You’ve found the SSL Scoop – the LED lighting community’s blog resource “experiment”. Founded and managed by the team that brings you the industry news at Solid State Lighting Design, and the LED supply chain news, LIGHTimes, the Scoop was conceived to help us all sort through the noise, promote what works and hold the industry accountable. But… the reality is we’re all challenged to “blog for business” for a variety of reasons. We’ll keep at it with occasional posts, and meanwhile the news feeds remain alive and well, and fully commentable for our community. Let’s see what happens!

Feel free to use the contact form to reach us with suggestions, both for the site and on topics for posts. To comment on a post topic, news item or editorial, you simply need to register and acknowledge the resulting email. Multiple registrations are fine, so feel free to exist both as “yourself” and as “someone” with an anonymous screen name. Be sure to read the commenting rules, which really boil into keeping it on-topic, civil and about the products. There is a big difference between, “I don’t agree” and “You must be an idiot to believe that…” Recognize that difference, and this will work for everyone. — Happy Scooping!

I am admittedly much more on the free-marketer side than the ‘government should decide for us’ side of most debates, and the ban-the-bulb is no exception. I also believe that LED lighting technology is so good, and so revolutionary, that it would have no problem succeeding without any government policies in place to “mandate” the removal of its competitors. (Witness that no one had to “ban the CRT” in order for flat panels to wipe the planet clean of them…). A good technology will “suddenly” reach broad commercial viability simply through the process of competitive innovation.

So why not look further into the plans to ban incandescents, especially given that we’re 3-4 years along in the progress since it was last scrutinized. It doesn’t hurt to look at it both ways, either, as we’ve seen the culmination of what we can assume to be GE’s lobbying efforts to keep their A-lamp production line active with their bold, new 15 lm/w “high efficiency” incandescents, that just coincidentally meet the bare-minimum requirements to keep them from being in the ban.

So hearings are happening, and of course, there has to be a strong detractor or two just to make it a debate.  Interesting coverage here, as Howard Brandston, a highly decorated veteran of the lighting wars, shares his opinions with congress. We of course love what he has to say about CFLs, but don’t give plus points for some LED hysteria.

Brandston, part of a six-person panel testifying on the legislation, also issued warnings about the safety of LED (light-emitting diode) lamps, another alternative to incandescent light bulbs, saying that not enough research has been done to guarantee the safety of consumers who are exposed to the bulbs.

“When we look at the future of LEDs we have not yet discovered all of the ramifications of that,” said Branston.  “The French have found that the output of these lamps is harming the vision of young children.  Why aren’t we doing epidemiology studies on that? They contain arsenic and other poisonous materials.  Why aren’t we looking at that?

You know you’re over the target when the flak starts… If anyone has insights into the real minutia of how low the “toxins per lumen” are for modern lighting-class LEDs, the industry is all ears. (No thank you UC, we’ve already seen your ridiculous conclusions that suggest we’ll use up all the world’s precious metals by moving to LED lighting, based on in-depth analysis of cheap LEDs that would never be used for any decent lighting). I recall that eye-safety studies are on-going as well, but one has to wonder what quality of LED lighting is causing “problems” for kids in France…

Out tax dollars hard at work again. In a conclusion-flawed study conducted by the University of California (across a few campuses), based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMS-0524903, the researchers concluded that LEDs have lots of negative implications for the environment. While we’re confident their metalurgical science is correct, their basic premise was useless, namely that cheap 5mm LEDs represent LEDs in general.

Here’s the cognitive dissonance at work:

The focus of the current study is on the small indicator type LEDs, because they represent a rapidly growing market of products that are widely distributed, making them difficult to manage at end-of-life. Furthermore, because of their small size, relative simplicity, and ubiquitous use, they provide an appropriate benchmark for quantifying the potential environmental impact of LEDs.

I think we can all not get behind that one. Christmas lights. They tested Christmas lights.

As LEDs gain in usage for ambient lighting and in flat panel displays, it is important to reconsider their perception as “environmentally-friendly” and to encourage desirable changes in their toxic constituents through product design that includes safer alternatives.

Yeah, 5mm packages are the fav for ambient lighting and flat panel displays all right… uh-huh. One suspects that if they tested the plastics on the Christmas light strings, they would find more dramatic environmental impacts. I find it laughable that their only issue for environmentally unfriendliness is not the toxic metals (arsenic), but really our friends copper, nickel, iron and silver, and with a big emphasis on “resource depletion”.

It’s a great demonstration of why economists make clear their analytic simplifications. If you take a narrow issue, you can actually analyze it, but you can’t extend it to macro-conclusions. How “environmentally friendly” are the alternatives when you consider the costs of use and life cycles. And how on earth can someone with what we assume to be post-graduate education from UC in Chemical and Engineering and Materials Science let a study get out that equates the cheapest of the cheap LEDs as being ‘representative’ and then posits that lighting capable LEDs will represent additional resource depletion without consideration of the alternatives that contain substantial toxins or which have quick trips from the assembly line to the landfill. Would it be too much to ask to at least look at a “real” power LED and ask how many lumens per quantity of metal it would all imply (lots, for very little, installed for a long time).

You can access the abstract and a link to the full article here. There is always a good case to recycle, and to treat electronic materials with respect in terms of disposal, but these kinds of flawed extensions are just a waste of everyone’s time and money.

Might be a market report of interest

Report: LED Lights in the Enterprise $1B by 2014

The beginning of a $100 billion industry about to flip to LEDs with 30% growth in the commercial & industrial LED lighting market…And it’s starting in the commercial and industrial sector first.

Groom Energy and Greentech Media Research predict that the LED enterprise lighting market will grow next year by 30 percent and surpass $1 billion in annual revenue by 2014.  In a report released today entitled Enterprise LED Lighting Research Report, the 2010 U.S. market for commercial and industrial LED lighting is sized at $330 million in annual revenue.

The report provides a guide to the market with a review of the the top 50 LED lighting manufacturers and identifies and analyzes the top four enterprise LED market leaders including Cree, Philips, Lighting Science Group and BetaLED.

Full story on the reporthere.

Consumer-Friendly Publication Explains New Law and Phase-Out Schedule

ROSSLYN, Va., November 15, 2010—The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) has published a brochure that clarifies the upcoming phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. Beginning in 2012, and a year earlier in California, traditional 100-watt, 75-watt, 60-watt, and 40-watt bulbs will be phased out, with a completion date of 2014.

Based on the average number of sockets per household, NEMA estimates that American households will save an average of $143 on electric bills when the transition is complete. This figure assumes an electrical rate of $0.11/kWh.

Lighting Options for Your Home summarizes the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which mandates reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and explains how the changeover from incandescent lamps will help accomplish the country’s sustainability goals.

Options for lighting homes and offices include halogen, compact fluorescent, and LED light sources, each of which is explained in detail.

To download a copy of the brochure, click here…