Is LED lighting superior or just more hype?

LEDs, or light-emitting diodes, are the latest innovation in solid-state lighting appropriate for general illumination applications and today's energy conservation goals. 

The only negative comment I have heard about this technology - other than cost - was purportedly made by a Patagonia executive working to help green Wal-Mart's operations. Patagonia is a very responsible company with superior green credentials, so I won't embarrass him by name here. (His friends and children have probably verbally beaten him senseless by now anyway.)  The comment quoted in the article I read was essentially, 'Well, the LEDs last forever, but to produce them takes enormous power'.

Trade-offs are one thing, of course, but there is no logical explanation why anyone would think the trade-off with LEDs is iffy. It would probably astonish the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as well, as they not only collaborated on the solid-state lighting research but have compiled some pretty impressive results.  In fact, based on very signficant energy savings potential, the DOE has developed a strategy to both accelerate market availability and stimulate acceptance of LEDs.

The light emitted by the LEDs is very familiar to most of us, as just about every electronic contraption we own has an LED light.  Yes, all those little red and blue lights that signify your power is on in your burglar alarm, your cellphone, your cell charger, your watch, your computers, your faxes, all the clocks on your appliances, your auto dashboard are all LEDs. In other words, this is actually technology that has been around for a pretty long time and works. The challenge has been how to make it bigger, better, brighter and less costly. 

As you can see from the photo above, this LED (a sample at the Earth Advantage Institute's offices in Tigard, Oregon) gives off a very nice quality of light.  I took the photo myself without a flash and did not photoshop the result. The actual glow from the fixture is a bit whiter, but it has a pleasing, incandescant-style appeal.

The National Generation Lighting Industry Alliance's (NGLIA) and the DOE's partnership produced estimates of the energy savings that would accrue over a twenty year period. Here is a portion of the announcement:

"Under the LEd scenario, in 2030 the annual energy savings from solid-state lighting will be approximately 190 terawatt-hours, or the equivalent annual electrical output of about 24 large power plants (1,000 NW electric). At today's energy prices, that would equate to approximately $15 billion in energy savings in that year alone. Assuming the same mix of generating power stations, these savings:

         1) Would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 31.4 million metric tons of carbon.
         2) Consumption for lighting would decrease by roughly 25 percent relative to a scenario
             with no solid-state lighting in the market.
         3) This would represent enough electricity to illuminate more than 95 milliion homes in the US today.

Over the 20-year analysis period, spanning 2010-2030, the cumulative energy savings are estimated to total approximately 1,488 terawatt-hours, representing approximately $120 billion at today's energy prices. Assuming the electric power plant generating mix is held constant over the next two decades, these savings would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 246 million metric tons of carbon."
Source: Department of Energy (DOE)

My friends, that is a whole lot fewer carbon emissions. To learn more about DOE Solid-State Lighting Portfolio activities, visit http://www.ssl.energy.gov/.