New Study on CFL UV Radiation

 
Updated July 26 with comparative spectra also for LED replacement bulbs

The team of Stony Brook researchers reviews the findings of their research. Pictured from left to right (standing) are Marcia Simon, Michael Hadjiargyrou, (sitting) Tatsiana Mironava and Miriam Rafailovich. The images displayed on the screen are of keratinocytes via confocal microscopy which show the results of human skin cells with and without exposure to CFL.

From: Stony Brook University News, July 18


As has widely been reported, a recent study highlights the problem of UV radiation from compact fluorescent bulbs, albeit only at close quarters.
It is therefore recommended that the squiggly tubes are enclosed in capsules for such use, as with the pear shaped CFLs that are available.


From the Daily Mail article 20 July   Edited extracts, highlights

Energy-saving light bulbs can fry your skin, study claims
Energy-saving light bulbs can fry your skin, a new study claims.
Researchers at Stony Brook University in New York State examined the impact of the compact fluorescent bulbs - or CFL bulbs - on human skin cells prompted by a similar study undertaken in Europe.
They discovered that healthy skin exposed to light from the CFLs experienced damage found with ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

'Consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs... our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover' Stony Brook University Professor of Materials Science and Engineering Miriam Rafailovich said.

The scientists tested a number of CFL bulbs from across New York State to determine their UV emissions and the integrity of each bulb’s phosphor coatings.
Results revealed significant levels of UV, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings that were present in all CFL bulbs studied.

They also tested the impact on collagen-producing skin cells and the epidermal cell that generated keratin from the light.
Comparing skin cells exposed to the CFLs with those exposed to incandescent light bulbs, they discovered that only the CFLs damaged skin, the same trauma as sun burnt skin, they found. Incandescent light of the same intensity had no effect on healthy skin cells at all.

The study itself:

The Effects of UV Emission from Compact Fluorescent Light Exposure on
Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes
Tatsiana Mironava, Michael Hadjiargyrou, Marcia Simon, Miriam H. Rafailovich
Article first published online: 20 jul 2012

Abstract
Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs can provide the same amount of lumens as incandescent light bulbs, using one quarter of the energy.
Recently, CFL exposure was found to exacerbate existing skin conditions; however, the effects of CFL exposure on healthy skin tissue have not been thoroughly investigated.

In this study, we studied the effects of exposure to CFL illumination on healthy human skin tissue cells (fibroblasts and keratinocytes).
Cells exposed to CFLs exhibited a decrease in the proliferation rate, a significant increase in the production of reactive oxygen species, and a decrease in their ability to contract collagen.
Measurements of UV emissions from these bulbs found significant levels of UVC and UVA (mercury [Hg]
emission lines), which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all bulbs studied.

The response of the cells to the CFLs was consistent with damage from UV radiation, which was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs), normally used for UV absorption, were added prior to exposure.
No effect on cells, with or without TiO2 NPs, was observed when they were exposed to incandescent light of the same intensity.

Scotland based lighting designer Kevan Shaw of Savethebulb.org has a particular interest on the effects of CFLs on people with light sensitivity disorders, as he points out in the introduction to his post on this research, extracts:

Frying tonight?
As previously blogged I am assisting the Spectrum Alliance with their campaign to retain incandescent lamps for people with specific photosensitive disorders.
In the course of this I have learned a lot about skin problems caused by CFLs. It seems that such problems are not just confined to specifically photosensitive people. The Daily Mail ran an article on 20 July this year following up on recently published research in the USA. It seems that the light from CFLs has a significantly greater damaging effect on skin than incandescent lamps.

As previously experienced, CFLs do emit UV despite the claims of manufacturers.
Double envelope CFLs do reduce UV emissions considerably and should be used in any situation where lamps are at all close to people like task lighting, table lamps and bedside lights, particularly for the very young and very old whose skin tends to be more sensitive.

Kevan Shaw July 20 , 2012

Comment

Some comments elsewhere are taking this quite lightly, even welcoming a bit of sunburn and vitamin D formation.
However, an important point not mentioned is that UVC, one of the UV types emitted, is the most damaging UV source and happens to be blocked by the atmosphere ozone layer when coming from the sun.

An interesting runthrough of UV light can be seen on Digplanet.com, here.

The same source on Fluorescent lamp UV radiation

Fluorescent lamps

Fluorescent lamps produce UV radiation by ionising low-pressure mercury vapour. A phosphorescent coating on the inside of the tubes absorbs the UV and converts it to visible light.

The main mercury emission wavelength is in the UVC range. Unshielded exposure of the skin or eyes to mercury arc lamps that do not have a conversion phosphor is quite dangerous.

The light from a mercury lamp is predominantly at discrete wavelengths. Other practical UV sources with more continuous emission spectra include xenon arc lamps (commonly used as sunlight simulators), deuterium arc lamps, mercury-xenon arc lamps, metal-halide arc lamps, and tungsten-halogen incandescent lamps.

Incandescents have a red shift and relatively low UV output

unknown source

CFL lamp spectrum

Source Bealecorner.org

A comparison between light sources
(a CFL is of course a type of mercury vapor lamp)

Source Olympusmicro.com

The sourced Olympusmicro.com site for the last diagram has a good account of lamp technologies and spectra.


Notice how the today's much-hyped LED replacement bulbs ("white LEDs") also have light quality issues, irregular spectrum with blue peaking.. (from http://www.luminousdiy.com/):





As do the alternative modular Red Green Blue LED bulbs, as seen from the excellent lighting comparative study diagrams on Gluehbirne.ist.org/






As for the issue at hand here,
there is more coverage of UV radiation and other health concerns, with research references and information on related skin and other disorders, on http://ceolas.net/#li18rx

Note that the double envelope CFL recommendation dates back several years from other studies...


BBC article extract, 9 October 2008:

UV light fear over 'green' bulbs
Being too close to energy-saving light bulbs could cause skin reddening because of ultraviolet light emissions, health experts have warned.
The Health Protection Agency (HPA) cautions against being closer than 30cm (1ft) to some compact fluorescent (cfl) bulbs for long.

As a result of testing which revealed the potentially high levels of UV light, the HPA has issued guidelines against people using unencapsulated light bulbs - where the light coil is visible - closer than 30cms to the body for more than one hour a day.

Professor Harry Moseley, Consultant Clinical Scientist at the University of Dundee, said: "We are concerned about risks to patients who have severe light-sensitive skin disorders.
"The small levels of ultra-violet emitted by some low energy light bulbs could be harmful to these patients. I recommend use of lights with a protective shield to absorb the UV."
Experts stress that healthy people are at no risk providing the HPAs advice (above) is followed.

