News & Analysis
Comment
cafayzieg
David Taylor
Have a try of video converter : ...
Cree claims LED price-performance breakthrough
Dylan McGrath
2/7/2012 12:02 PM EST
SAN FRANCISCO—Claiming a breakthrough in light-emitting diode (LED) technology, Cree Inc. Tuesday (Feb. 7) announced a new product that the company claims delivers twice the lumens per dollar of conventional LEDs and offers the highest performance in the industry.
Based on a new silicon carbide technology platform, the Cree's XT-E LED and the recently released XB-D LED addresses the largest obstacle to mass LED lighting adoption, initial cost, according to Cree (Durham, N.C.).
Cree maintains that the XT-E LED more than doubles the lumens per watt (LPW) of its XLamp XP-E LED family—providing up to 148 LPW at 85°C (or up to 162 LPW at 25°C) at 350mA. The XT-E LED delivers exceptional performance in the 3.45mm x 3.45mm XP footprint and can be used for almost all lighting applications, according to Cree.
Because the XT-E White LED is a successor product to XP-E High Efficiency LED, customers who incorporate it into lighting systems require only 3,000 hours of XT–E LED LM-80 data to achieve Energy Star qualification, as opposed to the normal 6,000 hours, Cree said.
Mike Watson, Cree's senior director marketing for LED components, said through a statement that Cree's XB-D LED "changed the game," introducing a better price-performance curve. "Now, with the XT-E LED, Cree continues to break barriers and extend its leadership on this new trajectory, delivering products that accelerate LED adoption," Watson said.
The XT-E White LED delivers up to 148 lumens and 148 LPW in cool white (6000 K) or up to 114 lumens and 114 LPW in warm white (3000 K), both at 350 mA, 85°C, according to Cree. Samples of the product are available immediately and production volumes are available with standard lead times, Cree said. More information about the XT-E White LED is available on Cree's website.
Based on a new silicon carbide technology platform, the Cree's XT-E LED and the recently released XB-D LED addresses the largest obstacle to mass LED lighting adoption, initial cost, according to Cree (Durham, N.C.).
Cree maintains that the XT-E LED more than doubles the lumens per watt (LPW) of its XLamp XP-E LED family—providing up to 148 LPW at 85°C (or up to 162 LPW at 25°C) at 350mA. The XT-E LED delivers exceptional performance in the 3.45mm x 3.45mm XP footprint and can be used for almost all lighting applications, according to Cree.
Because the XT-E White LED is a successor product to XP-E High Efficiency LED, customers who incorporate it into lighting systems require only 3,000 hours of XT–E LED LM-80 data to achieve Energy Star qualification, as opposed to the normal 6,000 hours, Cree said.
Mike Watson, Cree's senior director marketing for LED components, said through a statement that Cree's XB-D LED "changed the game," introducing a better price-performance curve. "Now, with the XT-E LED, Cree continues to break barriers and extend its leadership on this new trajectory, delivering products that accelerate LED adoption," Watson said.
The XT-E White LED delivers up to 148 lumens and 148 LPW in cool white (6000 K) or up to 114 lumens and 114 LPW in warm white (3000 K), both at 350 mA, 85°C, according to Cree. Samples of the product are available immediately and production volumes are available with standard lead times, Cree said. More information about the XT-E White LED is available on Cree's website.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
Sanjib.Acharya
2/7/2012 1:17 PM EST
Well, what is the reliability or life of these silicon carbide technology based LED lamps from Cree vs. the current LED technologies?
Sign in to Reply
qerqwe
2/7/2012 4:15 PM EST
"very reliable, trust us" Actually I would expect the LEDs themselfs to OK, it is everything else. So far I have not heard of any benefit of purchasing such technology for my home.
Sign in to Reply
David Taylor
10/15/2012 2:39 AM EDT
Have a try of video converter : http://www.league-soft.com/how-to/convert-avi-to-mp4-mac.html
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
2/7/2012 4:51 PM EST
I don't think that SiC semiconductors are anything particularly new. And, according to
http://www.nnin.org/doc/2004NNINreuVaughan.pdf
when applied to LEDs, SiC seminconductors are used to create blue LEDs. That yellow colored phosphor is what changes to light to white.
