If you ask most people today what they understand by low energy lighting they're quite likely to mutter something about CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) which is interesting, because the truth is that LED home lighting is where the near, medium and long term future of lighting lies.

The reason I can make this bold claim is that I happen to know that the lighting industry agrees with me on this one. Philips famously declared only recently that they will not invest a single dollar more into research and development of CFLs, because... their sizeable R&D budget is now devoted to bringing domestic LED lighting to a breathlessly expectant world.

Except of course that the world on the whole remains clueless as to what is about to happen or why, so surprised and reluctant is probably more accurate than breathlessly expectant. Those of us who do follow eco-technology trends have of course long been aware that a world-wide phase-out of incandescent light bulbs began a couple of years back and is on schedule to finish in a couple of years more (depending on who your government is).

We furthermore know why this ban is being imposed and why CFLs are not going to emerge triumphant from the extinction of incandescent light bulbs. The reason for the ban is that incandescent lighting is astoundingly inefficient. It takes an awful lot of electricity, which costs a great deal in monetary terms and impact on the environment, to run all the lights that get switched on every single night across the planet.

But the really jaw-dropping statistic is that 90% of all that electricity is completely wasted. That's how incandescent light bulbs work - their design actually results in 90% energy loss through heat and barely 10% converted to light. Not much of a way to carry on is it?

So it has been agreed among those who govern over the rest of us that we shall henceforth desist. Which leaves but one small question remaining: how are we going to light the world instead?

Now the reason that most folk are aware of energy saving CFLs is that they have been sat on store shelves for a few years now and there is a vague awareness that they're somehow better. But the reality is that few people properly understand the economics of electrical lighting and without some form of compulsion, such as removing the alternative, even fewer are prepared to switch, since CFLs don't exactly score well for aesthetic qualities, which after all is quite important where artificial light is concerned.

So then, there is little natural consumer demand for CFLs, the lighting industry has no time for them, no-one really knows how to cope with the fact that used CFLs still contain highly toxic mercury, and driving the last few nails into the CFL coffin is the fact that LED lighting technology is far superior in terms of both light quality and energy consumption.

The well rehearsed argument against this runs something like so: LED light bulbs aren't bright enough, cost too much and aren't widely available. This is true - up to a point - but also somewhat missing the point. Which is that whereas CFL technology (which basically boils down to mini fluorescent light tubes) has gone pretty much as far as it can go, LED technology has scarcely begun and promises a dazzling future. The reason being that LEDs are electronic devices.

Recall that Moore's Law accurately describes the driving force of technological and social change for the past few decades by predicting that computer chips double in performance every 18 months.

Less than twenty years ago the Internet didn't really exist in its present form, ditto digital cameras, mobile phones and all manner of other devices we now regard as commonplace, thanks to the operation of Moore's Law. That's just about where LEDs are today - on the brink of a similar revolution in lighting described by Haitz's Law which is uncannily similar to Moore's. Any technology that exhibits growth potential such as this is frankly unstoppable.

So let's pick these remaining nits one by one. LED light bulbs are in fact brighter per watt of input energy than any other form of lighting, period. The trick has been to increase the number of watts domestic LED light bulbs might support. At present LEDs are about ten times brighter than incandescent bulbs - in other words a 6w LED will match a 60w incandescent. In less than two years, according to Dr. Haitz's prediction, a 6w LED will outshine 120w incandescent (or alternatively, regular domestic light levels will be achievable from just 3 watts).

LED lights are much more expensive than either incandescent or CFL bulbs. True, but a) the price will inexorably drop (another of Dr. Haitz corollaries) and b) the cost of lighting is almost entirely unrelated to the cost of light bulbs. In fact, you could spend something ridiculous like say $50 on a single LED and over it's lifetime (which by the way is likely to be measured in tens of years) it would work out many times cheaper than a free supply of incandescent bulbs. The cost of electrical lighting is all in the electricity - and wasting 90% up front puts incandescent lighting out of the running on this one.

Finally, LED lights are not so widely available. Well that's been true up until maybe a few months ago. But with the lighting industry pushing ahead on LED development, governments forcing legislation through, and the awesome implications of Haitz's Law - that's all starting to change rather rapidly.

Already it is possible to purchase and in a few minutes install either mains or 12v LED spotlights equivalent in most respects to 35w - 50w halogen bulbs; the payback on the purchase will take typically about one year and thereafter it's energy saving and money saving all the way.

A word of caution though; like most things in life you get what you pay for. I suggest you check out Cree LED globes for general lighting tasks and Zenigata LED spotlights as replacements for halogen lamps.