Also a similar EU Commission study 2008, albeit a typically poorly written EU report, seemingly drawing on other studies, and full of conclusions without presenting underlying data evidence (surprise, not).

In December 2009 The Canadian Federal Government Health Department finished a review of CFLs, again mainly relating to UV radiation, but other electromagnetic radiation was also studied.
The report mirrored the UK HPA findings:
"It is recommended that single envelope CFLs [classic tubular type lights] not be used at distances less than 30 cm to avoid any long-term health effects in the general population"


Note a certain irony here...
Double envelope CFLs protecting from UV light also means reducing their ordinary light output still more
There is other irony about CFLs already, eg leave them on, waste energy, switch them on-off, shorten their life...

Basically, bulbs are the wrong format for fluorescent lighting technology, best in long tube form, just like LEDs have natural lighting advantages in sheet form.
The CFL and LED natural advantages are compromised in offering politically pushed incandescent-copying lighting.

Howard Brandston interviewed on CBN

 
CBN News video and transcript article, June 1, including a Mark Martin interview with well known lighting designer Howard Brandston, of whom more in the Resource Links and earlier posts on this blog.






Some of the transcript:

Lights Out: Congress Making 100-Watt Power Grab?
HOLLOWVILLE, N.Y.
For more than 130 years, Thomas Edison's incandescent bulb has lit up homes around the world. Now, the light bulb as we know it may soon be a thing of the past.

Beginning this year, the federal government plans to phase out traditional incandescent light bulbs. The first to go is the 100-watt bulb.

It's all a part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Republicans in Congress are fighting its enactment. But if they fail, the law will go into effect later this year.

Is this an energy-saving move or another example of a government power grab?


Energy-Saving Move?

The law requires basic light bulbs to be about 25 percent more efficient and would remove traditional incandescent bulbs from the market.

"I think it's very wise because maybe 40 or 50 years ago, it wouldn't have worked because there weren't alternatives," Sandra Miles, a veteran of the telecommunications and lighting industries and president of the Goeken Group Corp., told CBN News.

"But now you have plenty of great energy efficient alternatives that give you the same look and feel of an incandescent," she explained.

Those alternatives primarily fall into two categories: CFLs, known for their curly shape, and light-emitting diodes or LEDs. They're supposed to save energy and last a lot longer than traditional light bulbs.

However, lighting professional Howard Brandston isn't ready to give up on a bulb that's not broken. Brandston is known for lighting structures like the Statue of Liberty and Malaysia's twin towers.

Brandston stands by Edison's invention, using traditional incandescent bulbs to light his home.


Save the Bulb

Under current law, the standard 100-watt incandescent light bulb is to be phased out this year, a move he strongly opposes.
In fact, Brandston considers it a moral obligation to speak out against the phasing out of incandescent bulbs.
He's even launched a campaign entitled, Save the Bulb.

"Look at all the people who have lost their homes," he told CBN News. "Look at all the people who are out of work. Look at all of that, and now we're going to impose a new... a new financial burden on them."

On his website, Brandston wrote, "I see no good reason to relegate one of America's greatest inventions to the dustbin of history -- other than to suit the particular interests of uninformed politicians, light manufacturing giants, and their lobbyists, and energy zealots."

"I know a couple of senior researchers in the lighting industry, who've started to hoard light bulbs, and me included, because I might not win this fight, although I'm dedicated to it," he said.

That dedication includes a lifetime supply of bulbs stored in his basement.


Light Bulb Socialism

Miles hopes the attraction of energy savings and long life will win over consumers.

Brandston bases his skepticism on the uninterrupted, smooth color spectrum emitted by Edison's safe, low-cost bulb.

But his opinion may not matter unless the new effort by conservatives in Congress can stall what has been called "light bulb socialism."

 

Peter Stenzel Light Bulb Site Update

Austria based Peter Stenzel's now revised site at Gluehbirne.ist.org ("Argumente für die Glühbirne", "Arguments in support of incandescent light bulbs") is an excellent resource, whether you live in Europe or not, as already linked in the Resource Links section.
Note that it includes many more sections than may seem from below, including well illustrated lighting comparisons, special sections on CFL and LED issues, regulatory news, campaigns/petitions in different countries, and more, also from outside the EU.

Google translated English version (linked pages from that should also automatically be translated, to a reasonably understandable English).


Part-view of the front page in German embedded below


 
 

Leading a Double Life

 

A Double Life....
Just when you thought your bulb had blown, back on it comes :-)

No, wait!   A double life...you might think it's sitting there in the lamp, but it's actually moonlighting in the city of lights.



More seriously, this is the start of a couple of future posts on Lightbulb Lifespan.

There have been several film documentaries recently (Spanish, Austrian, Franco-German, covering the subject, relating to planned obsolescence, including the Phoebus light bulb cartel that fixed the incandescent lifespan standard at 1000 hours). Also, as covered before, the Leahy-Brandston e-book that looks at such manufacturer cooperation from an American angle, and other background information as per the Ceolas.net site.
Interesting historical "anomalies" include the long lasting Livermore Fire Station life bulb, and the mysterious Billinger "everlasting" life bulb invention.


The issue is not without relation to the current light bulb ban:
It has been forgotten by both politicians and journalists that the USA standard (for example)
specifies a 1000 hour minimum: Why such a minimum standard?

Brightness and lifespan tend to be trade offs, especially with incandescents - consumers are therefore unnecessarily denied short lasting but bright bulbs!

Certainly, it is the opposite of the "manufacturer cartel short lifespan" documentary coverages:
But the whole point is that all products have advantages, and regulations other than for usage safety are unnecessary in limiting choice. Market variety, driven by ensuring market competition, is the key to providing desirable products, with light bulbs as with anything else.
Clear information on packaging is sufficient - warranty backed as required for given lifespans.
Just like - in say Europe - different colors are used to easily show energy usage, or US Energy star ratings are used, similar could be done with lifespans, separately or combined,
so top rating might have same color or say "A" rating in each category, an "AA" bulb as it were.

Light bulb minimum lifespan standard:
As wrong and unnecessary as maximum energy usage standard, and the forgotten issue in all the talk about light bulb regulations.
 


