselves in energy savings over time, even consumers who really want to go green can have trouble justifying these purchases.

New York Times Magazine writer Jon Gertner discussed this phenomenon on Public Radio International’s “The Takeaway.” He posits that consumers qualify these lofty green purchases as risks, and we tend to treat risks in one of two ways: with an analytical, cost-versus-benefits mindset; or with a “fight or flight” impulse, stemming from a lack of understanding. “Unfortunately neither one of these systems for assisting risk is that helpful in climate change,” he explains. “We consider it something that’s far away, both in time and in place. Even when we’re using our analytical systems, and we’re trying to balance costs and benefits… it doesn’t seem to take advantage of our cognitive abilities; we have a certain kind of bias for valuing near-term costs or assumptions over long-term benefits.”

Green Building Pro further investigated people’s hesitation to adopt LED lights and other energy-saving practices in an article titled, “Do Homeowners Want Performance?” Writer Lucas Johnson says that most well-intentioned homeowners have a complacent attitude towards green purchases: They’ll occasionally buy a low-end product that claims to save energy, but without first identifying actual sources of waste in their homes, which can render the green measures they take ineffective. It is recommended that you complete a full assessment of your home or workplace – even go as far a professional energy audit – if you are serious about curbing carbon emissions. But, as Johnson says, “people are busy.”

He goes on to point out that energy efficiency isn’t fully ingrained in America’s consumer culture, citing that “it is not often that one calls a friend to brag about their new LED light bulb or their Icynene® insulation. In contrast, a new car or phone or bike or iPad or outfit is almost always a hot topic.”

So it’s time for us to spread buzz about LED lights! Whether you’re talking to your fellow environmentalist friends or to your numbercruncing business associates, you’ll get the satisfaction of knowing that you’re not contributing to the conversation about What Designer Moccasins Lindsey Lohan Was Wearing As She Sped Off In Her New Car.

The LED Traffic Light Debate December 29, 2010

As an increasing number of cities switch to LED lights in their traffic signals, a potential problem has reared its head: LED bulbs don’t burn as hot as their high pressure sodium (HPS) predecessors, which makes them less effective at melting whatever snow accumulates on and around the lenses.

 Especially considering the snowstorms that hit the east coast this weekend, this is a complicated issue that has generated serious buzz in lighting and engineering communities. Many people have proposed numerous methods for dealing with snow buildup on LED street lights, and LEDs Magazine has come forth reporting that the benefits of switching to LED traffic lights far outweigh the negative consequences. Still, the conversation rages on in online message boards and blog comments. Here are some possible solutions that I’ve found (in bold), and italicized afterward are potential problems with those solutions.

Add a hood to each traffic signal that is angled down and away from the lights, thereby preventing snow from accumulating on the lights themselves. Some folks claim that snowfall in their area is so intense that it’ll build up on any surface, no matter what angle.
Install a temperature-controlled sensor around the unit that will heat a coil around the lights when it gets cold. Is it possible that it would activate when it’s cold but not snowing? That would be a waste of heat energy. Also the sensor and the heating coil would require power 24/7, perhaps undercutting the energy savings from LED light bulbs?
Hire people to drive around and sweep the lights when it’s snowing heavily. The manpower can be expensive. Even if you get street-clearing crews to do this while on their normal rounds, you can be sure that their unions will have something to say about the added responsibility.
Do nothing about the snow and allow drivers to treat a blocked signal as a stop sign at an intersection. This would not work if the signal is only blocked on one side; drivers on the other sides may see a perfectly clear green light and proceed accordingly.
Leave one HPS light bulb in the signal, flanked by two LED lights, so that the heat from that one old bulb can melt the snow all around it. Possible compatibility issues may arise with power supplies, as LED lights tend to operate on lower voltage power systems.
Put defrosters like the ones on rear windows on the bulb lens. This sounds reasonable, though maybe not as effective on this smaller scale. You always see some snow built up on those defrosters.
LED bulbs are capable of generating considerable heat; they’re just designed to channel it away so they’re cool to the touch. Change the heat sink on each LED bulb so that it faces the front, aiming the heat towards the snow-covered lens. I’m not sure if this could be done, otherwise wouldn’t it seem like a no-brainer?

Please note that I am not a city planner or an engineer or even a driver, and that the thoughts I’ve provided in italics are just ones that popped up in my head and may be irrelevant in practice. Can you think of any corrections or alternate solutions for this issue with LED lights?

Dubai Businesses “Do Buy” LED Lights! December 23, 2010

Business owners, check this out: The Grand Hyatt luxury hotel in Dubai has switched to all LED lights! This move – which involved replacing 1,500 halogen bulbs – stands to create exponential savings in electricity and bulb replacement costs.

In business terms, the ROI (Return on Investment) is expected within ten months – not very long when you consider the 20 year projected lifespan of each LED light bulb. And in environmental terms, this means the prevention of 630 tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere per year!

