No disagreement here: Energy Star needs to abandon “tech neutral” approach
When it comes to the Brave New World of energy-efficient lighting, Energy Star is between a rock and a hard place: On one side are consumers looking for solutions to their lighting needs once the Energy Independence Act of 2007 goes into effect and most incandescent bulbs are no longer available. Consumers are simple souls who expect buying a light bulb to be a simple task: Sell me a bulb that screws into my lamp or ceiling-mount fixture and puts out lots of omni-directional light. One the other side are manufacturers of energy-efficient lights, most of which are currently based on CFL and halogen technology, with LED-based lights waiting impatiently in the wings for consumers to decide that $25 dollars for a light bulb is not too much to spend. It’s Energy Star’s thankless task to develop a ratings system for lights that allows the consumer to, as simply as possible, walk into a store and buy a light bulb/luminaire that will serve their lighting needs.
Energy Star realizes that the consumer does not want to have to educate themselves about the various lighting types and learn about the pros and cons of CFL, halogen, and LED lights. So rather than develop Energy Star ratings for all the different technologies, Energy Star’s draft for luminaires (pdf) has been “technology neutral”: Qualifying CFL, LED, and halogen bulbs will all bear the same Energy Star label, even though all three technologies have very different capabilities.
This agnosticism has the LED companies concerned, to say the least. CFLs and LED luminaires have roughly the same efficiency, and they can both produce (roughly) the same color temperature. The only criteria where LEDs thoroughly beat CFLs is in lifetime. CFLs struggle to go much past 5,000 hours of life (and I’m being charitable in saying struggle, because in my experience they often fail miserably) while LEDs can easily reach 25,000 hours and beyond. But to enable them both to receive the generic energy-efficient luminaire seal of approval, the pending draft proposal gives CFLs a pass on lifetime. And this is not fair, say the LED manufacturers.
Bill Watkins, CEO of Bridgelux (and an outspoken critic of Energy Star’s push into solid-state lighting reliability standards) will not go so far as to cry conspiracy, but he does say, “If I were in a big company that had a lot of bulb business and wanted to plan for how to keep my bulb business going as long as possible while being attacked by an innovative LED technology, this is exactly what I’d do: Find a way to get my bulbs protected and get the rating, and find a barrier to the new technology.”
Mark McClear (who is a strong proponent of Energy Star’s reliability push) is on the same side with Watkins when it comes to a free pass for CFLs although he’s perhaps a bit more diplomatic. You can read the letter Cree sent to the DOE during the comment period for the draft here. As McClear puts it, “What we recommended is that they have two Energy Star [labels]s, one for solid-state lighting and one for CFLs.”
Although there are many aspects of the Energy Star draft that Watkins and McClear disagree on, they are in complete accord about not giving CFLs a pass. The phrase both of them used is “Let’s have a level playing field.”
andy T commented:
25,000 hour life, maybe. Then ask them about lumen depreciation....typically down 20% in the first couple of thousand hours. Your 60W light bulb just became 48W. These clowns need to do LED burn-in with the kind of lumen depreciation curves I've seen.
Vic R commented:
A conspiracy by the CFL industry and Energy Star against the LED industry? What a joke. The DOE has been supporting the LED industry for the past 10 years. The DOE has become the most outspoken salesmen for LED lighting, even advocating it in applications where fluorescent lamps are more efficient.
Energy Star must remain technology neutral. Energy Star requires that rated lifetimes are printed in the package. The reason LEDs have a higher minimum is because the LED industry have already convinced the public that LEDs never wear out. But, as I said, both products will have to publish the lifetime ratings on the box. Consumers will be able to see the lower lifetime numbers for CFLs, compared to LEDs. They will be able to make an informed choice about spending more money for the longer life LED, or the shorter life CFL. Perhaps the CFL industry should be complaining :-)
rmbpdx commented:
The specifications should remain tech neutral. If LED mfg's had their way they would get gov't specs to outlaw CFL's as well as incandescent. Lifetime claims in both CFL and LED are a joke. most installed CFL's at my home for past 10 yrs don't last any longer than traditional bulbs approx 2000 hrs if I'm lucky. The exception being a few CFL's purchased a very long time ago and are still working, Most new purchases are pretty much toast in 2 years. A friend bought LED bulbs and returned burned out bulbs in less than a year so just enforce claims and levy fines when business doesn't meet what they say just like any other industry. My comments are based on 8 years of doing what Larry M's maintenance guy did. I write the date on all bases of each cfl installed that way when they burn out I know about how many hours they are used.
LED Advocate? commented:
As a long time reader of your column, things don't add up. You say in the article that LED's last a lot longer than CFL's. If so, why are the LED mfr's so up in arms about having an MTBF (related loosely to life)? If LED's are so good, they should be able to wipe out CFL's in the ratings. On the other hand, this column has spent a lot of time saying that not all LED's last a long time, in fact the low quality ones loose brightness very fast. CREE has been fronted as high quality and maintain brightness. If the above is true, then it may be only the low quality LED manufacturers ccrying "foul". Historically, budding technologies have problems because of low quality providers taking advantage of the "early adopters". This leads to a bad name for a worthwhile new technology. It seems in the best interest of competent (high quality) manufacturers, such as CREE, to press for high lifetimes (oh yea ... CREE is pressing for the regulation). If 25,000 is correct, then CFL should be the ones worried.
John L commented:
Unless everyone has a level playing field (no ambiguity in performance and life of product).. Nothing will change/improve.
Flatlander, Larry and others have pointed out.....
25,000 hrs for LEDs? .... well, that depends... 5,000hrs for CFLs? again, that depends...
no way present "energy star" label means anything useful.
Might as well label LEDs "organic"..
FlatlanderInVermont commented:
Even if the LED's themselves last 25K hrs, there are other components in there that may not always be so good.
Larry M commented:
Not so sure about the LED 25,000 hour lifetime. I noticed a warning on the box about mounting base-down only, in unenclosed fixtures, as our maintenance guy was installing these in a base-horizontal, completely enclosed fixture at the direction of a corporate PR guy who wanted to make a "bold statement." At my suggestion the maintenance guy wrote the install date on each unit's base as he installed it. We shall see....
