What do you think guys?

http://www.edisonreport.net/lighting-industry-news/introducing-more-efficient-phosphor-silver-clusters/

It would look like the efficiency of fluorescent tubes could be boosted.

Still it's just a theory. I don't expect fluorescent lamps to be improved much further.

Interesting read, lighting will progress to higher and higher levels in another 10 years!

Still it's just a theory. I don't expect fluorescent lamps to be improved much further.

Maybe there will be a couple more phosphors discovered, or maybe a new size of fluorescent.
And don't forget about induction.

Still it's just a theory. I don't expect fluorescent lamps to be improved much further.

That is if the manufacturers dont want to boost it, but only the LEDs, intentionally to make FL lag behind. This does not mean that efficacy of FL cant be boosted

At least fluorescent is easier to maintain than LED, and less glary.

And many more benefits to whoever uses the light. But not to the manufacturers

It will more go towards LED's, but even there the efficacy difference wouldn't be that large. The main point as I understood it, was in getting rid of the need for the rare earth elements, needed for todays fluorescents.
The fluorescent efficiency (so consequently effiiency for a given color spec) is today limited by just the photon energy ratio between the main mercury UV lines vs the visible ones.
These principal losses becomes almost half with the use of a blue light as the primary energy source, which are the LED's. The thing is, the LED phosphors are by far not that advanced as the fluorescent are - mainly in the terms of quantum efficiency (number of converted photons out vs the number of the primary ones in).
So while there is not much room for improvement with fluorescents, there is still quite some with LED's (present day phosphors are losing 10's percents of photons in LED's, while just few percent with the low pressure mercury; problem is, the efficient rare earth phosphors respond only for the short wave primary photons, so do not work with the blue LED's).

And for the induction: I don't  think that will evolve that far. The induction lamp itself may be robust, but it needs an electronic high frequency generator to work. And that is, reliability wise, the same electronic as what is the weakest point and reliability killer of the present LED systems (the failures within the LED's are the are nature as reliability failures in any other electronic - so once you make these under control, there is no reason why the LED reliability should be any different from the inductions).
And for the efficacy the problem with induction is, in order to have efficient coupling, the bulb has to be rather thick. But a thick fluorescent means a lot of selfabsorbtion in the mercury, so no prospect of closing the efficacy gap towards the thin fluorescents.
And because the electrode technology already evolved so the hot electrode does offer the same lamp life as the top induction systems, with way less demanding ballast design (way lower frequencies, eventually just 50Hz magnetic alone) you may easily reach the same reliability performance at a fraction cost compare to the induction.

These materials tend to be poisoned by the mercury in fluorescent lamps.  For LED that is not a problem, and the zeolite materials promise enormous cost saving vs traditional LED phosphors, but for the moment they are not yet efficient enough to compete with existing phosphors.