LED bulbs appear poised to displace compact fluorescents (CFLs) as the king-of-the-hill of green bulbs, but a study published in late 2010 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found that LEDs contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially dangerous substances. (Thinkstock)

LED (light emitting diode) lighting seems to be the wave of the future right now, given the mercury content and light quality issues with the current king-of-the-hill of green bulbs, the compact fluorescent (CFL). LEDs use significantly less energy than even CFLs, and do not contain mercury. And they are becoming economically competitive with CFLs at the point of purchase while yielding superior quality lighting and energy bill savings down the line.

But LEDs do have a dark side. A study published in late 2010 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found that LEDs contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially dangerous substances. LEDs are touted as the next generation of lighting,” says Oladele Ogunseitan, one of the researchers behind the study and chair of the University of California (UC)-Irvine’s Department of Population Health & Disease Prevention. “But as we try to find better products that do not deplete energy resources or contribute to global warming, we have to be vigilant [about] toxicity hazards….”

Ogunseitan and other UC-Irvine researchers tested several types of LEDs, including those used as Christmas lights, traffic lights, car headlights and brake lights. What did they find? Some of the worst offenders were low-intensity red LEDs, which were found to contain up to eight times the amount of lead, a known neurotoxin, allowed by California state law and which, according to researchers, “exhibit significant cancer and noncancer potentials due to the high content of arsenic and lead.” Meanwhile, white LEDs contain the least lead, but still harbor large amounts of nickel, another heavy metal that causes allergic reactions in as many as one in five of us upon exposure. And the copper found in some LEDs can pose an environmental threat if it accumulates in rivers and lakes where it can poison aquatic life.

Ogunseitan adds that while breaking open a single LED and breathing in its fumes wouldn’t likely cause cancer, our bodies hardly need more toxic substances floating around, as the combined effects could be a disease trigger. If any LEDs break at home, Ogunseitan recommends sweeping them up while wearing gloves and a mask, and disposing of the debris — and even the broom — as hazardous waste. Furthermore, crews dispatched to clean up car crashes or broken traffic lights (LEDs are used extensively for automotive and traffic lighting) should wear protective clothing and handle material as hazardous waste. LEDs are currently not considered toxic by law and can be disposed of in regular landfills.

According to Ogunseitan, LED makers could easily reduce the concentrations of heavy metals in their products or even redesign them with truly safer materials, especially if state or federal regulators required them to do so. “Every day we don’t have a law that says you cannot replace an unsafe product with another unsafe product, we’re putting people’s lives at risk,” he concludes. “And it’s a preventable risk.”

Of course, we all need some kind of lighting in our lives and, despite their flaws, LEDs may still be the best choice regarding light quality, energy use and environmental footprint. That said, researchers are busy at work on even newer lighting technologies that could render even today’s green choices obsolete.

CONTACT: UC-Irvine study, www.pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es101052q?prevSearch=irvine%2Bled.

January 2012 marks the beginning of a planned phase-out of inefficient light bulbs in the United States that was signed into law five years ago by President George W. Bush. It was designed to reduce energy usage nationally from lighting by some 30 percent overall within three years. The benefits of the phase-out will be a savings of between $100 and $200 annually on electric bills in each American household—a total energy savings equivalent to the output of 30 large power plants—and reductions in global warming-inducing carbon pollution equivalent to taking 17 million cars off the road.

The first bulbs to disappear from store shelves are conventional 100 watt incandescents, but consumers can get compact fluorescent (CFL) or light emitting diode (LED) bulbs with similar light output instead. There are also some new more efficient incandescent bulbs that made the cut and will be available as replacements for conventional incandescents. In 2013, conventional 75 watt incandescents will be phased out, while conventional 60 and 40 watt bulbs will be phased out in 2014. Given the great alternatives available these days, most consumers will hardly notice any difference except lower electric bills.

