Will we produce enough energy again where incans will come back in style?

[alpg88]

What happened to that ultra efficient incan that was in a lab a few years back?
Likely no funding to develope it further due to low profit potential

 

[Olumin]

Is that just a G4 halogen in a E27 bulb?

 

[hamhanded]

Is that just a G4 halogen in a E27 bulb?

Looks like it, I use those in a couple places where I need CRI indoors.

 

[Olumin]

As far as halogen lighting goes, GU10s are the most common in Germany. G4s are common in integrated lights, most often in kitchens.

 

[jtr1962]

What happened to that ultra efficient incan that was in a lab a few years back?
Likely no funding to develope it further due to low profit potential

You mean this?

From the article:

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 numbers in the article aren't even correct. I assume they're talking about wall-plug efficiency, which is really the only metric that matters when you're discussing efficiency of light sources besides lumens per watt. Anyway, LED WPE was lower when the article was written but it was still well over 20%. IIRC the best commercial white LEDs in 2016 had WPEs over 50%, and optical efficiencies of over 150 lumens/watt. Now the numbers are about 70% and 230 lumens/watt, respectively. Assuming the 2-stage incandescents panned out, they would be barely half as efficiency in terms of WPE as the best white LEDs. In terms of lumens per watt, assuming a similar spectrum as regular incandescents, we're talking perhaps 80 or 90 lumens per watt.

Efficiency aside, there's the issue of cost. This doesn't sound like it's something inexpensive to make. With mid-power white LEDs now going for under a cent in quantity, I doubt this idea would ever be economically viable. So basically it's something that costs more, and performs worse, than what we have now, even if fully developed. I haven't heard anything about it since. I assume then, like so many new battery chemistries which sounded promising in the lab, this went nowhere.

To be sure, there are lots of other things where research didn't pan out. I've been playing with thermoelectric modules for over 30 years. The ones I bought then aren't much worse than what you can buy now. Any improvements are due to manufacturing tweaks, not improvements in the physics of the devices themselves. And this is a huge area of research. If we make solid-state cooling as efficient as compressors, it'll change the world. Develop a new, more efficient incandescent? Not much market for that these days, so I guess no more R&D funding.

 

[bridgman]

I'm wondering, with the way technology goes, will we produce the batteries in the future that will power incans to the point where efficiency of LED or other light sources doesn't really matter anymore? We always seem to produce more and more energy and do it more efficiently. Seems like at some point it won't even be a worry anymore.

When I read the question the first thought to go through my head was a line from the original Ghostbusters movie:

"Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back"

I haven't looked for exact numbers recently but it seems that there is only maybe a 3:1 difference in efficiency between high power LED and high power incandescent. Batteries are continuing to improve, so I think incans are going to be OK. We'll probably need to bring back driver boards for incandescent lights to get exactly the right drive levels, but LEDs have relied on those for years already.

 

[Stress_Test]

A factor of 3 difference is still pretty huge in engineering terms though, especially for any mature technology.

Imagine other areas of performance with a 3x difference. A guy who can bench-press 100 lbs vs a guy who can bench 300 lbs. A runner who does a mile in 12 minutes, vs a 4-minute-mile runner. A car that gets 20 MPG vs one that gets 60 MPG (both with the same HP)

Imagine your home insulation and appliances improve such that your monthly utility bill is divided by 3. (say, you were paying $120, now it's $40)

Steel is roughly three times as stiff as aluminum; imagine a fairly thin bar made from aluminum that you can flex by hand without much trouble. Now what if it's made of steel instead? Big difference!

Imagine a new computer with 3 times the performance of last year's model (in the 90's though this probably happened! lol)

Imagine if there was a new humble Ni-MH Eneloop released that now has three times the capacity, thereby tripling the runtimes of your lights.

And so on and so forth.

Point being, the LEDs have a pretty tremendous advantage and I don't think there's going to be any driving force to use incan for anything other than niche, retro, nostalgia markets (like photographic film and vinyl records).

I don't think incan will disappear entirely, but it'll just be some of us weirdos who still use them on occasion

 

[jtr1962]

Also, incans only have maybe a 3x disadvantage if you're considering very short life bulbs driven close to the limit. For general lighting uses it's more like a 10x disadvantage.

 

[Olumin]

You say that but in my parents house there are G4 bulbs in the kitchen that've been running for well over a decade without replacing. The soft starter circuit probably helps. Meanwhile the LED replacements go every couple years or so. Sockets probably provide suboptimal heat dissipation. My home is lit almost exclusively by halogens. Except for a couple desk lamps. I replace bulbs very rarely.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm talking about efficiency, not lifetime. Lifetime for LEDs runs all over the charts. Well-designed LED lighting should last decades, but the socket form factor isn't great for heat dissipation. With LEDs getting much more efficient though that is becoming less of an issue. The drive electronics are probably the main point of failure now. More often than not it's electrolytic capacitors which go. I'd rather pay a buck more for LED bulbs which use solid caps and last 100K hours. That said, at this point purpose-build LED fixtures make more sense than using LED bulbs, unless your socketed fixture has some sort of sentimental value.

I recall replacing incandescents constantly when we had them in our two chandeliers. We didn't even use these all that much, but like clockwork a bulb would go every few months. As soon as they had small-base LED bulbs I went for it. No failures since, and better lighting quality besides.