Meanwhile, the much hailed supposed long CFL and LED lifespans,
have been found wanting in real life, hardly surprising given their unnatural lab specified origins.
Of course, coming back to the "planned obsolescence" arguments, also hardly surprising given that manufacturers are hardly going to drool over the lack of profit from selling you a light bulb you pretty well never have to change!

The only believable alternative is to sell truly long lasting bulbs very expensively to maintain profit, lots of taxpayer subsidies hiding the fact or not.
But as Kevan Shaw says in reviewing the latest Philips L Prize LED bulb:

Another point about the massive cost for these lamps is whether or not the claimed savings are realistic in domestic use. How many people will be using the same lighting after 22 years? How many will still be living in the same house or apartment? At 58 years old I have to question whether I will still be alive to realise these claimed savings! It really is not good enough that the best of these lamp replacement products should be priced so high....

Of course, as far as manufacturers are concerned, once the competing unprofitable cheap incandescents are banned, are they going to cry in their beer if CFLs and LEDs - which incidentally lack appropriate guarantees/warranties for claimed lifespans - happen to stop working a year or two later?

Of course not.
Ban achieved - Job Done!
 

More Dim Issues with Philips new LED Bulb

 
Continuing the Philips prize awarded LED bulb saga,
Kevan has confirmed some dimming and the issues of the bulb as also found by the US Government L Prize test review and designated lab reports in the main post earlier.

From Save the Bulb blog, 13 May 2012
(original post has some more images)

L Prize (Fail!)
I have spent the last couple of weeks in San Francisco and taken the opportunity to observe the impact of the Californian ban on incandescent lamps that was implemented in January 2011. Basically it has had zero effect. Standard incandescent lamps are freely available through all retail supply outlets. I have checked corner stores, supermarkets, neighborhood hardware stores and DIY sheds all have a full range of conventional incandescent lamps. The “Energy Saving” options vary considerably. Most stores have a reasonable complement of CFLs some have halogen incandescent replacements but only on hardware store and the DIY sheds carry any LED incandescent replacements and just the DIY shed had the L prize lamp that I was very keen to get my hands on. These LED options are all selling in the range $17 to $24.


There has been so much store set by the quality of the L prize lamp that I was very keen to get one as it seems unlikely we will get them in the UK anytime soon. The first thing that surprised me was the extent of packaging for what is supposed to be an environmentally friendly product.

When first switched on I have to concede that the appearance of the light was OK in comparison to the GE Reveal lamp that it was replacing. The reveal is an incandescent with a slight blue tint.


As expected when dimmed things changed dramatically:....



The L prize got cooler in appearance and the perceived colour rendering became much worse casting a gloomy grey in the space. the lamp also suddenly went out about half way through the travel of the dimmer’s slider, the GE lamp dimmed right down to the minimum setting. What was really alarming was that the L prize lamp would not switch on at dimmer settings below about 70%. This was a serious problem in this location where three way switching was installed.


Really I am somewhat disappointed in a product that cost me $19.75 and does not work reliably at less than full power even when it claims to be dimmable. Solutions such as this must be made fully compatible with existing wiring infrastructure.

Another point about the massive cost for these lamps is whether or not the claimed savings are realistic in domestic use. How many people will be using the same lighting after 22 years? How many will still be living in the same house or apartment? At 58 years old I have to question whether I will still be alive to realise these claimed savings! It really is not good enough that the best of these lamp replacement products should be priced so high and fail to meet reasonable performance expectations that at least they do not risk leaving people in darkness! I do feel that the general lamp buying public are being conned into overspending for overcomplicated and ineffective products.

This page from EarthLed shows a dissection of the L prize lamp. It really does question the holistic sustainability of replacing such an elegantly simple device as the traditional incandescent lamp with something that requires computing power that would shame the flight computers of the Mercury and Gemini space programmes and has more electronic components than a transistor radio! All in all the resources used to make this thing are truly excessive for the required functionality.

Comment

The mentioned Earthled dissection of the bulb is also on the post "(S)tripping the Light Fantastic", with extensive commenting.

On the Dimming issue,
unsurprisingly it mirrors CFL problems since LEDs also have spiky emission spectra and with these LED types also use similar (phosphorescent) coating to help spread the light.
And dimming after all is also an “energy saving” benefit, that ban proponents welcome!

Dimming and other problems were as said also highlighted in the official committee test review and designated test lab reports on
“All about the new Philips LED Bulb, and how it won the L-Prize”

Renowned lighting designer and Congress lighting consultant Howard Brandston concurs on the dimming and other issues..

"The testing of this LED lamp was very narrow in scope and did not include some of the most important aspects of residential lighting.
As a lighting designer my primary concerns is the quality of the color of light emitted throughout the complete cycle of being dimmed, a common situation in homes.
In this use the lamp leaves much to be desired so I would never specify it."

A further interesting observation today (May 16) by Kevan

Apparently what I have is not the L Prize lamps but a confusing look-alike also sold by Philips!
This one is a Chinese made version, The L prize version itself is ”Assembled in the USA”.
So Philips are knocking off their own products!
The L Prize version is obviously too expensive for normal retail and is going out through specialists such as EarthLed!

... So are Philips using L Prize specs highlighted in reviews (eg a comparatively high lumen per watt efficiency), and the “kudos” from winning the L Prize, to push sales of cheaper inferior Chinese versions in ordinary stores for Joe Public who is assumed not to question quality and specs?

No! Never! ;-)
 

US Government LED Prize: Certain test reports not released...

 
As seen from the recent series of posts here about the new Philips LED bulb that won the American Government, L Prize (more), a particular source of interest was lighting engineer Philip Premysler's observations.

Following discrepancies he discovered in how the prize was awarded,
including deficiencies in the bulb itself, his further request for information has met with some resistance, as he allows me to make public... (his capitals, my added bold style highlights)

"The telltale sign of the Dept of Energy (DoE) having RIGGED the L-Prize contest is the DoE's refusal to release certain test reports on the L-Prize entry.
Several of test reports that are listed in the "Independent Data" column of the L Prize summary document were requested under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA].

Based on the summary document we know these document would show failures of the L-Prize “winner” to meet the contest requirements.
The decision by the DoE to refuse to release the documents was appealed to the DoE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) and the DoE was ordered to make a legal determination based on specific legal criteria as to whether the documents could be released
(see http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/foia/FIA-11-0012.pdf)."

The mentioned test review summary document and appeal documents,
the test review report was as said previously discussed here.