As for what consumers should do to prepare themselves, the best advice is to get educated about the difference between power use and light output as we enter the brave new world of more efficient lighting. “Given the range of efficiencies the new bulbs provide, buying a bulb solely on the amount of power it uses no longer makes sense and we’ll have to shift to buying lumens,” reports Noah Horowitz of the Natural Resource Defense Council. “For example, a typical 60 watt light bulb produces around 800 lumens. The CFL that produces 800 lumens only uses 15 watts.” He adds that bulb packages will likely contain claims like “as bright as a 60 watt bulb” or “15W = 60W” to help consumers make the transition.

Horowitz adds that consumers looking to replace their old incandescents with new more efficient varieties should look for CFLs or LEDs marked as “warm white,” since the quality of light they give off will be most similar to that given off by old-school incandescents. “Those marketed as ‘cool white’ or ‘day light’ have much different light color, which only a small minority of consumers prefer,” says Horowitz.

Also, Horowitz warns that most CFLs are not dimmable and “may fail prematurely if installed in a dimming circuit.” So if your space features light sockets with dimming capability the best bet would be LED bulbs or newer more efficient incandescents. Specially marked dimmable CFL bulbs are also an option but at present are less commonly available.

As for whether to switch out your older incandescents with newer more efficient bulbs, the answer is maybe. According to Earth911, the leading source of information of how and where to recycle anything, consumers should consider the waste they will create by throwing out working albeit aging light bulbs. “If they aren’t spent, don’t trash them,” reports Earth911, adding that they can be used until they burn out—at which point more efficient bulbs can go in. Those who want to start saving energy now might consider donating older bulbs to local charities. Meanwhile, spent bulbs can be recycled. Earth911’s website can help find locations near you where old bulbs can be dropped off.

CONTACTS: Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org; Earth911, www.earth911.com.

As the future gets dimmer for traditional incandescent light bulbs, and compact fluorescents (CFLs) fall out of favor due to their toxic mercury component, light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, are beginning to come on strong. LEDs, which are clusters of small bulbs that come in many shapes and sizes, last five times longer than CFLs and 40 times longer than incandescents and use much less energy. (Media credit/Geoffrey Landis)

Just a decade ago, incandescent bulbs were just about the only game in town, despite their inefficient use of electricity to generate light and their primitive technology that had not changed since being invented some 125 years ago. But now that is all changing fast, with phase-outs of incandescents going on in Australia, Brazil, Venezuela, Switzerland and the European Union, with Argentina, Russia, Canada and the U.S. following suit shortly. The U.S. passed legislation in 2007 to increase the efficiency of light bulbs sold in the U.S. by 25 percent or more by 2014, and then by as much as 60 percent more by 2020.

For decades, those concerned with energy savings have been touting the benefits of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) over incandescents. CFLs use only one-fifth of the electricity of incandescents to generate the same amount of light, and they can last six to 10 times longer. But CFLs’ cooler color and inability to be dimmed have made them less desirable. Another hindrance to the widespread adoption of CFLs has been their higher cost (though most consumers would save plenty in energy costs over the life of a bulb). Also, CFLs contain mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin that is released when the bulbs break. And once CFLs do burn out they must be disposed of properly to avoid releasing mercury into the environment.

Given the issues with CFLs, LEDs (short for light emitting diodes) are beginning to come on strong. These highly efficient bulbs don’t generate heat like incandescents (which helps to keep air conditioning costs down as well) and can last five times longer than CFLs and 40 times longer than incandescents. Tiny LED bulbs have been around for years in specialized applications (such as stadium scoreboards), but lighting engineers got the idea to cluster them and use reflective casings to harness and concentrate their light for residential use. In recognition of the LED’s potential, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) set up a special “solid-state” (LED) lighting R&D program to hasten the advance of the technology.

In comparing the total cost to run three different types of 60-watt equivalent bulbs for 50,000 hours (factoring in the cost of the both bulbs and electricity), the EarthEasy website found that LEDs would cost $95.95, CFLs $159.75 and incandescents $652.50. The 42 incandescent bulbs tested used up to 3,000 kilowatt hours of electricity compared to 700 and 300 for CFLs and LEDs respectively. However, despite the savings most consumers are loath to spend $35 and up for an LED bulb (even though it will save more than $500 in the long run) when a traditional incandescent bulb right next to it on the shelf costs $1.

