New Energy-Saving Bulb Lights the Night
by Eric A Taub, NEW YORK TIMES, March 21, 2011
As the nation shifts from standard incandescent light bulbs to higher-efficiency versions, one company believes it has a product for consumers dissatisfied with the alternatives: the harsh light of compact fluorescents and the high price of LED lamps.
This week, the Vu1 Corporation, based in New York, will begin shipping a lamp that uses a new technology borrowed from an old product, a picture tube TV.
The Vu1 lamp, available as a 65-watt-equivalent reflector lamp, creates light the same way a TV picture tube creates images. It fires a stream of electrons at phosphors coating the inside of the globe. The company calls the technology electron stimulated luminescence.
The light is akin in color to a regular light bulb’s output, which is important because many consumers complain about an unpleasant glare from compact fluorescent light bulbs, or C.F.L.’s. As with C.F.L.’s, the Vu1 bulb uses less energy than a standard bulb, in this case 19.5 watts to create the equivalent of a 65-watt lamp. The company says it will last 10,000 hours at full brightness, compared with a 1,000-hour life typical for regular bulbs, and is fully dimmable.
The new lamp, which will initially be sold only on the company’s Web site, vu1.com, costs $19.95. But the introductory price will drop to $15 within 12 months, according to the company’s chief executive, Philip Styles, and then to $12 six months after that. That’s a considerably higher upfront cost than that of a standard light bulb of around $1.50, or a C.F.L., which can be found in many communities at a utility-subsidized price of around 50 cents.
LED lamps are more expensive, but they use less electricity. Based on lifespan and power consumption, an LED lamp costs less than a Vu1 lamp. Philips sells a 60-watt-equivalent LED A-lamp, the type used in standard sockets, for $40. It uses 12 watts of power and is expected to last 25,000 hours before it loses half of its brightness.
Still, consumers choose lamps not on their final cost, but on their purchase price. “The mistake with C.F.L.’s was that they were sold based solely on cost,” not on their light quality, said Michael Siminovitch, director of the California Lighting Technology Center at University of California, Davis. “It’s a national tragedy. We should have solved this by now.”
LED lamps are as efficient at creating light as its C.F.L. equivalents, according to Jim Brodrick, the Energy Department’s solid-state lighting program manager, without the downsides inherent in C.F.L.’s: mercury pollution, poor dimming and undesirable light color. Mr. Brodrick said that LED lamps currently under development were twice as efficient as C.F.L.’s. [Read rest of article]
this is great news. thanks for alerting me to this option!