In the previous post , I criticize US Department Of Energy for an important role in our failure so far, to achieve energy saving promised with switch to LED lighting in our homes.
- - the Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that in 2015, light-emitting diode (LED)-based lamps comprised just 6.4% of the U.S. installed base - -
Much of the achievement is in swapping point-source light bulbs, where LEDs saving is 75% in electricity cost, not easily achieved 90%, while perhaps diminishing delivered useful light.
I accused that the only offering from US DOE is a misguided mandate of higher light engine efficacy, lumens per watt, to be 75 lumens per watt or more, if we are being green. This poor guidance encourages continued sale of point source bulbs including awful CFL bulbs. Crummy CFL bulbs can cheaply and readily exceed 75 lumens per watt. Affordable and wonderful LED disk lights rarely exceed 75 lumens per watt, but all, at proper times-two multiple for task illumination, far surpass the CFLs.
Here just consider whether we are getting a return for taxes paid. Where public funds are wasted, is US DOE a bad apple? Can US DOE have nobility ever, where it is chiefly the keeper of nuclear weapons production and with that, an unabashed proponent of unaffordable electricity production with nuclear power, a fat cat spending thirty billion dollars a year , Ten percent of this huge budget is spent in the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Couldn't they somehow not bungle our LEDs opportunity?
US DOE fulfills an annual commitment to report upon its effort with the LEDs opportunity in a Solid-State Lighting R&D Plan. Here are page excerpts from the plan for 2016 .
Extract the following facts:
Congress allocates about $25 million per year for all Solid State Lighting, SSL, activities of US DOE. The total of annual budgets for programs is nearly double this, with contributions from industry, $45 million in 2016. The split of budgets between LED and OLED developments is about 50-50. About $5 million per year is allocated to LED manufacturing research.
With such little expression of conservation priority here from US Congress, should we expect little or nothing from US DOE? I think we can demand better vision.