There are other newer technologies in the works. Seattle-based Vu1 now sells highly efficient bulbs based on its Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) technology, whereby accelerated electrons stimulate a phosphor coating on the inside of the bulb, making the surface glow. One of Vu1’s 65-watt equivalent bulbs retails for under $20 and uses a similar amount of energy as an equivalent CFL. And incandescents aren’t out of the efficient lighting race altogether just yet. Top bulb makers recently released new versions that use as much as a third less electricity to operate (complying with 2012’s new federal standards) and are promising newer models still that will run on even less energy.

CONTACTS: DOE Solid-State Lighting Program, www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/; EarthEasy, www.eartheasy.com; Vu1 Corporation, www.vu1corporation.com.

LED Lights: Changing the world around you

If you haven’t noticed them yet, than chances are you are going to. LED lights are becoming more and more popular and are gradually being used in a variety of uses. This state of the art lighting technology is being utilized in both traditional auto lights as well as some intriguing and innovative custom mounted lighting. Despite the fact that many people still believe that LEDs are far more expensive than traditional lighting, these remarkable, small, and light weight bulbs are nearly the same price as most conventional bulbs, yet they come with some strikingly different features.

The fact is, LED lighting is a technology that is moving in remarkable directions. Already it is possible to get LED products that not just include automobile bulbs, but also accent lighting light strips, and there are LED lights that can now be bought as replacements for standard screw-in incandescent or the recent compact florescent bulbs.

There are many benefits to using the LED light, including long term cost and a reduction of energy expense. When using an incandescent bulb the energy cost over its life time will exceed the initial purchase price by 5 to 10 times. Compact fluorescent lights uses 75% less energy than standard bulbs, and last 6x longer. However, the LED light lasts 10 longer than the compact fluorescent and because they are solid and do not have filaments they are more durable. This stability will enable these lights to far out last any standard light available on the market. With the cost moving more in line with traditional lighting, and the additional durability and efficiency LEDs actually become a far cheaper alternative.

In addition to their cost, efficiency, and durability, these lights are also mercury free and do not cause the dreaded heat buildup. When using standard lighting there are some limitations regarding placement and usability with some materials, whereas LEDs enable you to have greater flexibility with design, color, and construction.

What some may also not realize as well is these lights are also capable of having some other amazing qualities besides illumination. If used properly some LEDs have the ability to be used for something as exotic as photo detection. Utilizing this aspect a product could be crafted such as an LED display that could feature a controlling display.

Although it has become a very popular bulb, and is beginning to be seen more in homes and contemporary flashlights, recently the most stylish way to use LED lights has been in creatively lighting automobiles. The flexibility and ease of use has contributed to a number of amazing and attractive uses from mood lighting inside your car, the futuristic glow from under a sports car, or giving your motorcycle a cool blue edge. As the cost continues to drop on these astonishing and versatile lights the world will no doubt begin to see more intriguing uses that will endlessly amaze us.

New efficiency requirements for light bulbs may sound the death knell for incandescents, which have not changed significantly since Thomas Edison invented them in 1879. Newer, more efficient styles cost more but could save consumers some $6 billion in annual energy costs by 2015 -- while also eliminating the equivalent of 30 large power plants' electrical output and 14 million cars worth of carbon emissions. (Media credit/Hemera Collection)

The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act (H.R. 2417) was a failed attempt in July 2011 by some Republicans in the House to repeal a 2007 law mandating increased efficiency for light bulbs sold anywhere in the U.S. Sponsors of the bill cited the 2007 bulb efficiency requirements—whereby light bulbs must be 25 to 30 percent more efficient by 2014 and then as much as 60 percent more efficient by 2020—as a key example of how government overreaches its authority.

“The 2010 elections demonstrated that Americans are fed up with government intrusion,” said Representative Joe Barton, the Texas Republican who proposed the repeal. “The federal government has crept so deep into our lives that federal agencies now determine what kind of light bulbs the American people are allowed to purchase.” It’s ironic that the new standards were put in place by Republican President George W. Bush as part of his Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a sweeping update of the country’s energy policy. At the time, the bill, including the provisions about light bulb efficiency, enjoyed widespread bi-partisan support.

