Cree’s “manifesto “ for LED lighting highlights what has gone wrong with LED marketing.

From the outset the document suggests that all other lighting technologies are effectively obsolete in comparison with the LED “miracle” light source, or at least should be! While it goes on to suggest the reasonable aims that we already strive for:

* Reduce the damaging effects of energy inefficiency on our economies and environments
* Realize energy-efficient lighting products in every country, city and home

It then suggests that:

* Revitalize the lighting industry and release it from its century-old habits

Except that overselling and over claiming has been rife in the lighting industry since Thomas Edison. His marketing genius included the “invention” of the AC electric chair beloved of the USA penal system to scare people into using his “safer” low voltage DC power distribution and lighting system.

While Cree may fairly claim to be innovators I believe their claim to be “the doers, the influencers, the teachers” and “the rebels, the nonconformists, the free spirits.” rings hollow. As for signing the manifesto this is hardly an act of non-conformity!

Again the “Universal Declaration of LED lighting” borrows heavily from what we all recognise as good practice:

* All human beings are born into light. Created light is a fundamental and integral part of our productivity, security and artistic expression as human beings.
* Creating light consumes energy. The least expensive, most secure and cleanest energy is the energy that is not used.
* Proper quantity and quality of light are essential to human perception, performance, and enrichment of life. These should not be sacrificed in the name of energy savings.

however goes on into some suspect territory:

* Poisoning our ground water, lakes, oceans and fellow humans with toxic mercury is not an acceptable price for energy-efficient lighting.

I do not have any disagreement with this however I do not see how LEDs will significantly better this in the short term. In fact a wholesale and overly rapid change to LED will cause worse pollution. For a start what happens to all the lighting equipment and lamps that are replaced, often before they reach end of life? Admittedly they should be re-cycled however more will end up in landfill and much of the material gathered from “recycling” will end up being disposed of rather than re-used due to contamination with mercury from lamps and the widespread use of brominated fire retardants in plastics used in light fittings.

Manufacturing LEDs involves winning some specialist new materials for phosphors and for the LED deposition process. Most of this is done in China, where CREE are now manufacturing and where environmental concern and control is a lot less rigorous than elsewhere in the world.

*Innovation and creativity can make efficient LED lighting affordable and available to all.

Above innovation and creativity questions have to be asked about commercial approach. LEDs are accepted as a “more expensive” light source. There are many “proofs” offered in marketing blurb that they really are cheaper if all the long term issues of maintenance and power used are factored into a lifetime calculation. The truth is that prime cost is still the determining factor in the decision to use LEDs or not. While we have been paying these high prices it is notable that companies such as Cree have grown exponentially and made sufficient money to purchase significant players elsewhere in the value chain, such as Ruud lighting. Philips have also been doing the same however it is not so easy to show a link between LED production and cash growth with such a large and broad based company. Patent issues also have a strong influence on the LED market.  Manipulation of patents and legal challenges have affected the share value of many companies. Some of these patents are substantiated through the weak patent process in the USA. The royalties that some companies set for use of these patents are so high that smaller and new companies cannot meet these demands so are blocked fro entering the market.

If we need a manifesto for LEDs in the current market then is should be :

* Honest and realistic information on products available today
* Realistic efforts to reduce costs of LEDs and reduce the number of profit hungry companies in the supply chain between LED manufacturers and Light Fitting manufacturers
* Cooperation rather than profiteering and share price pumping from Intellectual Property
* Create meaningful industry standards and all companies adhere to them

There are some, few companies who do adhere to these principles. Their honest information looks inferior to the bloated clams of others. It is also sad to note that the much vaunted Zhaga consortium ostensibly founded to create standards and comparability seems to have descended into an industry exclusive talking shop that has failed to deliver anything and is pretty much silent even on what has been discussed. As practitioners we need to support the good guys and challenge the rest of the industry to come clean and drop the crazy marketing stories.

Kevan Shaw 4 October 2011