Here are the types of semicondictors used to create different colors, according to that URL:
"Silicon carbide (SiC),
indium gallium nitride (InGaN), and zinc selenide
(ZnSe) produce blue LED’s.
"Gallium phosphide
(GaP), and gallium nitride (GaN) produce green
LED’s.
"Gallium arsenide/phosphide (GaAsP) produce
red, orange and yellow LED’s.
"Aluminum gallium
arsenide (AlGaAs) produces red and infrared."
It goes on to say that white light can be made by combining red, green, and blue, although I'm pretty sure that's the more expensive way of making a white LED. The cheaper approach is just to use a blue plus a phosphor.
Sign in to Reply
Robotics Developer
2/7/2012 4:30 PM EST
Given the cost of the bulbs, the savings can accrue over time but with the limited lifetimes (power electronics typically) I am not sure the bulbs will ever pay for themselves based on electrical usage. I do know that in a number of applications they are very nice - quick to start and energy efficient (more for the PR and customer experience than real savings). Some companies will want to jump on the bandwagon just for the green-ness of the bulbs, again maybe more PR than anything else.
Sign in to Reply
AshokS
2/7/2012 4:42 PM EST
I think they do pay for themselves even at the current prices. I replaced 3 50W halogen bulbs on my kitchen hood with 8W LED lamps which are brighter which means I can operate them at a lower dimmer setting. Bulbs were $20 each.
savings per year at 5hrs a day for 360 days at 11c per kWh = $7. so return is in 3 years approx.
This is conservative since we now keeps the main kitchen lights off most of the time since all we need is lights over the stove at least in the daytime. Earlier, we had to turn all the lights on for an extra 65W for 5x13W CFLs.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
2/7/2012 7:48 PM EST
I think that having any new appliance that requires LESS power than what it replaces, for a change, can only be beneficial overall. That in itself is worth money.
Obviously, this can be taken to extremes, but it seems to me that it's wrong to dismiss these improvements, only on the basis that overall acquisition and operating costs are perhaps not quite low enough. Would anyone be so cost-obsessive, say, about their food? Never mind clothing?
Think of it this way. Flat panel TVs, especially plasmas, require considerably more power than the CRTs they replaced. Thank goodness we have LED lighting just around the corner that can actually compensate for this.
Sign in to Reply
Sanjib.Acharya
2/11/2012 10:32 AM EST
I agree with you to some extent. I am concerned that in the cost sensitive regions of the world (e.g. India) it might take some more time to accept the LED lamps. Going with the experience with the CFL lamps: the CFL lamps were costly (they are still) when launched compared to incandescent lamps or the fluorescent lamps, but over last 5-7 years CFL lamps have become popular in India. It was partly because of your logic, some people were not so cost obsessive, may be because the cost of CFL lamps justified over the energy saving over the incandescent lamps…some due to the spreading of the awareness, marketing etc. But the cost of LED lamps is too high compared to the benefits that could be explained to these people.
Sign in to Reply
ramstar
2/11/2012 1:03 PM EST
Our electric utility companies distributed many CFL bulbs for free, or at greatly reduced cost when they first came out. The fact that each CFL contains a small amount of mercury makes them much less desirable than LED's when you take into account the disposal cost.
Sign in to Reply
hm
2/7/2012 8:48 PM EST
What is CRI for this new LEDs? Can it be 95% or higher?
Sign in to Reply
daleste
2/7/2012 10:04 PM EST
This is a good advancement. The move to LED lighting will happen once it is better (cheaper) than what is available. The price of LED bulbs will continue to come down as the volume increases and the advancements in the science continue. I look forward to moving to that technology.
Sign in to Reply
prabhakar_deosthali
2/8/2012 7:33 AM EST
The LEDs are supposed to have a life of 25 years. If the associated electronics also lasts that long then LEDs will become a good lifetime investment for lighting and saving a huge amount of energy cost over their lifetime
Sign in to Reply
BicycleBill
2/8/2012 4:38 PM EST
How accurate/reliable/meaningful are the tests used to project overall lifetime, I wonder?
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
2/8/2012 4:45 PM EST
Good point. Also because, LEDs tend to become gradually dimmer with age. Although this happens so gradually that people don't usually notice. So "lifetime" needs to consider replacement just because of lost lumens.