The fact that the BULB Act couldn’t muster enough votes in the Republican-controlled House to pass by the required two-thirds majority shows that even many conservative lawmakers would rather have the country save money and energy than waste it unnecessarily on inefficient lighting. The repeal effort did garner 233 votes, but the 193 opposed were more than enough to override it given House rules.

Maryland’s Steny Hoyer, Democratic Whip in the House, derided the sponsors of the repeal attempt for focusing on the wrong priorities in these dire economic times. “By bringing misguided bills like this one to the floor instead of a comprehensive jobs plan, it is clear that House Republicans are still in the dark.”

Even the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and General Electric came out against repealing the increased efficiency standards, given the strides industry has made in recent years to roll with the punches and design more efficient bulbs, fixtures and electricity distribution methods.

Analysts wonder if the 2007 efficiency requirements will sound the death knell for incandescent bulbs, which have not changed significantly since first invented by Thomas Edison in 1879. While newer, more efficient styles of bulbs—from compact fluorescents (CFLs) to halogens to light-emitting diodes (LEDs)—may be significantly more expensive than their incandescent counterparts (by as much as a factor of 50!), consumers will likely make up the difference and then some over the long term as energy savings accrue. The Department of Energy estimates that the switchover to newer, more efficient bulbs will save American households upwards of $50 per year by 2015, or some $6 billion in the aggregate.

Besides saving money, the new standards will save the amount of electricity generated by more than 30 large power plants, according to the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy (ASE). As for global warming, the new standards promise to save carbon emissions equaling the removal of 14 million cars off the road.

CONTACTS: H.R. 2417, thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2417:; ASE, www.ase.org.

Consumers are stubborn and hard to please. People tend to like things which they can discern as familiar. We are all creatures of habit and preference. That is why the announcement that Royal Philips Electronics has unveiled the 12 watt EnduraLED light bulb, the first LED replacement for the common 60 watt incandescent bulb, carries layered significance. In addition to delivering 80 percent energy savings, Philips has focused on creating a bulb that delivers the same soft, white light that consumers are used to.

"Philips has long been a company focused on sustainability", Peter Soares, Director of Philips USA said, "it is part of our DNA to bring products like this to the market."

The average 60 watt incandescent bulb has a life of around 1,000 hours; the EnduraLED bulb lasts 25 times longer than that. The EnduraLED also uses only 12 watts of power while delivering 806 lumens. Because of its efficiency the bulb has the potential to save 32.6 million terawatt-hours of electricity in one year, which is enough to power the lights of over 16 million U.S. households.

"The incandescent bulb is a 100 year old technology and not efficient", Soares said, "LED gives you a longer life and a rugged bulb that does not break."

Philips is also ahead of the curve in terms of future legislation. In 2014, 60 watt incandescent bulbs will not be sold anymore. The U.S. Department of Energy created the L-Prize competition as a way to facilitate development of this LED innovation; thus far Philips’ has registered the only submission, which was the basis for the 12 watt EnduraLED.

Creating a sustainable bulb was one thing, making it feasible for mass use was another. In the past alternative bulbs, like the compact fluorescent light (CFL), would give off a harsh, bluish tone. The reason for this is the CFL would have a color temperature of over 6,000 degrees Kelvin (K), the further past 5,000K a bulb goes the harsher the tone of the light it emits.

"Consumers are used to the warm color of an incandescent bulb. That is 2600K or 2700K. Philips’ products are in that 2600-2700K range," Soares said. In the past it has also been challenging developing a bulb that evenly disperses light. Soares sites the solution: "The idea is to use phosphors in conjunction with the LED, which will give it the soft light."

During manufacturing the yellow phosphor is placed adjacent to the blue LED chip to create white light.

The focus on creating a visual feel that is familiar and pleasant represents an acknowledgment on Philips’ part that it is necessary to respect what people are used to. In order to aid the transitional process it is paramount to realize that the average household is lit by 60 watt bulbs with soft, white light. To suddenly force the masses to change would be illogical. The bulb is a screw in replacement, and is also dimmable, which makes it even more accessible to the common consumer.