"So far, the DoE has refused to carry out the OHA order. (Likely they see no way to avoid releasing the documents if they apply the OHA’s criteria)

Their tactic for stonewalling is absurd.
The DoE states that they expected the OHA to order a new search for documents and even though this did not happen and was not likely to happen they commenced a new search anyway, found some additional documents other than those requested and incurred some expenses. Then they took the position that unless payment for the new search was made by me, they would refuse to process the request. Thus far they have not responded to the OHA remand.
I should emphasize that there was no reason for the DoE to assume that the OHA would order a new search because the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request and appeal concerned specific documents that were identified by file name. In order for the DoE to make its initial negative response to the FOIA request they would have had to have already located the documents in question."

Summarized...

"Regarding the FOIA appeal, as may expected the DoE is stonewalling. They have yet to abide by the remand from the Office of Hearings and Appeals. I may appeal but I don't know how long that would take. Hopefully congress takes up an investigation and obtains all the relevant documents. In the meantime there is the published test report from Philips own website and there is the test report from the SCE, which you did a nice job on reviewing an selecting quotes.

The way in which the DoE is stonewalling is somewhat "creative". They claim they incorrectly assumed the OHA would order an expanded document search and therefore went ahead and conducted a document search and incurred some expense which they want me to pay. Apparently it is their position that they will disregard the remand order from the OHA until I pay for the expanded search which nobody requested (not me or the OHA)."

 

Learning about Lighting

 
Nicely laid out lighting learning project Discover Lighting, from the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES).

Discover Lighting includes an introduction into: A Brief History of Lighting, The Science of Light, Electric Light Sources, Lighting Applications and Sustainability topics.

As you Discover Lighting, you will also be introduced to the language of light. Throughout the course, lighting vocabulary is provided via roll-over links.

0. Introduction                                          1. History    

                  



2. Science                                             3. Sources

                  



    4. Applications                                       5. Sustainability

     



6. Are You Illuminated? (Lighting Test, after completing the chapters)

Once you have completed the course, you will have a chance to test your level of illumination. You must first, however, visit each chapter of Discover Lighting, and answer the short questions in the Fact or Fiction section of each page. Once you have attempted each Fact or Fiction question, you will be allowed to take the full test. If you pass, a certificate of completion will be mailed to the address you provided during registration.

I tested registration, is free OK, though only necessary anyway for those who want to do the questions and answers.


About the Illuminating Engineering Society, from their own information...

The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) is the recognized technical authority on illumination. For over 100 years; its objective has been to communicate information on all aspects of good lighting practice to its members, to the lighting community, and to consumers, through a variety of programs, publications, and services.

IES is a forum for the exchange of ideas and information, and a vehicle for its members' professional development and recognition. Through technical committees, with hundreds of qualified individuals from the lighting and user communities, IES correlates research, investigations, and discussions to guide lighting professionals and lay persons via consensus-based lighting recommendations.

The Society publishes nearly 100 varied technical publications, and works cooperatively with related organizations on a variety of programs and in the production of jointly published documents and standards.

Local IES Sections and many lighting corporations offer formal educational programs on lighting, utilizing material developed by IES. Sections offer programs related to specific applications based on IES standards - seminars on sports and recreational lighting, lighting industrial facilities, roadway lighting, museum lighting, to name a few. Virtually every curriculum devoted to lighting - from beginner to advanced - includes IES educational materials.

IES is almost 8,000 members strong. Its members work with lighting in a variety of capacities - lighting designers, architects, interior designers, government & utility personnel, engineers, contractors, manufacturers, distributors, researchers and educators - throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico - and around the world. They share a common interest in lighting, and a common desire to promote the use of the latest, most innovative lighting technologies, with a focus on judicious use of energy in all lighting applications.

Howard Brandston Senate Testimony and Follow-Up

 
Updated May 3 with direct link to video clip of his testimony

Well known New York lighting designer Howard Brandston has been covered before in the excellent work he is doing to try to save the availability of regular incandescent light bulbs in the USA and indeed elsewhere.

A lot of his good defensive argumentation has arisen from participating in the Senate hearing
hearing in March 2011, of the B.U.L.B. (Better Use of Light Bulbs!) bill s395 seeking to repeal the federal ban on regular incandescent light bulbs.


Click to go to the Committee Video of the Hearing:



Alternative links to the video, on Committee site or on C-Span

Link clip of Howard's speech,
and the support shown to him by one of the committee members:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/S39&start=6050&end=6500

The full hearing record can be seen here (pdf document).
Howard's testimony begins on page 53 of the testimony (page 57 in the pdf document).

As seen, it includes both the version as spoken, and the fuller submitted written version
The written version is also handily available on Kevan Shaw's Save the Bulb site, here, posted march 13 2011, copied below, with my highlighting.

Howard Brandston’s testimony to the US Senate
Howard presented the following very eloquent testimony to the US Senate Energy Committee on 10 March 2011, It states the case beautifully:

Chairman Bingaman and ranking member Murkowski, thank you for inviting me to testify today in support of S395, The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act.
My name is Howard Brandston – I am a lighting designer with over 50 years experience and have completed nearly 3000 projects in approximately 60 countries. I am particularly proud of the work I did for my country, the United States of America. A short list that of that work you might recognize includes: The US Pavilion, Expo 70, Japan; Women’s Rights National Historic Park, Seneca Falls, NY; Memorial for Women in Military Service, Arlington National Cemetery, Washington DC and the relighting of the Statue of Liberty, New York City, NY.

I am here today to ask that you revisit a portion of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that provides for a de facto ban on the traditional incandescent light bulbs. I firmly believe that the restrictions put on incandescent lamps will have a significant negative impact on almost every residence in our country. I believe how one lives in their home is a decision that rests with the occupant and is not the purview of the government. I believe this violates the very principles upon which this nation was founded and I, as a devoted citizen, am most proud of, our freedom of choice in our personal lives.

What disturbs me even more is that the restrictions placed on incandescent lamps will not save enough energy to be worth the expense and the risks that every person in America will be subjected to. Some of the most knowledgeable people I know have begun to stockpile a lifetime supply of incandescent lamps to protect themselves from the need to use Compact Fluorescent Lamps. The public at large does not understand the problems as these professionals do. And further, the misleading claims made about the benefits of the lamp technologies that are touted as beneficial replacements seduce people to purchase these products. We have over 100 years experience using incandescent lamps. By comparison we have very little experience using the new light sources – especially in residences.

