| Is it better to turn a light off every time you | | | | works out to far less energy than the usually |
| leave a room, or leave it on if you'll be coming | | | | quoted five or fifteen minutes of leaving the light |
| back to the room shortly? | | | | on. |
| If you're into energy conservation, or trying to | | | | All right, you say, but won't the light burn out if I |
| cut your home energy bills, you have probably | | | | keep flicking it on and off? |
| asked yourself this question. And chances are you | | | | You just have to watch that toddler in action for |
| have accepted the conventional wisdom, that it is | | | | a while to know the answer: I've seen kids wreck |
| better to leave the light on for short periods, than | | | | a light bulb in a matter of minutes with the on-off |
| turn it off, then on again. | | | | trick. The more times you turn a bulb on or off, |
| In this case, the conventional wisdom is dead | | | | the sooner it burns out. |
| wrong. | | | | But even if each time you turn a light on you |
| Here is how the argument goes: When you first | | | | shorten its life by an hour - and the figure is |
| power a light on, it will use as much as five (or | | | | probably far lower than that - you will still save |
| fifteen) minutes of the regular consumption of the | | | | energy and money if you turn off lights |
| bulb, within the first second. So if a three-year-old | | | | whenever you leave a room. |
| flicks the switch continuously for a minute, on or | | | | Again, consider the lowly incandescent. You can |
| off every second, they are actually burning 5 | | | | buy a cheap 100 watt bulb for around 25 cents |
| minutes worth of electricity every other second | | | | and it lasts about 1,000 hours. They burn 0.1 |
| (30 times in one minute). That works out to 30 x | | | | kilowatt hours each hour they are on. If we |
| 5 minutes, or 150 minutes, worth of electricity in | | | | assume we burn a bulb out in 1,000 on-off cycles, |
| that one minute. | | | | and electricity costs us 10 cents a kilowatt hour, |
| It's not hard to demonstrate that this is nonsense. | | | | that means it costs us 1 cent to run the bulb for |
| Suppose the kid is toggling a 100 watt light. Over | | | | one hour (100 watts = 0.1 kilowatt, X 10 cents = |
| the course of sixty seconds, if we accept that | | | | 1 cent). |
| switching on the light on uses the equivalent of | | | | So, each time the light gets switched off (which |
| what the light normally uses in five minutes, we | | | | entails switching it back on later) you are spending |
| have used 100 watts times 150 minutes. | | | | a thousandth of the 25 cents you spent on the |
| Now, 150 minutes worth of electricity at 100 | | | | bulb, or one twentieth of a cent (a mere $0.0005!) |
| watts is the same amount of power as 1 minute | | | | And every time you turn a bulb off for five |
| of electricity at 15,000 watts. And since the light | | | | minutes you are saving 5/60 of the $0.01 it costs |
| was turned on and off over the course of one | | | | to run the bulb for an hour, or 0.08 of a cent. |
| minute, it means that if our assumption about the | | | | So switching the light off for five minutes cuts |
| size of the initial power surge is correct, during | | | | your electricity costs by more than three times |
| that one minute the light bulb behaved as if it | | | | the extra you'll be spending on shortened bulb life. |
| were burning 15,000 watts continuously. | | | | And remember, we assumed that each flick of |
| Remember your high school physics class, where | | | | the switch uses an hour of the bulb's life, but it's |
| you learned the rule: Watts = Amps X Volts? In | | | | probably far less than that - we just chose an |
| this case, we know both the Volts and the Watts | | | | hour to prove the point. |
| so we can fill in: | | | | There is one other flaw with the leave-the-light-on |
| 15,000 watts = Amps X 110 volts | | | | conventional wisdom: it fails to take into account |
| (Let's suppose the mischievous kid lives in Canada, | | | | what happens when we get distracted. |
| where power in homes is normally 110v). To solve | | | | You leave the room for a few minutes to put |
| for Amps, we divide both sides by 110v, which | | | | something away, but you leave the light on as |
| yields: | | | | you plan to return shortly. But a neighbor at the |
| 15,000 watts / 110 volts = Amps | | | | door, a friend on the phone, or some other |
| Which means that the light was drawing 136 | | | | distraction, keeps you away from the room |
| amps of power. | | | | where you left the light on - and half an hour or |
| Now I don't know about your house, but mine is | | | | more, you remember that light left on. Even |
| certainly not going to be able to handle a 136 amp | | | | worse, if the light was in a room you don't visit |
| current on one light for a whole minute, since the | | | | often - the basement work room or that empty |
| whole house has a power supply of just 100 | | | | third bedroom, you might not discover the light |
| amps. And my circuit breakers are all 15 or 30 | | | | has been left on until several days later. Forgetting |
| amp breakers - which means they trip off when | | | | to turn a light off in one case like that can eat up |
| the power surges to much more than their rated | | | | way more money and energy than shortening the |
| amperage of 15 or 30 amps. So that toddler | | | | bulb's life by an hour. |
| turning the light on every other second for a | | | | So make it your philosophy to turn off lights. Not |
| minute, yielding a 136 amp draw, would blow the | | | | only will you save electricity when you turn off |
| circuit breaker for the circuit the light is on, and | | | | lights, and save money overall, but it will remind |
| possibly blow the main circuit breaker for the | | | | you to be an energy saver in other ways. And |
| house. | | | | you will be setting a visible example to others, |
| So what's the scoop? Yes, there is a power | | | | who will become more conservation conscious as |
| surge when a light is turned on. But that surge | | | | well. |
| lasts only a tiny fraction of a second, and it | | | | |