The Illuminating Engineering Society recently shared an article by Don Peifer from his recent column in LD+A that addresses whether the hype surrounding LEDs match the reality? Or put another way: Is the battle over and have LEDs already won? Below is the excerpt posted on their website:

In the battle of lighting technologies, LEDs are perceived as unstoppable force—poised in the air like Michael Jordan about to dunk on his helpless competitors. Is this really what is happening though? Is the slam dunk inevitable? It depends on what your definition of winning is and, more importantly, your view of the game. LEDs continue to carve into existing applications, and the early takeaway is there is not a single vertical that LEDs won’t disrupt. Despite the formidable energy advantages for LED systems, however, LED adoption is still in the low single digits, so what’s up?

INSIDE THE NUMBERS
New efficacy records for LEDs have become regular and repeatable occurrences. Back in the early days (2007) of white light LED solutions, a system efficacy of 35 lumens per watt (LPW) was impressive. When the DOE in 2008 set a stretch target of 70 LPW for 2011, most were doubtful. Turns out, we crushed that. Today 100 LPW is table stakes, well above the threshold for fluorescent.

No doubt the steep trajectory in performance is heady stuff, but I’ve learned not to pay attention. If any other lighting technology—take fluorescent, for example—were experiencing that same increase in performance, the installed base of lighting would have already been converted. Since it is LEDs, however, the challenges in going from LED to fully integrated luminaire are formidable. Everyone is holding out, and they may be smart to do so, because one more strike could change the game.

Strike One: Limited set of metrics are emphasized. LEDs are dynamic devices, and LED luminaires—in the spirit of Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point—are complex systems. Thermally, electrically, optically and mechanically designing a large number of dynamic devices in one package is no small endeavor. It takes planning, strategy and time. Change an electrical configuration, for example, and you affect the thermal, mechanical and optical models. (Think: a really expensive game of whack-a-mole.) As is the case with complex systems, any one variable—something going not as planned—can lead to a cascade effect and system failure.

Therefore, manufacturers have to be painstakingly vigilant with their throughput, which is not synonymous with the way that the lighting industry is currently set up. Bend metal, ship in days, expand and refresh the offering for the next construction cycle comes part and parcel with a perception of a lighting product as an inexpensive, disposable good. LEDs fixtures are—simply by proxy of the ubiquitous L70 labels—durable goods. In order to gain traction in this price sensitive environment, however, LED fixture manufacturers have to do whatever possible to wrestle cost to the ground. If a $50 streetlight is where the market needs to go, gosh darn it, that’s where we are going. Because of the price parity pressure, the thesis of LEDs winning is predicated on the ransom of a good enough lighting experience in exchange for market share. Therefore, strike one is the telescoping in on a limited set of requirements: specifically, price and efficacy.

Strike 2: Innovation takes a back seat. Because of the promise of a dramatic reduction in energy usage across many sectors, the government isn’t about to let LED technology development roam unshepherded. There are (and will continue to be) regulations, restrictions, metrics—many nonsensical like CRI— and prize money all in the name of protecting the consumer. Today, the financial burden to get a product through the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies required to do business is easily as much as the cost of creating the product in the first place. If you are a small manufacturer, for example, DLC accreditation (still don’t know how this happened) for any one product configuration represents a prohibitive cost, time and hassle that, more times than not, precludes companies from making the product in the first place. As a result, the table is set for the slow and deep pocketed.

THE RISE OF THE SOFT LIGHTING METRIC
To a certain extent, LEDs are their own worst enemies. Their meteoric rise in performance has led to a proportional spike in the expectations for the technology in general. With the key emphasis on price, we have failed to find and celebrate the attributes that will allow the technology to proliferate organically. Obvious infrastructure improvements (electrical, for example) and how the technology interacts (as a digital device) with the grid come to mind. Since we keep forcing and contorting LEDs into the molds of the past technologies, what we are left with is a growing base of high-glare, over-driven, low-cost goods that are expected but not necessarily designed to stay in the field for decades.

The reality is that it will take decades for the infrastructure changes to be put in place in order for LEDs to dominate. The question becomes: during that time, what else might emerge and how might our criteria for lighting evolve? Attributes such as quality, reliability, aesthetics and user-friendliness, not to mention environmental impact of the materials used, have been de-emphasized. While price and performance have shown LEDs the path to winning the battle, the at-all-costs strategy may lead to losing the war of public opinion. In order for that not to happen, those de-emphasized attributes need to bubble up. This decade will be known as the decade of performance, which is great if your goal is getting from point A to B the fastest. Many of us, however, are interested in the view along the way. Only the consumers can decide if there is a strike three or not, but, given how LED integration is currently playing out, a win is far from a sure thing.