You will hear a wide range of statistical data of energy saved in comparative terms that give the illusion of saving energy and the environment- the plain truth is – according to the Energy Information Administration – only 3.6% of total energy is consumed by incandescent lamps. So you will save some portion of that miniscule number. But I ask, when you enter everyone’s home, and subject them and their families to the list of potential consequences I will list, is that worth it? I do not believe it is.

Consider the following:

• Lighting is not a product – it is a system designed for a purpose.
This act separates one component of that system, the light source, and that destroys the success of the final design.

• Although lamp manufacturers are developing new sources to compete with the incandescent lamp, if they are so superior they should be able to compete in the open marketplace where price will be a factor. Alternative lighting to the incandescent lamp will have to be worth price differential.

• The Compact Fluorescent Lamp contains mercury. This 2007 light bulb standard brings a deadly poison into every residence in our nation.

• The plastic lamp jacket warning is totally insufficient to protect the user. It is a cop-out to protect the manufacturer.

• We do not have enough knowledge of the potential consequences of being continuously exposed to the electromagnetic fields Compact Fluorescent Lamps emit. There are millions of people with Lupus, an auto-immune disease. Exposure to low doses of light from these lamps causes a severe rash. There are over one hundred auto immune diseases.

• Currently you come home and your old fashioned incandescent lamps provide a safe, flattering comfortable scene. You can easily dim these old lamps and the light they emit becomes even more inviting.

• The compact fluorescent lamp does not dim well and the color of the light it emits deteriorates as you continue to dim it.

• If you do not install these lamps in appropriate fixtures they might cause a fire. Save energy by incinerating part of your home.

• The cost to retrofit your lighting to use the new light sources may be beyond the financial and technical capacity of most home owners.

• This Standard sends lamp-manufacturing jobs to China.


I have a particular passion for saving energy – I was a member of the committee that wrote the first energy code for the USA in 1975. My contribution was the mathematical formula that set the upper power limit for lighting in that code. It was a performance based equation – not a product restricting simplistic solution. The Energy Information Administration noted that by the year 2000 it cut the energy used for lighting to pre-1970 levels. It cut in less than half the energy used for lighting by 1990.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ignores the fundamentals of good lighting practice and intrudes on our ability to choose how we live. Please respect the privacy of our homes, allow people their indispensible right to choose how they live and light their homes and eliminate the restrictions on the incandescent lamp.

Thank You. I look forward to answering any questions you may have

Since then, Howard has followed up with a good lengthier rundown of issues arising from the Hearing - including answering questions put to him by Senators.

Copy below from his website commentary section,
direct link to the document, alt link.






Comment

I started going through a lengthy comment - so many good points there - but it is probably easier to see how most of them find echo in the The Deception: The Arguments behind the Light Bulb Ban page (regular readers might notice I renamed it... calling it "The Deception behind Banning Light Bulbs" led to too many assuming it was yet another "Hey this is not really a ban" type of statement!).

Indeed the "this is not a ban, you can still buy replacement incandescents like halogens, for regular use" type of argument predictably resurfaces.

It should be noted that those touted replacements will in fact be banned too
in phase 2 of EISA that kicks in after 2014, that politicians fail or conveniently forget to take account of http://ceolas.net/#li01inx

Besides, the Halogen and other replacement type incandescents have already existed for some time, and are not popular with either consumers or politicians, as they cost much more for marginal energy savings, so politicians have not pushed their use with subsidies etc as with "energy saving" fluorescent bulbs (CFLs).

The replacement incandescents also have differences in light quality, in running hotter, and so on, compared to traditional simple incandescent bulbs, and in the EU are hardly available anyway, CFL usage being pushed also in the in-store display of supermarkets and general stores.

Finally, one has to be aware that the manufacturers supporting the ban would hardly
seek to further improve incandescent technology, given the more profitable alternatives,
as covered in the linked Deception rundown.
In the EU, the promised Philips Halogen Ecosaver improvement was quietly shelved, once the ban was in place.


To take up another point,

Cooper goes on to say, ―Our analysis of the energy efficiency gap identifies a number of market imperfections that cause the market to undersupply energy efficiency… Standards are the ideal way to address these market imperfections

It is odd how the Consumer association representative is so against consumer choice.
His repeated arguments, also in other statements, is of "market failure",
which he then basically clarifies (put more simply) as
"people won't buy expensive bulbs even if they save money by doing so"

Of course, there are other reasons to choose a light bulb than to save money,
and as Howard also goes into, overall savings are much smaller than supposed, for many reasons.

On a more basic market level, people also don't keep buying cheap products that don't satisfy their needs, while expensive alternatives are not avoided either - or no-one would be buying woollen coats, Energizer/Duracell longlasting batteries, certain washing up liquids etc "expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" - and properly marketed as such.

Mr Cooper is even wrong, if he had been right(!):
That is, if it was really necessary to interfere in the market,
then a tax on incandescents could subsidise lower prices on CFLs and LEDs,
equilibrating the market, making money for politicians (for other or additional spending),
and keep choice,
while not "just hitting people with taxes" in that they would have cheaper alternatives than before.

No, I don't expect Mr Cooper understands that either...
and taxation is not justifiable of itself anyway (if a specific light bulb policy really was needed, stimulating competition would be better also to save energy, as in the Deception rundown explanation) - it simply is just another reason the arguments don't hold up...

(I will likely edit and brush up on this post in coming days)
 

The L Prize: Official Version of the Testing Procedure

 
As previously covered, the Philips LED Prize bulb, its quality issues, and how Philips won the US Government prize for it:
The lobbying, the evading of rules, the poor quality of the bulb on testing - as referenced with competition rules, patents, lobbying finance records, the prize committee's own lab test document, etc...

Standing against that information,
the US Dept of Energy official site (lightingprize.org) - has a lot more about the evaluation procedure - including their video about the bulb testing:






The just released (April 2012) stress test report follows below.
Alternative link to this PDF document.

As seen, the lab involved was the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, as also covered in the mentioned complete post and test committee review therein.

See F L: Stripping the Light Fantastic, part 2

 
Having looked inside a LED bulb,
there are naturally enough a lot more examples of CFL dissections out there,
having been around longer as replacements for regular incandescent bulbs...



From the EE Times article
"How compact fluorescent lamps work--and how to dim them"
A good, very technical description of CFL function.

From Australian engineer Rod Elliott's article
"Should There be a Ban on Incandescent Lamps?"
A good lengthy account also for the layman, which despite the title actually mainly deals with CFL issues in all aspects, in usage, safety issues and more.

