LED makers glow with $37M from the Dept. of Energy

[Erik Sine]

LED makers glow with $37M from the Dept. of Energy

January 20, 2010 | Tom Slater

The Department of Energy has handed out $37 million in stimulus money to companies making and working with light-emitting diodes and their organic cousins. These sources of lighting — referred to as ’solid state lighting’ — have the potential to be ten times more energy efficient than traditional incandescent bulbs.

The award money, intended to be matched by more than $28 million in corporate investment, is aimed at achieving a specific goal: for solid state lighting to reduce U.S. electric costs by 33 percent by 2030, and to take a substantial bite out of greenhouse gas emissions. Spanning 17 projects in different phases of development, about $66 million is being spent in all to make sure this happens. And this is actually the fifth round of funding the DOE has poured into solid state lighting development.

The financing has been divvied up among several categories. About $4 million will be invested in technology research, $10 million in product development, and $23.5 million in manufacturing. The amounts being allocated to each aren’t surprising. Consistently, more government money is being funneled into manufacturing to create jobs — jobs that will replace those lost in the automotive and other industrial sectors that were hit hard during the economic downturn.

Also the big challenge in making LEDs and OLEDs more widespread is scaling manufacturing processes. The lights themselves already exist in usable forms (the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center was entirely covered in LEDs this year, for example). Yes, further research and design work will yield new products and applications, but the opportunity for commercialization is already ripe for the taking.

Cambrios, WhiteOptics and the University of Rochester were listed as recipients for the research money, charged with the task of increasing light output from both LEDs and OLEDs while lowering their cost (they are still more expensive than their incandescent and fluorescent competitors).

Osram Sylvania, Philips Lumileds and General Electric, among others, received funding for product development. Their mission: to devise competitive solid state lighting products that can quickly be introduced to the mass market. This is a real challenge for LEDs and OLEDs. They have been used in head lamps and street lights for years. But making an LED bulb cost competitive with a $5 compact fluorescent has proved nearly impossible. The technology has a way to go.

General Electric and Philips were also tapped to tackle the manufacturing part of the equation, in addition to Universal Display. Mass producing solid state lighting without sacrificing quality is another hurdle standing between the energy efficient lighting systems and retail shelves. It’s up to the companies receiving the $23.5 million in manufacturing grants to solve the problem.

[Erik Sine]

Here's the break down

SSL_Selections_011510.pdf

[YYZ]

Half of those seem worthwhile in my eyes. The other half seem like dubious subsidies to produce products that the companies could already be developing for a fraction of the proposed development cost.

All in all, though, if stimulus money is going to be out into development of industries and/or products that will actually create a genuine benefit to society - this $37 million is actually going to be quite effective.

It's hard to quantify the impact in actual dollars since it's more about accelerating development, but the sooner OLEDs become a feasible product for general use, the sooner a GENUINE lighting revolution will occur. Regular LEDs in various configurations will have a big impact over the coming years, but it's nothing compared to what OLEDs will do.

Imaging wallpaper that lights your room, for example.

[Erik Sine]

IMO, the stimulas package is a joke as it is, let alone our tax dollars going into research for these companies who will profit and have job creation is some other country like GE is doing.

Do I believe in the the positives of the research, yes. Do I believe it should come out of my pocket? No. I'm sure these companies can pay for it out of their own pocket.

[YYZ]

I wasn't getting into the debate about whether it should be done or not, just that IF it's going to be done then this is an area that is worth investing in.

I did qualify my comment with "IF stimulus money..."

Our government (rightly IMO) didn't want to go crazy with stimulus spending but was forced into doing by opposition parties that threatened to (un-democratically) seize power by forming a coalition. We have multiple parties, which makes this possible, albeit very rare. None of our banks fell and aside from the spillover of US companies closing shop or investors who lost in the US financial markets, our economy was the fastest to recover. We did need an injection of support for key institutions, but the huge deficits that were created should have been much smaller and more easily fixed.

Now the opposition who forced this spending are complaining about the huge cost and deficit and threaten to force an election every couple of months.

That said - IF governments decide to help certain industries accelerate their R&D efforts - the LED industry is one worthy of receiving the funds. At minimum, a gradual switch over can offset increased energy needs of a growing population and eliminate the need for more billion dollar coal or nuclear plants, which would leverage even government support. Eventually every person who uses something that came from this R&D can save on their energy bills, whether you care about being green or not.

[Erik Sine]

I hear you.

I think a more immediate need, especially here in California which is the ground zero for all this energy reduction propaganda could better start with building another energy plant, which SHOULD have been started or done 30 years ago.

With a growing population, you can't depend solely on "reduction", but you need another program to work alongside it. Building another plant is inevitable. Creating programs and regulation to reduce ends up costing the public more in the long run. Think if we had competition of energy?

LED's are cool and all, but if the purpose and promotion of them and in the DOE's eyes is energy reduction, then we should start with building power plants and drilling in our own backyards.

But then, when do we ever see clever ways of our own government ever spend OUR money? Big companies lobby and they get THEIR, ERRRRRR, OUR money.

Going "Green" is a nice marketing scheme, it makes everyone feel guilty, it makes you feel good if you follow along. Get to the root first, BUILD BUILD BUILD!

Hey, they won't discuss this topic in a trade magazine like Signs of The Times, Sign Builder Illustrator or Sign & Digital Grahics, their too busy pushing "guilt" . LOL