admin /27 September, 2006
Jerry Simmons, head of the solid-state lighting programme at America’s Sandia National Laboratory, told The Economist (23 September 2006, p.18) that the world was on the brink of a new LED-led lighting revolution.
Numerous advantages: LEDs have become popular because they have numerous advantages over conventional light bulbs. For one thing, they last much longer: they can endure up to a decade of non-stop use compared with a few months or less for incandescent bulbs.
Smaller, hardier: They also take up much less space (a typical LED is about the size of the rubber on the end of a pencil), are shock resistant and, perhaps most important of all, are extremely energy-efficient.
Highly energy efficient: An incandescent bulb, made of a wire filament encased in glass, emits only 5 per cent of the energy it consumes as light; the rest is wasted as heat. Fluorescent lights, which consist of tubes filled with mercury vapour, are roughly four times more efficient. LEDS, however, contain no mercury and already rival flouorescents in efficiency.
Sticker price high but falling: Upfront costs make them too expensive for most general lighting applications, but experts expect that to change over the next five years as prices come down and efficiencies go up.
Big potential payoff: Worldwide about 20 per cent of all electricity generated is used for lighting. Several studies reckon that LEDS could eventually cut that amount in half. That would not only save billions of dollars in electricity bills, but also significantly reduce energy demand, environmental pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions.
About 1.6 billion people worldwide are without access to electricity and have to rely on fuel-based sources for lighting, reported The Economist (23 September 2006, p.21). But burning fuel is extremely expensive – $40 billion is spent on off-the-grid lighting in developing countries a year. It is also highly inefficient and contributes to indoor air pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases.
If people switched from using fuel-based lamps to solar powered LEDS, CO2 emissions could be reduced by up to 190 million tonnes per year, reckons Evan Mills, a staff scientist at America’s Lawrence Berkeley National Lab oratory. That is equivalent to one-third of Britain’s annual carbon-dioxide emissions.
Ideal remote area light source: LEDs are an ideal off-the-grid light source because they need so little power. They can be run on AA batteries, or batteries recharged using small solar arrays. Compared with kerosene lanterns, LEDS can deliver up to in 100 times more useful light to a task, besides being extremely long-lasting.
Benefits to burn: All this adds up to a life-changing impact for the lamps’ owners, ranging from increased work productivity, more time to study at night and reduced health problems and fire hazards.
Companies catching on: Several firms are getting ready to tap into this under-served market. Cosmos Ignite Innovations, a spin-out from Stanford University that is now based in New Delhi, India, has developed the MightyLight, a solar-powered LED-based lamp that is waterproof, portable and runs for up to 12 hours. So far, Cosmos has sold nearly 5,000 of its $50 lamps to various charities.
Ticket price still the hitch: One task is to make LEDs affordable, says Dr Mills, who is a consultant on the IFC project. Households in rural Kenya, for example, spend an average of $7 a month on kerosene for lighting. Although the cost of a solar-powered LED lamp over its lifetime is much less than the cumulative cost of fuel, many people cannot afford the initial $25 to $50 outlay for such a lamp.
The Economist, 23/9/2006, p. 18
Source: Erisk Net