7 ms·

The growth in efficiency has been spectacular. Every other source will be retired in the face of LED greater efficiency, solid state design, and lower cost. Th

The growth in efficiency has been spectacular. Every other source will be retired in the face of LED greater efficiency, solid state design, and lower cost. The only light more efficient than an LED is an LED that is turned off. Demand-based lighting, network controlled is the next step. Cree already sells Power-over-Ethernet powered and controlled light fixtures to do this: http://www2.cree.com/smartcast-landing-page http://www2.cree.com/smartcast-landing-page

coldpie 10y ago
> Demand-based lighting, network controlled is the next step. Oh good, Auernheimer can wake me up in the middle of the night.
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted, weev has already shown a propensity for using badly secured connected devices to troll people. And you know that someone will have the creds to their system be admin:admin... http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hacker-weev-made-thousands-of-internet-connected-printers-spit-out-racist-flyers http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hacker-weev-made-thousands-...
  - coldpie 10y ago
    Lots of <s>botnet</s>internet-of-things fans on here, I guess ;)
ryao 10y ago
Incandescent lighting is more energy efficient when the filament is placed inside the right "photonics crystal": http://news.mit.edu/2016/nanophotonic-incandescent-light-bulbs-0111 http://news.mit.edu/2016/nanophotonic-incandescent-light-bul...
- bdamm 10y ago
  It's a really cool idea, although their statements about efficiency seem rather questionable to me. LEDs are only twice as efficient as traditional bulbs? A laughable statement, since I get the same light with 1/5th to 1/8th the energy using off the shelf bulbs.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    > LEDs are only twice as efficient as traditional bulbs? I didn't see that claim in the article, but I thought these two paragraphs were wonderfully specific: One quantity that characterizes a lighting source is the so-called luminous efficiency, which takes into account the response of the human eye. Whereas the luminous efficiency of conventional incandescent lights is between 2 and 3 percent, that of fluorescents (including CFLs) is between 7 and 15 percent, and that of most commercial LEDs between 5 and 20 percent, the new two-stage incandescents could reach efficiencies as high as 40 percent, the team says. The first proof-of-concept units made by the team do not yet reach that level, achieving about 6.6 percent efficiency. But even that preliminary result matches the efficiency of some of today’s CFLs and LEDs, they point out. And it is already a threefold improvement over the efficiency of today’s incandescents. Which details in that do you question?
    - xyzzyz 10y ago
      Comparing theoretical efficiency of new design for incandescent lighting with commercially available LEDs does not make sense, as theoretical efficiency of white LEDs is also around 40%. I'll consider incandescents once the efficiency of commercially available ones reaches the efficiency of commercially available leds. I bet $100 that it will not happen in next 10 years.
      - nkurz 10y ago
        Comparing theoretical efficiency of new design for incandescent lighting with commercially available LEDs does not make sense Yes. They say they are currently at 6% efficiency, which is better than the worst CFL's and LED's, but far from matching the best. as theoretical efficiency of white LEDs is also around 40% Yes, although one should probably include the power supply. I think the advantage of the incandescent approach is that there are no losses here. I'll consider incandescents once the efficiency of commercially available ones reaches the efficiency of commercially available leds. Sure, sounds wise. Light quality and longevity might be factors too. But what does this have to do with the claim that the article says "LEDs are only twice as efficient as traditional bulbs"? The article can be read as claiming that the worst commercially available LED's are about 2x the efficiency of the best incandescents, and perhaps this is false, but I don't see this as reason to discount the rest of the details. Here's earlier discussion of this approach, which includes a link to the actual paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11771001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11771001
oftenwrong 10y ago
It should be considered that LEDs are now being used for lighting in situations where there used to be no lighting at all [1]. The potential energy savings we could realise with LEDs may be negated by an increase in lighting itself. This would be an example of Jevons' paradox [2]. [1] http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/10/led-light-cfl-b.html http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/10/led-light-cfl-b.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons's_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons's_paradox
- Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
  This is particularly true for increased outdoor night-lighting, which is harmful to wildlife: migrating birds, light-drawn insects and the bats that feed upon them, insects that require darkness to signal mates (fireflies), nocturnal prey-hunting animals, aquatic animals whose cycles are set to the lunar cycle -- as well as sleeping humans.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
    Most of the LED street lighting and whatnot I've seen has been more directed than what it replaced. Light pollution has improved, generally. For a while the color temperature was terrible, but cheap and reliable warm phosphors have mostly fixed that. As for private outdoor lighting, I'm not sure that less cost really affects that. People that made poor lighting choices (too much, too cool, too much spill) don't do it because it's suddenly cheap. They just paid more before. The answer to this is likely some degree of local regulation.
- dpark 10y ago
  > LEDs are now being used for lighting in situations where there used to be no lighting at all While LED lights have certainly allowed for new applications, that article is nearly 10 years old and the future predicted has not come to pass. There has been no wave of LED-encrusted buildings. The roads don't glow. My bookshelves and whatnot don't either. If LEDs deliver a 10x improvement in energy use, we'll have to use 10x as much light to offset the energy gains. How likely is that?
aidos 10y ago
Indeed. I went to talk recently where they were saying that some offices now just use network connections for the whole system (including power) as it means they can centralise the driver system in the basement which simplifies everything.
- ghostly_s 10y ago
  Can you clarify? I don't see how a PoE network would allow you to centralize the driver hardware for LEDs, per spec I understand the power provided by PoE is straight DC with some sort of current negotiation process, and I don't think you could do PWM for LED drive across any great distance.
  - apk17 10y ago
    I don't understand the general use of PWM anyway - you want to use switching regulators anyway, and it is actually slightly easier to do (almost) constant current than PWM. And PWM lighting is annoying in a lot of ways.
yourapostasy 10y ago
Now I want to build and sell a diamond nuclear battery-powered, Japanese LED light orb structured so as one LED burns out, a previously-deactivated LED is activated, and a motion sensor-based power switch. Stick into a gnarled length of Australian Buloke wood and presto, a walking stick/staff of light that lasts hundreds of years, shake it to turn on/off, and so hard you can take a massive swing at an orc (or fellow SCA combatant) with spectacular results. Since I can't turn off the battery, I'll make it extract, liquefy and store hydrogen for a bonus fireball shooting feature, but that won't last as long.
- te_platt 10y ago
  Funny, but I've been in design meetings at least twice as silly as that.
- JorgeGT 10y ago
  You can just fill the sphere with tritium gas and coat it with phosphorescent paint. Radioactive decay will emit electrons that will impinge in the paint, generating light. Or, you can just buy a keychain or a torch made using this principle. Will provide continuous light for +10 years: http://www.kitmonster.co.uk/product_info.php/products_id/638 http://www.kitmonster.co.uk/product_info.php/products_id/638
  - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
    Tritium has a half-life of only 12 years. Which is fine for my Luminox watch, but not fine for a wizard's staff. Also, the light is pretty weak. You can only see it in a dark environment. Again, that's fine for a watch.
    - JorgeGT 10y ago
      I admit my ignorance regarding wizardry staffs specifications :|
knodi123 10y ago
> Every other source will be retired in the face of LED greater efficiency, solid state design, and lower cost. Efficiency is much less important, if you also pay to heat your home. That doesn't mean they're superior to LED, but it does change the cost/benefit to make it a little less lopsided! :-)
- Zhenya 10y ago
  Incandescent bulbs are not nearly as efficient as other sources of heat. While, sure it makes the argument less lopsided, you'd be crazy to consider the heat output from bulbs as a benefit when replacing them with LEDs. Don't forget, in the summer you have to pull that heat out of your house also.
- hx87 10y ago
  Unless your cost of electricity is so low that resistance heating beats heat pumps and natural gas for long term costs, inefficient lighting is an awful way to heat your space.