Soares stated, "It is difficult to put a product on the market that will satisfy consumers". He continued, "It is not about creating a new technology, it is what you do with it".

The hospitality industry is another place where the EnduraLED will have a huge impact. Restaurants and hotels are places where people go to feel comfortable and relax. "The hospitality industry is most similar to a consumer’s life", said Soares, "[The businesses] want to have the same look and feel as your home and office".

"They want to save energy, but do not want to sacrifice the mood and quality of the room. They look at the full cycle cost, and that is where LED comes in".

Since LED bulbs last so long, it is within reason to assume that Philips, and other manufacturers, have to be cognizant of the fact that since the bulbs have a longer life less bulbs will be purchased. "We are developing fixtures that integrate LED’s", Soares said. The fixtures development focuses on aesthetics and they should be available in the not too distant future.

The 12 watt EnduraLED light bulb will be available in the United States in the fourth quarter 2010. Royal Philips Electronics has high expectations for this groundbreaking product and is focused on continuing to be an industry leader in developing sustainable and consumer friendly products. As Soares excitedly stated, "It is really a revolutionary approach to how we light our homes".

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation announced an upgrade package that would allow users of several brands of work lights to changeover to LED.

Energy efficient LED lights are also more durable than incandescent bulbs, and Milwaukee says the new bulbs will last three times longer on a single charge in their 9.6-volt through 28-volt work lights.

The solid state light emitting diode also delivers 250X the life of incandescent bulbs.

"Incandescent bulbs are not only inefficient, but are also susceptible to easily break as they heat up. The LED Upgrade pays for itself by eliminating the need for replacement bulbs, saving time and saving energy," said Paul Fry, director of Milwaukee’s M12 division.

Compatibility: Fits most 9.6 to 28V models from Dewalt, Makita, Ridgid, Ryobi, Hitachi, Bosch, Black and Decker, as well as most other brands of power tool lights. Fits Milwaukee M12, M18 and V28 work lights; model numbers 49-24-0146, 49-24-0171, and 49-24-0185.

Dear EarthTalk: What’s the story with LED light bulbs that are reputed to be even more energy-efficient than compact fluorescents? — Toby Eskridge, Little Rock, AR

Perhaps the ultimate “alternative to the alternative,” the LED (light-emitting diode) light bulb may well dethrone the compact fluorescent (CFL) as king of the green lighting choices. But it has a way to go yet in terms of both affordability and brightness.

LEDs have been used widely for decades in other applications-forming the numbers on digital clocks, lighting up watches and cell phones and, when used in clusters, illuminating traffic lights and forming the images on large outdoor television screens. Until recently LED lighting has been impractical to use for most other everyday applications because it is built around costly semiconductor technology. But the price of semiconductor materials has dropped in recent years, opening the door for some exciting changes in energy-efficient, green friendly lighting options.

According to HowStuffWorks.com, LED bulbs are lit solely by the movement of electrons. Unlike incandescents, they have no filament that will burn out; and unlike CFLs, they contain no mercury or other toxic substances. Proponents say LEDs can last some 60 times longer than incandescents and 10 times longer than CFLs. And unlike incandescents, which generate a lot of waste heat, LEDs don’t get especially hot and use a much higher percentage of electricity for directly generating light.

But as with early CFLs, LED bulbs are not known for their brightness. According to a January 2008 article in Science Daily, “Because of their structure and material, much of the light in standard LEDs becomes trapped, reducing the brightness of the light and making them unsuitable as the main lighting source in the home.” LED makers get around this problem in some applications by clustering many small LED bulbs together in a single casing to concentrate the light emitted. But such LED “bulbs” still don’t generate light much brighter than a 35-watt incandescent, much too little light for reading or other focused tasks.

