Bringing solar light bulbs to the world | Hacker News Reader

Bringing solar light bulbs to the world

cnn.com

24 pointsthedoctor12 comments

I don't get why the developing world needs to be the first market. They could sell to the camping and boating market first, make millions, and expand worldwide later.

Sell to both. I'd put them up in my backyard before parties, etc.

Havent they sold backyard solar lights at Walmart, Target, etc for several years now?

http://www.target.com/Solar-Lights-Coach-Style-Pack/dp/B002Z...

Was thinking about something more like those he was showing - individual, hang-up globes. Anything non-ugly (like those Target ones) is expensive.

It isn't. I just hopped on over to their website and bought a pair to clip to by backpack when hiking. It's just a bonus for me that the company happens to care about the developing world.

What is idiotic is that there was a whole article about them and it still took a google search before I could figure out where to buy one.

And then I had to go do it again to be able to add the link here: <http://www.nokero.com/products/n200>. :)

For folks who didn't read the article and wonder about the company name, it's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau of "no kerosene", since the solar-powered light bulb is meant to replace kerosene-fueled lamps in many parts of the world.

It's amazing how inefficient good intentions can be sometimes

There's a common misconception in this article that non-profit means non-revenue. A non-profit organization can still charge for goods and services. The difference between a non-profit and a for-profit, is that a non-profit must invest all surplus revenue directly back into the company.

I agree, obviously most nonprofits need to have a revenue model, because donations can't sustain you 100%. However I think the general point they were trying to make was that the model followed by many large nonprofits does more to treat the symptoms than solve the problem.

I do a lot of nonprofit work and I've become pretty disillusioned with many large organizations-I feel they tend simply give hand-outs rather than helping communities to become sustainable and self-sufficient and actually addressing the issues. Add to that the costs of overhead and management, etc. and I really feel like the most significant changes are going to come from the small groups motivated by their passion for helping and unburdened by the task of maintaining a large corporate revenue model. The change these groups affect might not be as far-reaching, but think their impact is greater.

I agree that the for-profit corporate model is better than the charity model, but only because the charity model has been so awful.

I think a non-profit revenue-based organization would probably be the best for what this guy is trying to do. You get the benefit of being sustainable without requiring donations, but you don't come off as someone profiting off the backs of the poor.

For another, much older, take on this check out "Light Up The World". One of my old professors has been working on this since the 90's, with the same goal of driving the Kerosene lamps out of existence.

I'm curious if there's much in the way of new technology in these lamps, at least enough to justify a patent.

EDIT: Link: http://www.lutw.org/

It's a patent on a hardware device. Its a whole different animal. Unlike software, they couldn't just patent "solar light that charges during they day" they could only patent their particular solar charging light.

If someone were to disassemble their light and make molds of the parts and just start cranking out copies, they could stop them. It never even crosses their minds that they might try to use the patent to rent-seek everyone else on earth who wires together a solar cell, a battery and a light source. Ya, it's that different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com