coldpie 10y ago

> Demand-based lighting, network controlled is the next step. Oh good, Auernheimer can wake me up in the middle of the night.

Godel_unicode 10y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted, weev has already shown a propensity for using badly secured connected devices to troll people. And you know that someone will have the creds to their system be admin:admin... http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hacker-weev-made-thousands-of-internet-connected-printers-spit-out-racist-flyers http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hacker-weev-made-thousands-...
- coldpie 10y ago
  Lots of <s>botnet</s>internet-of-things fans on here, I guess ;)

ryao 10y ago

Incandescent lighting is more energy efficient when the filament is placed inside the right "photonics crystal": http://news.mit.edu/2016/nanophotonic-incandescent-light-bulbs-0111 http://news.mit.edu/2016/nanophotonic-incandescent-light-bul...

bdamm 10y ago
It's a really cool idea, although their statements about efficiency seem rather questionable to me. LEDs are only twice as efficient as traditional bulbs? A laughable statement, since I get the same light with 1/5th to 1/8th the energy using off the shelf bulbs.
- nkurz 10y ago
  > LEDs are only twice as efficient as traditional bulbs? I didn't see that claim in the article, but I thought these two paragraphs were wonderfully specific: One quantity that characterizes a lighting source is the so-called luminous efficiency, which takes into account the response of the human eye. Whereas the luminous efficiency of conventional incandescent lights is between 2 and 3 percent, that of fluorescents (including CFLs) is between 7 and 15 percent, and that of most commercial LEDs between 5 and 20 percent, the new two-stage incandescents could reach efficiencies as high as 40 percent, the team says. The first proof-of-concept units made by the team do not yet reach that level, achieving about 6.6 percent efficiency. But even that preliminary result matches the efficiency of some of today’s CFLs and LEDs, they point out. And it is already a threefold improvement over the efficiency of today’s incandescents. Which details in that do you question?
  - xyzzyz 10y ago
    Comparing theoretical efficiency of new design for incandescent lighting with commercially available LEDs does not make sense, as theoretical efficiency of white LEDs is also around 40%. I'll consider incandescents once the efficiency of commercially available ones reaches the efficiency of commercially available leds. I bet $100 that it will not happen in next 10 years.
    - nkurz 10y ago
      Comparing theoretical efficiency of new design for incandescent lighting with commercially available LEDs does not make sense Yes. They say they are currently at 6% efficiency, which is better than the worst CFL's and LED's, but far from matching the best. as theoretical efficiency of white LEDs is also around 40% Yes, although one should probably include the power supply. I think the advantage of the incandescent approach is that there are no losses here. I'll consider incandescents once the efficiency of commercially available ones reaches the efficiency of commercially available leds. Sure, sounds wise. Light quality and longevity might be factors too. But what does this have to do with the claim that the article says "LEDs are only twice as efficient as traditional bulbs"? The article can be read as claiming that the worst commercially available LED's are about 2x the efficiency of the best incandescents, and perhaps this is false, but I don't see this as reason to discount the rest of the details. Here's earlier discussion of this approach, which includes a link to the actual paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11771001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11771001