From Save the Bulb "CFL Autopsy" article

This is an Osram CFL from a few years ago that has stopped working. I cut the base in half with an angle grinder as a hacksaw would not cut the black insulating material in the bayonet connector. This rather brutal approach destroyed quite a few components on the board. This is basically a pretty crude electronic fluorescent gear that is not nearly as efficient as it could be as evidenced by the rather large choke, the thing that looks like a transformer with an iron core and copper windings at the back. This lamp (when it was working!) started with a brief flicker. One of the broken bits was a neon lamp as are found in old fashioned starters so I suspect this was part of a crude and inefficient capacitor start, these are also likely to fail before other parts of the lamp.

The weight of this lamp was 82 grammes, 20 grammes was the circuit board that may well have been working and certainly is in many lamps that are thrown away. The glass tube is 40 grammes, the metal lamp cap 6 grammes therefore 16 grammes of plastics derived from fossil fuels makes the remainder. The mercury content will be anything between 2mg and 5mg depending on the age and manufacturer of the lamp.

The construction of this lamp allows the electronics module to be easily separated from the tube however the plastic base is fixed to the tube with expanded foam so it would be difficult to separate the plastic and glass for recycling.

A typical equivalent Incandescent lamp weighs 34 grammes approximately 27 grammes of this being the glass envelope, cap approximately 6 grammes and approximately 1 gramme of metals including the filament.

Since writing this page some further information has come to my attention. As part of the EuP work done by VITO, spreadsheets were used to analyse the environmental impact of different lamp types. The spreadsheets were originally written for the assessment of the impact of general domestic electrical equipment so there may be errors due to the relative size of lamps. The outputs of the spreadsheet included the following numbers:

• Energy used in manufacture:
GLS 1 MJ = 0.28KwH
CFLi 12MJ = 3.33 KwH
[ed- as from similar Osram and Philips CFL manufacture data, such energy usage quoted is from the assembly of already made components. Including the energy needed to make the components themselves, raises CFL energy use to 40 times or more that of incandescents, as from Dr Stanjek's study (commissioned by Greenpeace, so hardly research biased): Referenced, with more on the issue: ceolas.net/#li16x]

• Pollutants created in manufacture and winning the materials required:
GLS 5 grammes, non hazardous
CFLi 128 grammes, 78 grammes being hazardous waste

So basically each CFLi manufactured causes one and a half times its weight in waste and a weight equal to itself in hazardous waste. As I said above these figures are subject to question but are alarming as they stand.

On a lighter, nay, dimmer note...
a reminder from a previous post






Imagine calling a fluorescent bulb Tru Dim ;-)
(it's dimmable, apparently, and full of fun components)

 

(S)tripping the Light Fantastic

 
What? Candles or simple regular bulbs?
Simplicity is sooo old-fashioned, don't you know!
Put a plug to this lot, and light up the future!

In past weeks here, an extensive coverage of the political, technical, and other issues around the new Philips bulb that was launched in the USA on "Earth Day", (yes, maybe all those components need good "earthing", for safety... LEDs - like CFLs - have component and environmental concerns, as covered on ceolas.net/#li20ledax).

So, what about a look inside?

The following is from the Earth Led Store, Golden, Colorado USA, who - as a counterbalance to previous critical article references posted here - enthusiastically support the bulb
(as it happens, "original price: $ 59.99, offer $ 49.94, and Philips is offering a $10 rebate when you purchase $30 worth of Philips LED products", so perhaps the sale enthusiasm has some financial justification too, given such taxpayer funded rebate programs ;-) )


They do go on to an interesting dissection of the bulb,
on this web page (there are more images on it).

This is the final production version of the EnduraLED A19 L-Prize off, as you can see it is a streamlined three light chamber design compared to the original L-Prize submission which used four chambers. You will also notice that the remote phosphor caps are much more yellowish when compared to the AmbientLED 12.5 Watt which is shown below for comparison.

So why the shift in color of the phosphor from an orange color to a yellowish tint? Lets open the bulb up to find out:

Removing the phosphor caps reveals the L-Prize bulb actually contains two different looking LEDs. Since the old AmbientLED used royal blue LEDs, could this bulb be mixing colors (Red + Blue LEDs) to achieve its high 92 CRI?

Indeed it does and this also explains the shift in the color of the outside phosphor caps as well.

Digging in deeper, we removed the LED circuit boards and found them to be extremely well built with individual ribbon connectors.
The LED circuit boards are secured to the heatsink with a face plate that ensures a tight bonding to the adhesive thermal interface material.

The heatsink itself is quite high quality and as mentioned before has 3 cavities or chambers where the above LED module assemblies reside.

Deep inside the heatsink resides the main driver board. It is covered in rubber to prevent humming and is very difficult to remove in one piece. We tried unsuccessfully to do so but were still able to remove it fairly intact. Its one of the most elegant drivers we've seen thus far and is primarily built around Cypress Semiconductors CY8CLEDAC03L microcontroller.
The CY8CLED is quite powerful and you can read more about it here at Cypress Semi's Site: http://www.cypress.com/?rID=38553

Other components of note are a main distribution board that exists at the top of the bulb to direct power to each of the main led modules.


Here is pretty much everything spread out on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper:

The top right shows some of the capacitors contained inside. All are high quality japanese made rubycon capacitors. Overall, quite an amazing product both inside and out. Easily the best built LED we have seen so far.


If you would like to see a video of the L-Prize in action, check it out below. We hope you enjoyed our first "On The Inside" feature. Stay tuned for our next in the near future.

Comment

Certainly, as mentioned before, the bulb has some attractive qualities,
whatever about the price, specification and prize issues covered before.

But again, as also covered, the point is not that LEDs don't have their advantages, rather that all bulbs, including incandescents do:
There is a massive focus - particularly in the USA - on energy and money saving that may or may not arise from using different bulbs.
Ironically the energy and money saving aspects hardly hold overall, as covered on the "Deception behind Banning Bulbs" rundown.

But even if supposed savings arise, that is of course only part of the issue - arguably, light quality and other usage issues are the main reason for using any light bulb, and houses or apartments have many different conditions calling for different types of lighting.

The above article mentions how the blue and red LED mix allows for a higher CRI (color rendering index) rating of 92.
Incandescents are 100, an optimal rating, but more importantly such engineered improved CRI ratings for LEDs ignores that pure color sources are mixed, so that a true broad light spectrum is not obtained - just a spiky spectrum light output, whether as part of Red-Green-Blue LEDs or, as here, white LEDs, that use phosphorescent coating - which is why photographers and filmakers and indeed those who are sensitive to their light surroundings are unhappy with the supposed CRI ratings.

