Energy-efficient lights to gain from incandescent ban
The 100-year-long reign of the incandescent light bulb is about to end. Rather than bemoaning its death, lighting-circuit designers would do well to see the opportunity in offering a light with instant-on, that dims without flicker, and that is reliable and cost-effective.
Margery Conner, Technical Editor -- EDN, May 26, 2011
At A Glance
|
The Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 dictates the phase-out of the incandescent
light bulb starting in 2012 (Reference
1). The bill does not specifically ban incandescent
lights: You will still be able to buy
any incandescent light that can meet the act’s
efficacy specification of a 25% improvement in
incandescent-light output. The lights are notoriously
poor producers of usable light, however.
They lose 96% of the power they use to heat; hence, Hasbro uses
them as the heating element in the Easy-Bake toy oven. So far,
no one has discovered a cost-effective way of coaxing more light
and less heat from incandescent lights.Nevertheless, both state and national governments, as well as consumers’ preference for saving money in the face of rising energy costs, are signaling the end of the line for common incandescent light bulbs. Herein lies an opportunity for engineers in creating lights that not only replace incandescents but also enhance the home or commercial environment through automatic energy savings and create a pleasant lighting environment.
Lighting technologies such as LED, fluorescent, and halogen are vying to become the new ubiquitous light source. The challenge in the near future is to provide a lighting experience that matches consumers’ expectations for how a light should work. Consumers don’t necessarily want incandescent lights but rather lighting “experiences” that match their expectations—lights that come on instantly; work with currently installed light switches, including TRIAC (triode-alternating-current)-based dimmers; deliver a warm- to bright-white light; cost-effectively save energy, and have lifetimes of more than 10,000 hours.
As a recent EDN article notes, Avnet illumineer George Kelly believes that our preference for warm colors dates back to prehistoric times when firelight was the only option for light at night (Reference 2). Blue light is more prevalent during the day when the sun is high, whereas redder, warmer light is a signal that the day is winding down and it’s time to relax. In other words, the goal of indoor lighting should be to as closely as possible match the black-body curve rather than simply to meet a color temperature or CRI (color-rendering index).
According to Wikipedia, German
physicist Gustav Kirchoff introduced the
term “black body” in 1862 to describe
an idealized physical body that absorbs
all incident electromagnetic radiation.
Because of this perfect absorptivity at
all wavelengths, a black body is also the
best possible emitter of thermal radiation,
which it radiates incandescently
in a characteristic, continuous spectrum
that depends on the body’s temperature.
At Earth-ambient temperatures, this
emission is in the infrared region of the
electromagnetic spectrum and is not visible.
The object appears black because
it neither reflects nor emits any visible
light (Figure 1 and Reference 3).Another recent EDN article suggests that lighting can influence sleep (Reference 4). The circuit in the article uses one cyan LED and one royal-blue LED to vary the current between them to achieve 32 shades of blue. According to the article, “When coach cars of long-range trains comprised compartments for six to eight passengers, the passengers could choose either ‘white’ or deep-blue light. The blue light helped passengers sleep, even when they were not in full darkness.”
This brief description is a bit hazy, but it implies that European trains once offered a blue light as a soothing nighttime color that would aid in sleep. Although the approach of using light to influence sleep is correct, the color is wrong. We now know that it’s just the opposite: Blue light suppresses the production of melatonin, a hormone that helps induce sleep and, hence, drowsiness. Blue light of approximately 460 to 480 nm suppresses melatonin, an effect that increases with increased light intensity and length of exposure. Until recent history, humans in temperate climates were exposed to few hours of blue daylight in the winter; their fires produced predominantly yellow light (Reference 5). In addition, blue light also has a strong link to the setting of circadian rhythms, also necessary for healthful living (Reference 6).
A link between lighting and insomnia may also be possible. Seth Roberts, a psychology professor at the University of California—Berkeley, has explored the connection between lighting and insomnia, using himself as a guinea pig and referencing related research studies. He concludes that people who experience bright sunlight early in the day and no fluorescent lights just before bedtime have better sleep patterns (Reference 7).
Lighting technology has so far been developing along a drunkard’s walk of innovation: We started out with the incandescent light bulb, which seemingly by chance uses a filament that mimics the yellow-red tones of white light and is a good stand-in for the burning embers of a prehistoric community fire. We then moved to fluorescent light, which in some instances has a distinct blue bias in its color temperature—one of the worst color choices for nighttime lighting if you’re interested in sleeping shortly afterward.
