Slashdot Mirror


DoE Announces 'L Prize' For Solid-State Lighting

erikaaboe notes that the US Department of Energy has announced a competition to develop efficient solid-state lighting technology. The "L Prize" program will allocate as much as $20 million in cash prizes for innovations to replace the common light bulb. Further details are available at the L Prize website. From the press release: "Lighting products meeting the competition requirements would consume just 17% of the energy used by most incandescent lamps in use today. The plan also includes a rigorous evaluation process, including testing of proposed products by independent laboratories (conducted through DOE's CALiPER test program), as well as field evaluations by DOE and utility partners to assess products in real world conditions. Four major California utilities ... have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with DOE, agreeing to work cooperatively to promote high-efficiency solid-state lighting technologies."

15 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Sooo..... by Gruturo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DoE had $20M to offer for this contest, but couldn't find $4M to save Fermilab ?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of energy efficient lightning, but what the hell?

    --

    Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
    1. Re:Sooo..... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I imagine that the DoE's political remit doesn't go beyond using up fossil resources a tiny bit slower. We'll switch to promoting new sources when the ruling dynasties have switched enough of their portfolios away from oil.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Sooo..... by bytesex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think if you gave fermilab $20KK and told them to come up with this new lamp though, that you would be certain of the outcome. Whereas now, it's up in the air a bit.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    3. Re:Sooo..... by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fermilab didn't need "saving"

      The $5mil was a tiny part of their total budget, and the lab was inevitably going to be downsized considerably next year, once the Tevatron is shut down.

      Also, energy-efficient lighting is a higher priority than particle physics for the DOE at the moment. Given the energy/oil crunch at the moment, it only makes sense that they're funneling a larger portion of their money into short-term projects to find new methods of generation and energy conservation, rather than funding "hard science," which technically isn't even their job to do in the first place.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  2. Err , LEDs? by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I missing something or have they forgotten about white LEDs which are making pretty rapid inroads into general lighting? They're far more efficient that incandescent or strip lights.

    1. Re:Err , LEDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is that all you care about? Efficiency? What about the fact that the light looks too blue or green and is therefore displeasing, and won't be quickly adopted? I haven't switched to CFL's because quite frankly, they suck.

    2. Re:Err , LEDs? by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indistinguishable, huh? What happens when I turn this dimmer knob?

      People keep telling me that there are dimmable CFLs, but people keep telling me that there's Sasquatch too.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  3. Solid-state? by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be assumed all modern light bulbs are 'solid-state' and will continue to be?

    Perhaps someone wanted to sound smart by using more words than needed in that press release.

  4. Yes, but ... by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the L prize gives nothing out UNTIL something is found. So the truth is, that the L-prize really costs nothing except for real results.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Yes, but ... by Arccot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the L prize gives nothing out UNTIL something is found. So the truth is, that the L-prize really costs nothing except for real results. That's really the genus of it. Outside of some administrative overhead for the program, it costs nothing until someone gets results. There are alot of practical problems like this that could be solved by these sorts of prizes.

      Say a $Billion bounty for a very effective and cheap to produce HIV vaccine or cure, and the same for various cancers. Sure, the patent would be owned by a company, but it would be in their interest to sell the product, so it would get out into the market.

      I'm certain the world as a whole could easily scrape together multiple billions of dollars for a HIV or cancer cure. The savings alone would make it a no-brainer.
  5. Prizes probably help little by mrcaseyj · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The success of the X-Prize seems to have made everyone crazy about prizes to stir development. But it seems to me that the X-Prize only worked great because there were some very special characteristics about the commercial manned suborbital launch vehicle problem. I think there were two primary reasons the X-Prize was successful.


    The main reason was that there was no need to develop any new technology. It was only necessary for previously developed tech to be implemented cheaply. Any great NEW technology like efficient light bulbs or a cancer cure or whatever will usually have such a huge payoff to its developer that a few extra million isn't likely to add much extra incentive. If funders think it can be done then they'll fund it even without the prize. If those who would fund it see it as a long shot then the prize won't change the equation much.


    The other reason the X-Prize was successful was that it wasn't clear that a manned suborbital rocket could be profitable. Boeing or Lockheed could have easily built such a rocket. If they thought it would be profitable then why wouldn't they? Maybe they thought that anything less than a very careful and therefore prohibitively expensive development project would have left their deep pockets open to excessive liability. Again, concerns like this are not a problem for a lighting technology or a cancer cure or an efficient car technology.


    Oh well, best of luck anyway. Even if these prizes are a waste at least they aren't wasting all that much in the grand scheme of things.

    1. Re:Prizes probably help little by gmack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not opposed to CFL since I've replaced the incandescent bulbs everywhere except the chandeliers, fridge and stove with CFL.

      My large problems are the chandeliers. I tried LED but they were too dim and I can't use CFL because they would e just plain ugly plus they are on a variable dimmer and CFL only seem to do well on two stage dimmers.

      So yeah .. more options are needed.

  6. Re:Significantly bright LEDs are very expensive by nmg196 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah - they're lying, or you were mistaken. They either weren't LED bulbs (probably CFL) or they weren't 60W output. There is currently no commercially available 60W equiv LED bulb for anything like this price.

  7. Congress, not DOE makes many of these decisions by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Many of these decisions are made by Congress, not DOE. As part of the President's Budget submission, DOE submits a budget proposal to Congress. Congress then goes through that budget. As part of their Constitutional duties, Congress frequently says "you're spending too much money here, not enough there." Congress passes the budget, and the President generally signs it. DOE is then stuck with the budget it is given. While DOE has some discretion in moving money around because of unforeseen circumstances, it does not have a free hand. Furthermore, frequently through the committee reports, Congress provides "guidance." In essence saying, "We, the Congress, put this money here for a reason, you better not move it, or there will be hell to pay." Federal agencies pay a lot of attention to "Congressional language." Furthermore, there is a problem in DC known as the "color of money." Congress puts money into different accounts. Frequently, the law says this color of money (e.g., money for salaries) cannot be used for other things (e.g., building new buildings). Added all together, there is a limit on what federal agencies can do.

  8. SolidState: Re:Why not fluorescents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm all in favour of pushing technology, but prescribing that it must be 'solid state' is completely wrong. Since existing tech breaks VERY easily in the field, I can readily see the military mandating 'solid state'.

    Imagine being able to set up & tear down a command post without needing to waste time installing and collecting all the fragile lightbulbs or tubes inside. This would be a boon to troops in the field.