LEDs have their own spotlight and other advantages.
It is therefore ironic that, like here, "warm incandescent" light quality is chased, rather than own innate LED flexibly altered pure color light output advantages (colors alterable just like RGB red-green-blue light points on TV screens, which of course is indeed often nowadays similar Light-Emitting-Diode technology, and is what OLED type sheet lighting is about).

To (badly) copy incandescent light quality - like with the Philips bulb here, which has a fixed color temperature of 2700, just like an incandescent - is just another part of the irony of banning light sources optimal for such usage requirements.
The above bulb would be better served either by a white daylight balance, at least as an option, or by adding green leds to have the advantage that some LED bulbs have of a modifiable light color output (as color temperature), particularly for the price asked, subsidised or not.
 

Philips LED Bulb Prize Technical Review Document Copy

 
Post updated April 28

Regarding last post on the Philips prize committee technical review (the right side comments),
a copy of the document below.
As said earlier, it was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

 


 
See the original post about the L-Prize for a full rundown of the issues, including more about the testing procedure, the results, and the review comments as in the document copied above:
That post is also kept updated, for overview clarity, with the information here.


Some recent relevant comments on different posts relating to the testing, extra highlighting (capital letters in original) and direct linking added:

To address the points above as to whether the contest was rigged. If the L-Prize bulb clearly FAILED a technical test where there is a clear cut pass or fail outcome that any freshman engineering student can judge, but the technical review committee writes in PASS and explains, in SECRET, without publishing a rules update, that they are lowering the standard so that they can write in PASS, this is clear cut CORRUPTION.

The technical review committee sought to justify secretly altering the uniformity standard stating
“..however, independent data verifies that this distribution is actually much more uniform than a standard incandescent lamp …“

While there can be no justification for secretly lowering the standard to rigg the contest, astoundingly (or not) this statement is false.
Calculating the standard deviation for the L-Prize bulb tested by the DoE and a standard incandescent lamp, using data provided by the Department of Energy shows that L-Prize lamp tested by the DoE was actually less uniform.
See Light Distribution Analysis (alt link)

The production version of the L-Prize (which by the way appears to be a Chinese product) also does not meet the published L-Prize uniformity criteria of +/-10% of average in the zone 0 to 150 degrees.
See data on page 41 of usa.lighting.philips.com document
Also see: Lab plots of light distribution of Philips bulb (alt link)

The stated procedure for the contest was that if the entry failed a required test the entry would fail.
See flowchart on page 15 of L-Prize competition rules.

Southern California Edison (SCE) which was involved in field testing Philips L-Prize entry, decided to lab test 16 of the bulbs.

It turns out 1 of the 16 exhibited a failure mode in which the light turned red by the time it had 1502 hours of run time. This early failure casts doubt on the 20,000 hour (with 95% confidence) lifetime touted by the Department of Energy.
See link on (Emerging Technologies Coordinating Council) web page http://www.etcc-ca.com/component/content/article/48-Commercial/3044-l-prize-lab-evaluation which has link to report

Quoting from the mentioned Emerging Technologies Coordinating Council (ETCC) webpage

This independent lab assessment was initiated in support of both SCE’s L Prize field testing efforts, as well as its energy efficiency incentive/rebate programs.

SCE’s lab testing capabilities present an enormous resource in understanding and developing confidence in the performance of these units. A winning product stands to undergo considerable mileage in terms of usage/acceptance across the United States. As leaders in energy efficiency, it is important that California utilities stay active in monitoring/assessing such technologies.

Regarding the SCE report about the bulb (long pdf document), from the summary:

The technology shows promise in terms of meeting the efficiency and performance criteria set forth in the L Prize.
However, to better assess feasible implementation into incentive
programs, more investigation is recommended in three key areas:

- Lifetime Testing
o The variation of savings realized with these products throughout their lifetime is not well understood at this point.
Long lifetimes are one of the significant advantages of SSL technology, and should be better understood with this product application.

- Dimming capabilities/issues
o It is not currently known how these products perform when used with other dimmers.
o Their observed inability to toggle off with the selected ELV dimmer presents a large barrier, which needs to be overcome for successful implementation.
(When the ON/OFF function was toggled on the dimmer paired with this product, the product was not able to shut off. It encountered visible flickering at a dimly lit state in the OFF position.)
o The issue of green color shift at low dimming is a barrier to investigate/address for successful implementation

- Thermal effects on product performance
o These lamps are specified to use in dry locations, and not within totally enclosed fixtures. The effects of ambient temperatures/humidities on this technology’s performance and lifetime are not well understood at this point.

The conditions these lamps were subjected to in this lab assessment are within a narrow range, when taking into consideration the various climate zones/applications these general-purpose devices may see.


These key areas represent significant barriers,
to acceptance of this technology when compared with baseline CFLs and incandescents.
Further efforts are recommended to fully understand the benefits of SSL technology in this application, and ensure that product utility is not significantly impacted when encouraging customers to purchase products that are more efficient.
It is recommended that the results of the DOE’s evaluation of the first entry to the “60 Watt incandescent” category be closely monitored;
further understanding of this technology may be achieved through more collaboration with DOE testing, as DOE efforts are initiated/completed.

Comment

Regarding this bulb,
dimming is also criticized along with other issues in the committee technical review, above.

Regarding LED technology in general,
as this report also takes up, there are indeed several questionable issues relating to lifespan, enduring brightness, ambient temperature effects etc - apart from the light quality itself:
See the Ceolas website referenced rundown.

The "save energy/money in usage" push should not ignore such factors,
or for that matter the life cycle environmental impact, in terms of components in manufacture (more), energy/emissions in production and (overseas) transport, and environmental dumping when not recycled.
 

Update: More Questions about the Quality of the Philips LED bulb, and its Prize Award

 

Issues over the Philips LED Prize bulb was originally extensively covered in a March post, that has been comprehensively updated in the last couple of days.

A further post about Philips lobbying finance activities in the USA,
as per Senate and other records, also in relation to the LED bulb, was covered in the last post here.


But there is more...

As seen in the comments to the original post about it March post, the understandable point was raised that the prize testing committee had passed the bulb in all respects, so how could the
criticism be relevant.

All the referenced criticism relating to the bulb quality (and other issues about the bulb and the award) will not be repeated here - see previous posts.