If LEDs are going to replace incandescents and CFLs, manufacturers will have to make them brighter. EarthLED is lighting the way with its EvoLux and ZetaLux bulbs, which use multiple LEDs in a single casing to generate light. The EvoLux delivers light equal to that of a 100-watt incandescent, the company says. But the $80/bulb price tag may be tough to swallow. The ZetaLux, which retails for $49.99, delivers light equivalent to a 50- or 60-watt incandescent, will last 50,000 hours and costs only $2/yearly to run.

Other bulb makers are working on similar designs for high-powered LED bulbs, hoping that an increase in availability will help spur demand, which will in turn lower prices across the board. Until then, consumers can find LED bulbs suitable for secondary and mood lighting purposes in many hardware and big box stores. C. Crane’s 1.3-watt LED bulb, for example, generates as much light as a 15-watt incandescent bulb. Check your local hardware store for other options, as well as online vendors such as Best Home LED Lighting, Bulbster, SuperBrightLEDs.com and We Love LEDs.

CONTACTS: How Stuff Works, www.howstuffworks.com/led.htm; EarthLED, www.earthled.com; Best Home LED Lighting, www.besthomeledlighting.com; Bulbster, www.bulbster.com; SuperBrightLEDs.com, www.superbrightleds.com; We Love LEDs, www.weloveleds.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Used motor oil is a big contributor to the pollution in our waterways and drinking water. How can I make sure I am not contributing to this problem? — John Eckerle, Jupiter, FL

Motor oil leaked from individual vehicles-or outright dumped by homeowners and commercial garages-constitutes a significant chunk of storm water runoff, the fallen precipitation that runs off of roads and parking lots and inevitably finds its way into local water bodies.

These pollutants include not only leaked motor oil-which may contain toxic substances like lead, benzene, zinc or magnesium-but also fertilizers, insecticides, plastic debris, cigarette butts, paints, solvents, sediments and other hazardous waste. Topsoil and natural vegetation would ordinarily filter many of these pollutants out, but the impermeable pavement that covers much of the surface where these pollutants originate carries it right into storm drains and into streams, rivers, lakes and the ocean where it can poison marine life-which we might eat-as well as entire riparian or coastal ecosystems.

This pollution also finds its way into underground aquifers that supply our drinking water, so reducing it is a human health measure and could also save municipalities millions of dollars a year in drinking water treatment facilities and operational expenses.

While government agencies try to craft and implement development and zoning standards to help reduce storm water runoff problems caused by commercial and industrial entities, there is still much that individuals can do to reduce their impact as well. Indeed, upwards of 40 percent of oil pollution in the U.S. comes from the improper disposal of used motor oil by individuals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends keeping on top of automotive maintenance to prevent and repair leaks, and disposing of used motor oil and other automotive fluids and batteries at designated drop-offs or recycling locations (consult Earth911.org to find one near you). Also, it is preferable to wash your car at a commercial car wash instead of in your driveway. By law, car washes must treat their wastewater before disposing of it.

Besides handling and discarding your motor oil and other automotive fluids responsibly, cutting back on or eliminating fertilizers and pesticides from your lawn or garden will also reduce your negative impact. Also, don’t over-water your lawn, as that can create extra run-off as well. And if you are embarking on a residential landscaping project, try to incorporate permeable pavement (which allows run-off through it into the soils below) as well as rain barrels to collect water, and rain gardens, grassy swales and driveway-side vegetative strips-all planted with region-appropriate native plants of course-to help filter contaminants out before they hit the storm sewers.

Taking these small everyday steps may seem like a hassle, but the benefits for the environment and human health are immeasurable.

CONTACTS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov; Earth911, www.earth911.org.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php

There’s light, and there’s light. In the world of optical electronics, the difference between blue-green, red and yellow is equal to the beautiful variety that, say, Beethoven imagined in a symphony, or the stunning complexity that Einstein pictured shaping the Universe.

For Martin Schubert, a 25-year-old doctoral student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, discovering a new way of looking at the LED, or Light-Emitting Diode, is going to change the way the world sees. That accomplishment earned him the $30,000 Lemelson-Rensselaer Prize for 2008.

