The lighting efficacies of LEDs have been rising steadily and are poised to overtake CFLs. Fluorescents and CFLs still outshine LEDs with respect to general applications and cost of light, but LEDs are already superior for some niche applications and offer many new exciting illumination opportunities. Now we need to ensure that the reputation of this new energysaving lighting source won’t be undermined by a tidal wave of shoddy products. Tests for quality, efficiency, and durability of LEDs have been mostly established but it’s still a jungle out there in the marketplace. Here’s what a recent DOE report wrote about one LED:


Product 09-65 is sold in big-box retail stores and home improvement stores, but includes blatantly misleading product labeling, claiming to replace 40W incandescent lamps. In fact, initial testing (per LM-79) reveals that it only produces the light output of lower performing 15W incandescent candelabras. Longer-term testing reveals that it depreciates to a level of negligible light output after 1000 hours of continuous operation, negating all cost-savings claims on the packaging because they are based on 30,000-hour bulb life.1

This is incredibly valuable information (indeed, the whole report is excellent) but wouldn’t you like to know who manufactured that LED? Sorry, that’s not exactly confidential, but it does take further research. If a consumer buys Product 09-65, do you think that she will soon buy a second LED? Not very likely. Does this sound like the history of CFLs? This leaves organizations eager to promote energy-efficient lighting in an awkward position. They want to promote purchases of energy-efficient lights with endorsements, incentives, and tax breaks. But in a scenario similar to CFLs, these actions will only accelerate a race to the bottom in quality… and in efficiency. These groups desperately need to attach minimum levels of quality, performance, and efficiency to the incentives before the market is awash in LED junk. We need to take strong action now to protect the reputation of future LEDs. In fact, a second DOE-sponsored report describing the lessons learned from CFLs recommended:


Be aggressive about dealing with technology failures that affect main benefit claims.2

OK, let’s be aggressive. Let’s name (and shame) manufacturers and retailers of shoddy LEDs (and CFLS for that matter). Third-party testing should play a crucial role. At the same time, we need international action to quickly establish temporary performance specifications for LEDs. Europe, Japan, Australia, and China are also confronting underperforming LEDs, so the action must be global. LEDs are particularly attractive replacements for kerosene lamps and candles, so we want good lights in Africa, too. An informal global agreement could create interim specifications that would fill the void until the standards organizations and regulatory agencies catch up. These interim specifications won’t be perfect, but they will be far better than none. A simple quality mark must appear on all complying products. Consumers will buy more energy-efficient LEDs sooner if they are confident that the lights have consistent reliability, efficiency, and quality.

 

- Alan Meier


1. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/cfl_le...
(page 25).

2. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/cfl_le...
(page iii).

Views: 58

Comment

You need to be a member of Home Energy Pros to add comments!

Join Home Energy Pros

Comment by Eric Wu on February 7, 2014 at 8:46am

LED lamps are better option than the old CFL with no warm up period.

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Twitter

Latest Activity

Profile IconShane Matteson, Jay Cooper and Mike Harris joined Home Energy Pros
2 hours ago
Kim Burnett commented on Diane Chojnowski's group Home Energy Pros on Twitter
"Good morning, would you please add me. Thank you. Kim Burnett A+ Abundant Energy Experts"
5 hours ago
Kim Burnett joined Diane Chojnowski's group
Thumbnail

Home Energy Pros on Twitter

We've created a twitter list of members of Home Energy Pros who tweet about home performance and…See More
5 hours ago
Luke Langhals replied to Luis Hernandez's discussion ERV Configuration
"Very good reading. Thank you for posting this."
7 hours ago
Luke Langhals replied to Diane Chojnowski's discussion Poll: How confident do you feel about the future of home performance?
"This poll would change on a day to day basis :) I'm cynical one day and extremely optimistic…"
7 hours ago
Luke Langhals liked tedkidd's discussion Dear DOE, PACE sucks - please fix or make it go away...
7 hours ago
Nicole Scheunemann's video was featured

Airtight, Tested Right: Blower Door Tests for Contractors

Contractors: with a new New York State Energy Code going into effect in October 2016, it’s important to know what you’ll be on the hook for when it comes to ...
8 hours ago
Eve Dunham replied to Kim Tanner's discussion Facebook page targeting and privacy in the group Marketing Energy Efficiency
"I have used the targeted ads feature for age, location, etc. I have had moderate success with this.…"
yesterday

© 2016   Created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service