But with respect to the lab testing,
in looking at the Test Review Comments themselves on the right hand side of their own document (click on it to enlarge), more discrepancies start to show up.
[ed- a copy of the document also in the post following this one]

While the bulb obviously passes the tests (or of course the prize could not be awarded!), it therefore does so with a lot of provisos, such that Philips own prototype testing are accepted when prize testing lab results show otherwise, and Philips promises about "criterions will be met in production lamp" are also accepted.

Moreover, prize testing lab names whose results conflict are rubbed out (at least 2 labs involved, possibly run by the DOE, judging by the article below).
Why not test results of publicly named labs, in a publicly awarded prize with public money?
As seen in other parts of the assessment the testing by a certain PNNL is not rubbed out. (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is one of the United States Department of Energy National Laboratories).
In one part, additional to the other criticism mentioned: "Testing conducted by PNNL with a wide variety of dimmers showed several issues with the submitted lamps".


The Washington Beacon (see previous posts) in a further article in April by Bill McMorris, has more on this and other previously mentioned issues. Notice that they also point out how the prize testing lab names were rubbed out. My highlighting again:

The Department of Energy awarded lighting giant Philips the $10 million L Prize despite the fact that the winning energy-efficient bulb failed to meet several contest criteria requirements, according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Philips raised eyebrows when it debuted the winning bulb with a $50 price tag. That is far beyond the $22 cost recommended by the department, which is now working with utility companies to cut back on the upfront cost through rebates.

Department documents, however, cast doubt on whether the expensive LED bulb was even worthy of the prize.

Contest rules outlined by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act required the winning L Prize bulb to shine at 900 lumens. A department report on 200 bulbs tested at two different facilities showed that nearly 70 bulbs failed to meet that standard, including more than 60 percent of the bulbs tested at one of the labs.

“The integrating sphere test from the [lab name redacted] shows that only 5 of 100 samples tested were below 900 lumens, but the [lab name redacted] integrating sphere testing shows 38 samples that were over 900lm and 62 were under,” the report reads.

Despite Philips’ poor showing at the DOE lab tests, the department passed the bulb after receiving reassurance from the Dutch company.

“Philips data shows all tested lamps (2000) were above 900 lumens. Philips test and modeling data indicate…this criterion will be met in the production lamp,” the report continued.

[More such acceptances of Philips own lab results and promise for production lamp compliance can as said be seen directly on the Test Committee Review comments on the right side of their document report (click on it to enlarge)]

A department spokeswoman insisted that the bulbs met the requirements.

“The minimum output measured in this sample of 200 lamps was 873 lumens and the maximum was 967 lumens, a range consistent with normal manufacturing tolerances,” the spokeswoman said. “The average light output of the 200 samples tested was 910 lumens.”

One lighting expert, however, said the average is not a good indicator of LED performance.

“You have to be very careful in choosing LEDs because there is difficulty in uniformity,” the expert said. “Having that many bulbs fail is suspect, especially if you plan on taking these bulbs to the market.”

Philips spokeswoman Silvie Casanova said the L Prize bulb that will hit store shelves later this spring fulfills every L Prize requirement.

“I’m sure that in the test run, there might have been some that had some performance issues, but I’m sure the department is looking at a baseline of the bulbs overall performance,” she said. “It does meet the requirements; we’re going through Energy Star testing right now” that will verify the company data.

Contest rules mandated that an entrant that failed to meet basic standards would be “terminated” and forced to return to square one of the competition.

There is no indication that Philips’ entry was disqualified, however.

Scientists who developed rival bulbs were outraged when they heard that the department allowed Philips to move forward.

“We treated the standards as Gospel: you had to have 900 lumens, you had to have the right color, the right temperature, the right (light distribution),” said one engineer who worked on the Lighting Sciences Group’s L Prize design.

“We went through revision after revision because if you change the (brightness), the color could be wrong and we’d start over. If we had known we could have fudged the (brightness) then everything else becomes easy,” the engineer said.

In 2009, when other lighting companies were still at the design phase of the process, Philips submitted a 2,000-bulb sample to the department. The quick submission intimidated many others vying for the L Prize, according to multiple industry insiders.

“Not once did the DOE ever let anyone know about the testing results; there was no transparency,” another lighting expert said. “If they had made it known in 2010 that Philips didn’t pass the test, then other competitors would have proceeded forward. The inference was that they passed.”

The department closed the competition and awarded Philips the $10 million prize in August 2011.

The brightness test was not the only requirement that Philips may not have reached. Department notes also indicate that reviewers changed the light distribution criteria to Philips’ favor.

“Testing and modeling of prototype production lamps show the luminous intensity distribution falling below 10 percent from the mean near 150 degrees,” the report said. “However, the TSC finds the use of the 0-135 degree zone acceptable … this is different than the 0-150 zone specified.”

“The department cannot just change the rules on how they are going to test, especially if they don’t tell other competitors about the rule change,” said a second lighting insider. “Only Philips benefited from the criteria change.”


The contest has been marred by several controversies since it opened in 2008.

A House Appropriations Committee report issued in June slammed the department for announcing the $10 million prize without prior approval from Congress.

“The Committee strongly opposes the Department announcing funding opportunities when those funds have not yet been made available by Congress,” the report said. “In the case of the L Prize, the Department risks damaging its credibility.”

The warning was enough to worry higher-ups at Philips, which spent nearly $1.8 million lobbying Congress to fund the program.

The bulb’s $50 price tag also produced sticker shock among industry insiders. It is about double the cost of existing LED bulbs and about fifty times higher than the 60-watt incandescent bulb it was designed to replace.

“I’m impressed with the technology, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who’s not,” the former LSG engineer said. “But we were going for a $22 bulb, forget rebates, and Philips missed it by a mile.”

The L Prize winner is expected to last 25,000 hours and save consumers $160 over the lifetime of the bulb compared to 60-watt incandescent bulbs, which were outlawed by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said the competition helped move LED technology forward by providing companies with incentives to make energy efficient bulbs.

“The idea of that light bulb contest was to provide for a goal going further down to get a light bulb that eventually, Americans can afford,” he told Congress in March.

The former LSG executive is not convinced.

“Letting (the bulb) come out that expensive, I think it set the market back … people are looking for a return on investment and this just tells them they can’t afford any LED bulbs,” he said. “I can’t blame the U.S. citizens for saying, ‘my God, the government is wasting our money.’”

In March, DOE opened the second round of the L Prize competition, which will aim to replace the existing halogen floodlight.