Internet3 mins ago
electricity
Does switching your lights on and off use more electricity than leaving them on? Does it depend on the length of time left on? or vary with the type of light (flourescent, normal or "green")?
Are there any figures anywhere to back up an answer (my wife won't believe you otherwise).
Answers
No best answer has yet been selected by doorknob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.It is always better to turn an ordinary tungsten (filament) light on and off as required. I'm not sure about shortening the bulb's life, but even if it does (drastically) it's still cheaper to turn it off. Here's some figures for your missus, doorknob!
I have a 100W bulb in my bathroom. In order to prevent shortening the bulbs life, in the evening I leave it on for 5 1/2 (5.5) hours, rather than switching on and off for the 1/2 hour that I actually need it.
This is using a net 5 hours a day of electricity more than I would otherwise require, at a cost of;
0.1 x 5 x 7 x 8.0 = 28p per week
('Power' rating in KWh x no.of hours x 7 days x cost of unit of electricity in pence)
I can get a three pack of 100W bulbs from my local Wilkinson for �1.29 - a cost of 43p each.
Even if, by constantly switching the bulb on and off, I shorten the bulb's life to two weeks, it will cost me less to replace it, than to preserve it's life by needlessly leaving it on for 5 hours every day.
(43p to replace it every fortnight v. 56p to leave it on an extra 5 hours a day)
I don't have any figures for this, but I remember doing some calculation for fluorescent lighting when I was at school (>20 yrs ago !). The results were that if the lighting would be required again within something like 20-30 minutes, it was not worth switching them off, as it would require more electricity to re-start than to leave them on.