We have noticed this dimming over time with CFLs, more pronounced in the ones with very small twisty part, enclosed in a light bulb-like glass cover.
Sign in to Reply
Sakthidaran.R.T.
2/11/2012 5:14 AM EST
Cree 231 Lumen Per Watt LED Shatters LED Efficacy Records – was the news reported on May 9, 2011.
http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1304945651119
Now, it reports 148 LPW as an achievement. ???
Sign in to Reply
Larry.Cormier1
2/13/2012 2:29 PM EST
Accordiong to Cree, "The 231 was a lab/R&D result. The 162 is a commercially available product."
Sign in to Reply
DrQuine
2/11/2012 11:37 AM EST
Can we believe lifetime estimates? When CFL bulbs were launched, they were touted as having 7 year lifetimes. Not including the infant mortality (5% of bulbs failed out of the box), I'd guess that 25% failed within a year. While they all got replaced at no cost, the mismatch between reported and actual lifetimes was striking. At least the CFL bulbs were cheap. LED bulbs are not.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
2/12/2012 6:50 PM EST
We haven't anything remotely close to that. The CFL brands we buy are Sylvania or UtiliTech, which are sold at Best Buy. We've had much better luck than what you describe.
Basically, one failure that was premature, within maybe less than a year, one failure in a couple of years (which is also premature, in my book), and the rest keep soldiering on for many years.
As to going to laser lights, interesting concept. I wonder if the coherent nature of laser won't create some weird phenomena?
Sign in to Reply
DrQuine
2/11/2012 11:46 AM EST
Can we skip LED lights and go straight to 4 color diode laser white lights? "Photonics Spectra" (Jan 2012, page 20) reports that Sandia National Laboratory has produced white light that is superior in quality to current lighting technologies. They claim diode laser lights can also scale to brighter level than can be achieved with LEDs (which lose efficiency above 0.5 amp currents).
Sign in to Reply
daleste
2/12/2012 8:31 PM EST
Laser lights. Interesting. How is the light dispersed? I wouldn't want just one little dot of light in the middle of the room.
Sign in to Reply
Larry.Cormier1
2/13/2012 2:37 PM EST
I have had somewhat the same results as DrQuine with CFL failures at home. In 2 years, I have replaces maybe 1/2 dozen bulbs out of the 30 or so that I have in service.
If one researches, it appears that the failures are due to the electronics associated with start-up.
In order to eliminate these issues, is there any effort to start wiring houses with DC for lighting? We already have DC for doorbells. This would be an easy extension, and would eliminate the cost of the start-up circuitry, and the associated failures.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
2/13/2012 3:49 PM EST
??? Wouldn't it be infinitely less disruptive (and I mean that pejoratively) to stick diodes in the CFL instead, if they prefer DC?
DC house current would mean that any appliance that doesn't require strictly 115 V would have to have a switching power supply. Not to mention, the electric utilities would have to co-locate gymongous rectifying circuits where they now have the final distribution transformers that go to 230 VAC. Which means, huge changes all over the distribution network.
Not a trivial change.
Sign in to Reply
Larry.Cormier1
2/13/2012 4:23 PM EST
The decision to go AC vs DC was made a long time ago. Of course, we would not go DC over the distribution network. However, we COULD have a low voltage supply and wire the light switches with a smaller guage wire, needing less robust switches. Perhaps a not trivial reduction in wiring costs, as copper has gone up dramatically.
We would still have the AC for appliances and such.
It would not be a big deal for new houses.
This would mean 2 types of bulbs- DC for new, AC for old. This could be a show stopper due to manufacturers probable unwillingness to have 2 types. But, if LED is the way of the future, why not use it as close to the "raw" state as possible? Cheaper for product, less manufacturing cost, less copper cost, less wiring installation cost. And, less high voltage AC in the walls
(BTW, I previously said DC for doorbell, incorrect. It is 12VAC, I think)
Sign in to Reply
chinavibratingscreen
9/21/2012 4:58 AM EDT
Thank you for your sharing, it's very helpful.
regards:httP//www.chinavibratingsieve.com
Sign in to Reply
cafayzieg
10/22/2012 6:13 AM EDT
I'm glad I can understand these products. Thank you for your article.
http://www.league-soft.com
Sign in to Reply