Guest Post by Jim Brodrick, Department of Energy
One thing that struck me at LIGHTFAIR … was how quickly solid-state lighting has progressed from being little more than a “sideshow” at that annual event – a curiosity rather than something of real significance – to being by far the predominant lighting technology on display. Just two years ago, SSL accounted for only about 10% of the products shown at LIGHTFAIR, whereas last week I’d say the figure was closer to 75%. LED products have practically taken over the entire show, with virtually every single major manufacturer featuring them in their exhibits.
That’s somewhat of a mixed blessing, though, on a number of counts. For one thing, there’s still a very wide range of performance, not to mention quality, in LED lighting products. At LIGHTFAIR they were all over the map – ranging from the very good, to the very questionable, to the almost-certainly shoddy. But you wouldn’t know it from the sales patter and product literature, which – to put it mildly – had a tendency to be rather one-sided. After walking the show floor, one sales rep – who was from a large and well-known manufacturer that’s taking pains to do things right when it comes to SSL – finally threw up his hands in exasperation, wondering aloud how he could possibly compete against companies that are so willing to stretch the truth, as he put it.
That doesn’t mean the disconnects between claimed SSL performance and reality are necessarily intentional – sometimes they’re honest mistakes, and sometimes they result from trying to oversimplify a very complex topic. Nor does it mean the biggies are all blameless and the smaller manufacturers are the ones to watch out for. Some smaller manufacturers seem to be “getting it right” on all fronts, while some of the bigger names are not always matching their walk to their talk – especially when it comes to equivalency claims. Although an increasing number of major players seem to be presenting SSL product information that’s accurate, grossly exaggerated LED equivalency claims were common at LIGHTFAIR, and the guilty parties included manufacturers big and small alike.
And inaccurate equivalency claims were not the only problem with SSL that I saw in Las Vegas. There were a fair number of manufacturers that measured product lifetime strictly in terms of the LEDs, without taking into consideration any of the other luminaire components, such as the driver and power supply. As you probably know, that’s like expecting grandpa to live to be 100 just because his lungs are still in great shape.
Another thing I saw at LIGHTFAIR was LED products being touted for applications that are not yet a good fit for SSL – such as T8 replacement lamps. That kind of mismatch – or should I say, premature market entry – is a surefire recipe for consumer disappointment. And I was also struck by such a strong emphasis on LED screw-in replacement bulbs – which admittedly comprise a huge potential market, but which can never take full advantage of SSL technology the way luminaires designed from the ground up to use LEDs can.
What all of this reinforces is that there’s still a tremendous need for accurate, unbiased information about SSL technology and products, to help people sort fact from fiction. And judging from the crowds thronging DOE’s LIGHTFAIR booth throughout the show last week, many people recognize this. Our visitors spanned a wide spectrum – from manufacturers, to lighting designers, to the environmentalist television star Ed Begley. The SSL tutorials we gave were jam-packed, standing-room-only affairs, and our handouts disappeared as quickly as we put them out.
It was gratifying to hear from so many LIGHTFAIR attendees that they appreciate what we’re doing and would like a lot more of the same. We in turn appreciate everyone’s participation and involvement in DOE’s SSL program, and the steady input of thoughts, comments, and questions that keep us fresh and help us stay in touch with an industry that’s evolving so rapidly.