One of the newest lighting technologies, LED-based solid-state lights have emerged as energy-efficient lighting that’s easily controllable over a local network and lend themselves to intelligent-building environments that automatically adjust to a building’s occupancy and use. However, the cheapest white LEDs, which commonly available LED lights currently use, have a blue hue. Designers of solid-state lights and lighting networks are learning about matching the right LED to the right use and can justify using the more expensive but also more congenially red-hued warm-white LEDs.
LED manufacturers are responding to the lighting requirement for warm lights through a variety of approaches. Cree’s TrueWhite modular lighting adds two small red LEDs that kick in depending on the current to the white LEDs. A bulb from system manufacturer Pharox, on the other hand, uses a matrix of discrete LEDs that balances continuously on white and red LEDs.
LED manufacturer Osram takes
another route with its Brilliant Mix
approach to creating a white light for
general lighting. Brilliant Mix technology
adds red light from a red LED to a
greenish-white LED, which comprises
a blue LED exciting a green phosphor.
Mixing the two yields a white with a
color temperature of 2700K with high
efficiency and improved CRI. Osram
uses this scheme in its Oslon SSL (solid-state-lighting) diodes (Figure 2).Most discrete white LEDs comprise a blue LED covered by a dollop of phosphor that emits white light when the blue LED’s light strikes it. It’s difficult to decipher the technology that many white LEDs use, and manufacturers are not always forthcoming about what’s inside the seemingly discrete LED packages. One way to check out LEDs’ warm-light performance is to look for peaks in the light-power-versus-frequency charts for a part. Avnet’s Kelly points out, for example, that Seoul Semiconductor adds red LEDs to its warm-white Acriche A4 ac LEDs to achieve a high CRI; the spike at 620 nm in the A4’s spectrum provides evidence of this approach (Figure 3).
Another technological hurdle to
replacing the incandescent light is the
requirement that replacement lights
be compatible with the more than 150
million currently installed TRIAC-based
dimming switches. Joel Spira, cofounder
and former chairman of Lutron
Electronics, invented the solid-state dimmer
switch in 1959 (Reference 8). Now,
at least 150 million dimmers are in use
worldwide—most likely the reason for
the Energy Star requirement that future
CFLs (compact fluorescent lights) and
LED lights must be compatible with the
installed base of dimming switches. This
compatibility requirement is difficult to
meet because there is no universal specification
for the performance characteristics
of dimming switches. Therein lies
the rub for LED-light designers. TRIAC
dimmers are simple in their essence:
They stop the ac line from reaching the
load during part of the cycle. Less power means less light. This approach is fine
when you’re dealing with a purely resistive
load, such as an incandescent light,
but when you’re dealing with an LED
that expects constant current, handling
the chopped line input from the dimmer
can prove challenging. Two characteristics
are their triggering voltage, or the
minimum amount of line voltage it takes
to cause the TRIAC to fire, and their
holding current, which is the minimum
current necessary to make the TRIAC
remain on.In addition, dimming switches
require a load of 25 to 40W—not a
problem for incandescent lights, but
CFLs and LEDs typically require 7
to 13W. Thomas Shearer, design and
development leader at Lutron, says that
a common tactic for CFLs and LED
lights is to incorporate active circuits
to sense load variations and draw the
current necessary to keep the TRIAC
happy, even though this current does
nothing to drive the light itself and is a
source of inefficiency.
“Here’s where we get into the confluence of the product design and the requirements from the load,” says Shearer. “For example, if you buy the cheapest possible dimmer, it will probably have a higher holding current. Keep in mind that you’ve got the latching or firing current, and you’ve got the holding current. So this cheaper dimmer will have a higher holding current of, say, 50 mA. At 50 mA, you’ve got 6W on a 120V line. Just to keep the TRIAC on, you’re losing 6W.” A more costly dimmer may have a substantially lower holding current, he adds.
Another way to solve the load problem is to decrease the LED light to only 10 or 20% of full intensity. If you don’t go too low in light level, then the light itself still draws enough current to keep the TRIAC in a good state, Shearer explains. EDN’s LED-light tear-downs show that many LED lights dim to some fraction of the light and then abruptly shut off but still draw current from the line.
You can reach Technical Editor Margery Conner at 1-805-461-8242 and margery.conner@ubm.com.
|
References |
|
|
For More Information |
|||
|
Avnet Electronics
Marketing |
Cree |
Energy Star |
Hasbro |
|
Lutron Electronics |
Osram Opto
Semiconductors |
Pharox |
Seoul Semiconductor |
Talkback
-
The general public doesn't really know about the law passed in 2007 that in effect will eliminate almost all incandescent lamps. Being pushed are Compact Fluorescent Lamsp (CFLs) and Light-Emitting Diode Lamps (LEDs).
