In the interest of full disclosure, I have a higher-than-usual stake in the topic of this column. This summer, my wife, our six border collies and I moved into a new home. In many ways, it is the fulfillment of a dream: six acres, a small barn and room for some sheep. I even got a small tractor out of the deal.

The house had been nicely (mostly) remodeled and is very comfortable. But like many new and remodeled homes, it came with lots of “recessed downlight housings” or “cans,” almost all of them on dimmer switches. This translates into many 65-watt incandescent floods. The lighting quality is fine, but the efficiency is poor.

So, what to do?

• We could live with the lights as they are and grimace as we pay the electric bill
• We could replace the incandescents with relatively inexpensive 15-watt compact fluorescent (CFL) floods — the kind that sell for about $12 for a blister pack of four at Costco (less with rebates). The efficiency will be much better, at least for a while; but dimmers and the electronic ballasts of most CFLs don’t mix well. The CFLs will dim a bit but hum loudly when dimmed, and their life will be shortened significantly
• We could replace the dimmer switches and then install the CFLs, but my wife likes having the ability to dim the lights. For years, she has put up with what she calls the “basement light” quality of early CFLs (poor color and delayed warm-up). Who am I to mess with a desirable feature of her dream house?
  

I know I am not the only one faced with such a dilemma. Are there alternatives I’ve overlooked? As usual, the answer is yes. I’ve found two alternatives, one evolutionary and the other perhaps revolutionary.

As for the evolutionary, the CFL industry has responded to the dimmer issue by developing CFLs that work with dimmers. I found eight models, three of which were floods. Of the three, only one was Energy Star-compliant, but all were manufactured by well-known companies including GE, Westinghouse and Phillips. Home Depot had the 16-watt Phillips lamps for $11.69 each. This was not the most efficient of the dimmable CFLs (38 lumens per watt, compared to 48), but it was all I could get.

So I put it to the wife test. Installed in the kitchen, the light passed the test. The lamp warmed up quickly. Its light was slightly cooler than the incandescents but avoided the dreaded “basement light” designation. When dimmed, the bulb initially buzzed slightly but quieted as it warmed. It would not dim much as the incandescents did, and the light seemed relatively cooler compared with the incandescents’ as it was dimmed — but it was acceptable.

If it actually achieves its rated life of 8,000 hours, it will outlive four or more incandescent bulbs, with energy savings almost as good as a non-dimmable CFL. At typical Oregon residential power rates, it will pay for itself in two years or less. The incremental cost for the dimming feature is steep, but if you want dimmable, this is surely a cost-effective solution.

But revolutions are always more exciting than evolution, and the revolution may have begun with the winner of the 2007 Solid State Lighting Competition: the LR6 downlight, designed and manufactured by North Carolina-based LED Lighting Fixtures.

The LR6 can be installed in most existing downlight cans. It is fully dimmable, provides the option of two different color temperatures — a warmer color, similar to that of incandescent lighting, or cooler “whiter” light. Its color rendition (how accurately colors are rendered under the light) is better than with CFLs, although not quite as good as with incandescent lighting. It produces 54 lumens per watt, and its useful life is 50,000 hours (defined as the time it takes for the output to decrease to 70 percent of full output). To put 50,000 hours into perspective, more than 20 years will pass before the bulb needs to be replaced, at normal household usage.

I wanted to see the LR6 in action, so I contacted the only local stocking distributor, Light-Waves Electronics. Steve Kruss, president of Light-Waves, has been involved with solid-state lighting products for more than a decade, but it was clear that even with his extensive experience in the industry, he is particularly excited by this product.

And it is impressive.

It provides a very even light with no hotspots. And, while rated by the manufacturer to pull 12 watts, when attached to a watt meter, its actual draw was only 10 watts. Its construction is solid, with a substantial heat sink to ensure cool operating temperatures — even in very tight places. Thoughtful design simplifies the process of installing the LR6 in existing cans. And unlike CFLs, it contains no mercury.

So, where’s the rub?  Well it’s kind of pricey. In small lots, you’re looking at more than $100 per unit — not something I’m going to do in our kitchen and family room. However, for commercial applications with high usage, its long life, high efficiency and elimination of re-lamping expenses and outages make the LR6 very economical.

The real question in my mind is whether the technology lends itself to market transformation. Can priming the markets, thus stimulating further development and economies of scale — as was the case with CFLs — bring the cost of this technology down substantially? I think it’s worth a very hard look.

Contact Dick Watson at dick@celilo.net.