The significance of this hotel’s change-out is deep. Dubai, which was virtually a barren desert wasteland until prospectors struck oil just a few decades ago, now represents commerce, innovation, and (perhaps most importantly) money, thanks to the country’s wealth of fossil fuels. The fact that a hotel in this thriving country sees the need to make changes towards energy-efficient LED lighting and other sustainables should ring as a signal to all businesses large and small.

The FTC Wants Your Opinion on Green Labeling November 30, 2010

FTC building photo courtesy of dbking via Flickr Creative Commons

The Federal Trade Commission works to prevent misleading and unfair business practices and to provide information for consumers to help identify, stop, and avoid them. This includes the regulation of products bandying about ecologically sustainable claims such as “organic” and “locally sourced.” The FTC’s Green Guides (established in 1992 and reworked in 1996 and 1998) offer a rough outline of conditions that justify these terms.

In light of heightened consumer demand for sustainable products, the Commission voted 5-0 on a proposal last week to revise the terms of the Green Guides. The revisions basically call for marketers to be more specific in their environmental claims, since the FTC found that consumers had differing perceptions of what these claims mean. Under the new guidelines, use of vague, blanket terms such as “eco-friendly,” as well as use of unqualified certifications or seals of approval, will be considered misleading. In addition, standards will be put in place to qualify specific marketing terms. For example, for a product to be labeled “biodegradable,” it must break down completely within a year from disposal (previously, the Guides vaguely suggested “within a reasonably short time”).

I applaud these strides made by the FTC, which are in line with their recent, highly publicized lawsuit against LED light bulb sellers Lights of America, as well as the “Lighting Facts” labels that will soon be de rigueur on all lamps sold in the US. The FTC is currently soliciting comments from the public on further revisions to the Green Guides. Comments will be closed on December 10th.

Have you been confused or misled by products labeled “green” in any way? Check out their Green Guides Proposal (summarized version here) and submit your opinions at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/revisedgreenguides.

Utility Companies Joining the LED Revolution October 6, 2010

People who work in green technology industries hear every excuse for not buying energy-efficient appliances, and one that I often find is the claim that the energy savings won’t translate to actual money savings. Many people complain that their local utility companies would simply raise electrical rates if they bought low-wattage products such as LED light bulbs. To this, I answer that, while it’s true that electric rates fluctuate over time (sometimes wildly so), in the long run it is much cheaper for us to use less electricity. Why? If more consumers are using more high-energy appliances more often, electricity providers need to build more facilities to meet this higher demand. No one really benefits from this; residents hate the construction of new power plants in their communities, cities and their utility companies carry the burden of securing these plants, and they pass the multi-million dollar expense onto their customers through even higher electrical rates.

Some utility companies are stepping up to turn their customers on to energy-efficient LED light bulbs. The Bonneville Power Administration is bringing LED lighting to the lobbies of three of their utility offices. The first is the Emerald People’s Utility District in Eugene, Oregon. Starting off this week until Thursday, visitors are welcome to investigate the new LED lights in the EPUD lobby and offer feedback. Complimentary coffee and cookies are an added incentive to open up the green conversation.

The city of Eagle Mountain, Utah, provides their own energy, and they’ve adopted a direct way to show savings with LED lights: Officials have installed three wall sconces in the main lobby of City Hall. Screwed into each sconce is a different light bulb – a 40 Watt incandescent, an equivalent compact fluorescent, and an equivalent LED light bulb. All three are connected to an energy meter that tells, in real time, how much it is costing the city to run. So far it looks like the Edison bulb will cost $35 over the course of the year, $7 for the CFL, and the LED bulb will incur a mere $4.50.

It’s pretty uplifting to know that even electric companies want consumers to save energy with their lighting. As LED technology develops and prices go down, we might also start seeing public utility programs subsidizing LED light bulbs, like the ones we often see with CFLs. There are already some rebate programs in place for energy consumers who switch to LEDs. Subsidized LED light bulbs? That’s even MORE money in the bank.

California is So Over CFLs September 29, 2010

Eureka! People who see past the CFL hype.

The New York Times is reporting that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is ahead of the curve in the field of energy-efficient lighting. CPUC regulates privately owned electric and gas companies. Rather than pushing compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), CPUC has set their focus on more modern technologies such as LEDs. This is a great development for the industry, as it seems that the CFL’s signature curlicue has become the poster child for virtually every lighting company or building service that wants to give off a green vibe.

CFLs use roughly one third the amount of electricity of incandescents. CPUC wants to set the energy-savings bar even higher. LED lights generally operate at half the wattage of CFLs of comparable brightness (with zero mercury, to boot). CPUC researchers reported that if the entire state adopted the latest lighting technologies, they could reduce light-related energy use by 60 to 80 percent. Their goal is to get local utility companies to cut down on consumer subsidies for CFL bulbs, as well as programs for big-box stores that carry CFLs.