Since taking up this cause months ago, I been told by many I talk to that they had no idea such a stupid law was onl the books and they also have problems with CFLs. Inadequate light output, poor color, and short lives.
Finding CFLs to fit existing fixtures is difficult and in many area they don't work: garage door openers, ovens, and outside where cold.
Energy savings claimed is $18M over 18 years. Replace all 60-100 incand. with CFLs cost in excess of $50B. Add cost of new or rewiring fixtures take the total to $75-100B.
Replacing with LEDs takes costs to half a trillion dollars. Fitting CFLs and certainly LED into existing fixtures is difficult if not impossible.
Incandescents sell in the 25 to 50 cent range, CFLs $4-9, with LEDs $25-100.
Dimming is a problem, yes dimmable CFLs - but cost $4-9. Current dimmable fixtures can not use CFLs.
General public does not like the output level or colors of CFLs, often called ugly, dull, flat, cold, or unnatural.
CFLs claim 5-7 year lifes. Possible true where never turn off, but that's not saving money. Used in lamps, halls, closets where turned on and off they burn out much like the incandescents they are to replace.
Add 6-10B CFLS, adds 75,000 pounds of mercury to our household. Break a CFL, EPA instructions want you to evacuate your home for twenty minutes or more, than follow long multi-page instructions, double-bag broken trash, and take to environmental dup site.
Health care professionals tell us use of CFLs have unexpected consequences. Those subject to epilespy and migraines have problems. Even dermatologiests have long-terms concerns with CFLs that may be part to blame for skin cancer.
Those who originally pushed the law didn't really study the costs, side effects of CFLs, and what the general public really wants.
We are told that the law really doesn't ban incandescent bults, just requires 30% and eventually 70% energy efficiency increases. That is nonsense, asks for efficiency increases of 30-70% is not reasonable in any industry.
Robert J. Murray - 2011-2-7 08:04:15 PDT -
I've commented before on one of these articles. Yes, I agree that power factor will become a bigger deal as time goes on. Those companies positioned to take advantage of the components needed for PF correction will do well.
We have a mix of CF's and "Edison" bulbs in the house. The CF's don't do well in the garage as in winter they are dim when first turned on. Ditto for fridges. They are not good for garage door openers due to the EMI and inrush current (and dim when turned on in cold). I've tried the CF flood lamps in the bathroom over the sink, but initial brightness is poor even when at room temperature. Bathroom lights aren't on for long periods and the incandescent 65W floods will last for years in normal use. The net cost & power saved is minimal.
I've heard about the Philips lobbying to get the ban passed in Europe. A similar thing occurs in many areas such as standards groups. Apparently lobbying and "doctor approval" created what has become the standard American breakfast of eggs & ham, etc. Before that, people simply had toast, rolls, etc., as they still do in Europe.
The fact the U.S. is becoming more like Europe in most other ways - including the "Edison" bulb ban - should give us all pause.
David O. - 2011-10-6 12:52:20 PDT -
In the northern part of N. America where houses must be heated 9-10 months of the year, swapping to CFL/LED lighting will have pretty much NO EFFECT on average energy usage. Instead of useful heat from incandescents, the gas/oil/electric furnace or space heater will kick in longer. Push down there, pop up there is the rule.
This US government fascist mandate will increase contamination of the environment with discarded electronics, and mercury and phosphors from the CFLs. Also, black-market "bulb running" will foster criminal-by-definition. Finally, for the Bush-bashers out there, remember it was the Democrat-run Congress that pushed this cr_p legislation thru, with plenty of opposition from most conservatives.
Elmer Fudd - 2011-9-6 15:53:42 PDT -
I agree with Dennis, power factor is the crux of the issue no one is talking about. Margery's August 2010 article on the subject is one of very few that go into this topic. If everyone is foaming at the mouth over the Feds legislating CFL/LED lamps wait until the power generating industry lobby the call for power factor correction in ALL appliances. The Feds will love that one!
Juan Velez - 2011-8-6 07:19:52 PDT -
I can see from the comments here that some very smart
folks easily see through this government mandated
foolishness.
It is just too bad that the man on the street isn't more engaged and educated on the issues.
Just today, The GM CEO is calling for a Federal gas
tax increase of around 80 cents/gallon (from 18.4 cents
to $1). This is to spur the acceptance of electric cars. What a horrible idea!! But really good for GM who now has an overly expensive electric car and no or few buyers.
I think using LED lights is really cool, offering some interesting technical features and possibilities but if they can't compete in the marketplace then they should have no place. I always thought CFLs were sort of poor incandescent replacements.
Bob Downs - 2011-7-6 17:03:43 PDT






