Precisely, Schubert discovered that ordinary LEDs produce polarized light – a lot of it. That means more energy-efficient, compact displays for everyday tech objects. Before Schubert’s find, normal LEDs had never been known to produce polarized light. Schubert, on a hunch, decided to take readings from the sides of diodes, as all other readings were done from the top, and found the previously undetected polarized light literally pouring out. Even senior experts in his field didn’t anticipate that development.

Schubert then created a reflector that directed the light vertically; creating a truly and potentially cheap source of polarized LED.

“Discovering that normal LEDs emitted polarized light at a ratio of 7:1 from the side, that was big moment,” said Schubert. “Shortly afterwards we made a reflector in a certain way so we could use that light. Those were two big moments.”

Why is accessible polarized light with the possibility of cheap manufacture a big deal?
In order to put Schubert’s accomplishment in perspective, an explanation of the way current lighting technology works in such things as laptops is beneficial. In most laptops, the LCD, or Liquid Crystal Display, is sandwiched in, “a stack of thin films,” said Schubert.

First, there’s the source light, which is generally fluorescent and not polarized. From there it goes through a liquid crystal polarizing filter. After that, it goes through a second polarizer, and then the light hits your eyes.

Some of the drawbacks to this method have to do with the lighting source itself, fluorescence, which utilizes highly toxic mercury. Another is that a significant amount of energy is needed to create light that is sufficiently bright to penetrate the polarizing filters.

While the some recent LCD displays have utilized LED as source lights, such as the extremely thin LCD on the MacAir and some high definition televisions, a polarizing filter is still required, adding not only to the overall thickness, but energy consumption.

In creating an LED that’s polarized at the source, the filtering layers are bypassed, leading to greater energy efficiency and a potentially razor-thin display.

“You lose at least 50% intensity starting with unpolarized light,” said Schubert. “Basically, that’s what motivated me to create a polarized LED. I decided a it would be a great thing to have in LCDs.”

While Schubert’s method isn’t the only way of creating a polarized LED light, it is the cheapest and least labor intensive. The reason has to do with two fundamentally different manufacturing methods.

In order to create a single LED, special crystals are first grown using one of two methods, C-PLANE or M-PLANE.

C-PLANE is currently the industry standard, as growing crystals using the C-PLANE method is faster and lower cost. In order for polarized LEDs using the M-PLANE method to become a reality, the entire manufacturing industry would have to convert to that method – an unlikely possibility, according to Schubert.

“One of my limitations when I first started out was that I couldn’t use that sort of esoteric growth technique. That was a self-imposed limitation,” said Schubert. “I would consider this the first practical way to make polarized LED lighting. You can take what’s being made on assembly line today and just change the chipset.”

And the benefits of readily available polarized LED lighting extend beyond LCD displays.

Schubert cited robotic applications as one example. In trying to teach machines to translate visual data in a way similar to the human eye, polarized light is the holy grail, as it is far easier for robots to interpret. Widely available polarized light could lead to cheaply manufactured robots that have high visual acuity, roaming the halls of, say, a hospital carrying medications or charts.

Schubert’s plans don’t stop with polarized LEDs, either. His plans for the future include researching ways to create LED lights capable of enough power for standard home lighting applications. Currently that is not possible, due to what’s known as, “efficiency droop.”

One of the limitations with LED lighting is that after achieving certain brightness, the power needed to increase the level of light increases by orders of magnitude. So, more power can be given to the LED, but the return in brightness drops quickly to levels that make the power input impractical.

He is also interested in developing more efficient Ultra Violet LEDs, as currently UV LEDs burn out at a rate that hinders their use in widespread applications. Long-life UV LEDs would be beneficial in a plethora of applications, from water sanitation, hospital sterilization, to tanning beds.

If Schubert or other scientists solved the efficiency droop issue and created LEDs for standard household lighting, the power savings are potentially enormous: LEDs use 10 percent of the energy of a standard bulb.

“I saw a statistic that 20 percent of all energy consumed in this country is for lighting. If you increase efficiency by switching over to LEDs, you could shut down hundreds of power plants,” said Schubert. “LEDs are also very long lifetime. They almost never burn out.”

And if Schubert has anything to say about it, you’ll never have to change a light bulb again.