oftenwrong 10y ago

It should be considered that LEDs are now being used for lighting in situations where there used to be no lighting at all [1]. The potential energy savings we could realise with LEDs may be negated by an increase in lighting itself. This would be an example of Jevons' paradox [2]. [1] http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/10/led-light-cfl-b.html http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/10/led-light-cfl-b.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons's_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons's_paradox

Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
This is particularly true for increased outdoor night-lighting, which is harmful to wildlife: migrating birds, light-drawn insects and the bats that feed upon them, insects that require darkness to signal mates (fireflies), nocturnal prey-hunting animals, aquatic animals whose cycles are set to the lunar cycle -- as well as sleeping humans.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
  Most of the LED street lighting and whatnot I've seen has been more directed than what it replaced. Light pollution has improved, generally. For a while the color temperature was terrible, but cheap and reliable warm phosphors have mostly fixed that. As for private outdoor lighting, I'm not sure that less cost really affects that. People that made poor lighting choices (too much, too cool, too much spill) don't do it because it's suddenly cheap. They just paid more before. The answer to this is likely some degree of local regulation.
dpark 10y ago
> LEDs are now being used for lighting in situations where there used to be no lighting at all While LED lights have certainly allowed for new applications, that article is nearly 10 years old and the future predicted has not come to pass. There has been no wave of LED-encrusted buildings. The roads don't glow. My bookshelves and whatnot don't either. If LEDs deliver a 10x improvement in energy use, we'll have to use 10x as much light to offset the energy gains. How likely is that?

aidos 10y ago

Indeed. I went to talk recently where they were saying that some offices now just use network connections for the whole system (including power) as it means they can centralise the driver system in the basement which simplifies everything.

ghostly_s 10y ago
Can you clarify? I don't see how a PoE network would allow you to centralize the driver hardware for LEDs, per spec I understand the power provided by PoE is straight DC with some sort of current negotiation process, and I don't think you could do PWM for LED drive across any great distance.
- apk17 10y ago
  I don't understand the general use of PWM anyway - you want to use switching regulators anyway, and it is actually slightly easier to do (almost) constant current than PWM. And PWM lighting is annoying in a lot of ways.

yourapostasy 10y ago

Now I want to build and sell a diamond nuclear battery-powered, Japanese LED light orb structured so as one LED burns out, a previously-deactivated LED is activated, and a motion sensor-based power switch. Stick into a gnarled length of Australian Buloke wood and presto, a walking stick/staff of light that lasts hundreds of years, shake it to turn on/off, and so hard you can take a massive swing at an orc (or fellow SCA combatant) with spectacular results. Since I can't turn off the battery, I'll make it extract, liquefy and store hydrogen for a bonus fireball shooting feature, but that won't last as long.

te_platt 10y ago
Funny, but I've been in design meetings at least twice as silly as that.
JorgeGT 10y ago
You can just fill the sphere with tritium gas and coat it with phosphorescent paint. Radioactive decay will emit electrons that will impinge in the paint, generating light. Or, you can just buy a keychain or a torch made using this principle. Will provide continuous light for +10 years: http://www.kitmonster.co.uk/product_info.php/products_id/638 http://www.kitmonster.co.uk/product_info.php/products_id/638
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  Tritium has a half-life of only 12 years. Which is fine for my Luminox watch, but not fine for a wizard's staff. Also, the light is pretty weak. You can only see it in a dark environment. Again, that's fine for a watch.
  - JorgeGT 10y ago
    I admit my ignorance regarding wizardry staffs specifications :|

knodi123 10y ago

> Every other source will be retired in the face of LED greater efficiency, solid state design, and lower cost. Efficiency is much less important, if you also pay to heat your home. That doesn't mean they're superior to LED, but it does change the cost/benefit to make it a little less lopsided! :-)

Zhenya 10y ago
Incandescent bulbs are not nearly as efficient as other sources of heat. While, sure it makes the argument less lopsided, you'd be crazy to consider the heat output from bulbs as a benefit when replacing them with LEDs. Don't forget, in the summer you have to pull that heat out of your house also.
hx87 10y ago
Unless your cost of electricity is so low that resistance heating beats heat pumps and natural gas for long term costs, inefficient lighting is an awful way to heat your space.