In turn, CPUC aims to draw more funding towards the newest generations of LED lighting and other sustainables, with an emphasis on bringing down upfront costs. “We need to move on and look at how best to spend our resources on the next step of lighting,” said Theresa Cho, an aide to Commissioner Diane Grueneich. “Our goal is market transformation.”

Read the full story here.

“Better” Use of Light Bulbs Act A Poor “BULB” Acronym September 24, 2010

Business as usual at CREE

In a move that could derail recent strides made by LED lighting (and other energy-efficient lighting technologies), Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) has introduced the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (HR 6144). Under this legislation, parts of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) – specifically, the mandated gradual  of inefficient incandescent light bulbs by 2014 – would be repealed. Barton criticized the EISA provision as a strike against Americans’ freedom of choice in this almost laughably erroneous statement: “From the health insurance you’re allowed to have, to the car you can drive, to the light bulbs you can buy, Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to people who work for their own paychecks and earn their own living.”

The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, which is also backed by representatives Michael Burgess (R-TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), is also supposedly a measure to restore jobs in the United States. According to Barton, “thousands of American jobs have been shipped overseas as a direct consequence of this light bulb provision [in the EISA].” He seems to be either unaware of or overlooking the fact that there are plenty of jobs being generated in the rapidly sustainable lighting industries. Cree, one of the world’s most respected manufacturers of LED chips, has added over 600 new employees to its staff since 2009. The Durham, North Carolina-based company is set to hire an additional 244 as they roll out a product line of affordable, newly engineered 150mm LED wafers.

Meanwhile, production of high-wattage incandescent light bulbs has for the most part halted or moved overseas long before the passage of the EISA in 2007. Kyle Pitsor, Vice President of Government Relations for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, spoke out against the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act: “The reality is that consumer preference already has been shifting away from incandescent products, with the market for standard household incandescent bulbs declining by 50 percent over the last five or so years. With lighting consuming approximately 22 percent of all electricity in the US, the potential for energy savings and energy conservation that the country – and the world – can realize with this change to higher-technology light sources is immense. American businesses and consumers will annually save billions of dollars in electricity bills once the transition is complete.”

No Energy Spike with LED Lights September 22, 2010

It is a widely held belief that leaving lights on saves electricity if one leaves a room for 15 minutes or less. This is due to the energy spike associated with turning on any kind of fluorescent or HID (High-Intensity Discharge) lights. According to the US Department of Energy, turning on a fluorescent light causes an inrush of power that lasts for 1/20th of a second and uses under 5 seconds’ worth of electricity. So this disproves the “15-minute rule” that most people go by, though changing the name would probably create confusion with the other, very important “5-second rule.”

Though flicking off fluorescent lights upon leaving a room (for intervals over 5 seconds) is an energy-saving practice, the energy spike from turning them back on still significantly degrades the lifespan of the bulb. This contributes to CFLs rarely living up to their lifespan claims; they’re not really built to be turned on and off. Thus, it presents another factor to consider when turning your lights on and off: How often do you want to replace your dead light bulbs?

This high-energy spike, thankfully, does not occur in LED lighting. LED lights are solid-state, meaning they are sturdier because they don’t contain delicate, evaporation-prone filaments or gases that ignite with the flick of a switch. This is somewhat apparent in their instant start-up. There’s no warming up period with LED lights - when you turn them on, they’re just go on, with no additional energy spike. So if you install an LED light bulb, you can turn it on and off without worrying about the “15 minute rule” or the “5 second rule” or any other rules. Now THAT rules.

LED Lights for Airplanes: Ready for Lift-off? September 10, 2010

Here’s a somewhat unexpected fanbase of LED lighting: aviation industry professionals. In a recent blog post on AV Web Insider, Paul Bertorelli calls out the Federal Aviation Administration for not embracing LED technology (which, he gushes, is “fabulous technology. It’s improving in leaps and bounds, it’s getting ever cheaper and is becoming a significant market force in the general lighting market.”). After conducting some research for landing lights he found that numerous LED lighting manufacturers have approached the FAA for approval for their products. The FAA has slapped away each of these advances.

One thing Bertorelli finds frustrating about this process is that LED lights have proven that they can easily outperform the bulbs which aircrafts currently have in place. The FAA only requires that replacement lamps produce sufficient light and do not create a fire hazard. Yet each petition to adopt LED lighting has been met with demands for further testing, insurmountable red tape, or flat-out refusal.

I highly recommend reading the editorial, including the comments, if for no other reason than to learn about these new perspectives on LED lighting. (Disclaimer: If you’re not familiar with the aviation industry, I’d recommend opening up a Wikipedia tab to help clarify some of the lingo.) Lots of commenters share Bertorelli’s disbelief at the FAA, some to the extent that they’re considering just screwing in their own LED light bulbs since they already technically adhere to FAA regulations. One entertaining comment reads, “Can you imagine the FAA reaction if the situation was reversed – the LEDs were the historical standard and approval was sought for a 4509 bulb. ‘Are you crazy? You want to put a heat emitting piece of glass near the engine compartment.’” A seriously interesting read.