Efficiency of Fluorescent Lights

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrjeffy321
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Efficiency Lights
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the efficiency of fluorescent lights, particularly the energy consumption associated with turning them on versus leaving them on. Participants explore misconceptions about energy use in fluorescent lighting, comparing it to other types of lighting such as HID lamps. The conversation includes theoretical implications and practical considerations regarding energy savings and lamp longevity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant mentions a claim that turning on a fluorescent light uses as much energy as running it for an hour, questioning its validity.
  • Another participant suggests that the claim may only apply to 'strip-light' style fluorescent tubes, not energy-saving bulbs.
  • A later reply references an article that clarifies the misconception, stating that the initial current spike when starting a fluorescent bulb lasts only about 1/10th of a second and equates to roughly 5 seconds of normal operation.
  • One participant argues that if fluorescent lamps are turned off and on more frequently than every 5 seconds, it could lead to higher energy consumption than leaving them on.
  • Another participant introduces the idea that the misconception may stem from confusion with HID lamps, which require several minutes to heat up and can draw significant power during that time.
  • A participant with experience in HID ballasts provides details on the power usage of HID lamps, emphasizing that their startup power is not as high as the initial claim suggests.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the energy efficiency of turning fluorescent lights on and off. While some agree that the initial claim is misleading, others highlight the nuances in energy consumption that depend on the type of fluorescent bulb and usage patterns. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of these energy use patterns.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the energy consumption of fluorescent lights can vary based on the type of bulb and the frequency of switching. There is also mention of trade-offs between energy use and lamp longevity, which may not be fully addressed in the initial claims.

mrjeffy321
Science Advisor
Messages
876
Reaction score
1
I read in a science question/answer book that it is takes as much energy to turn on a fluorescent light as it doesn to run it for 1 hour. So if this is true, it would mean that if you plan on using the light again within an hour, it is more efficient to leave it on, rather than turning it off and then back on again.
Fluorescent lights are aleady much more efficient than incandecent light bulbs, but why not take the time to save an extra 10 of a cent.

So has anyone else heard this before, or seen it somewhere else? I have only seen it in that one source, so I don't know if it is true, or if it is by how much.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I heard this on the grape vine, but thought it only applied to 'strip-light' style fluorescent tubes, rather than the 'energy saving' replacement light bulbs for domestic use. Will look it up properly when I get a spare minute...
 
Ok, here we go:

http://lightingdesignlab.com/articles/switching/switching_fluorescent.htm

Misconception #1: It takes more energy to start a fluorescent that it does to run it, so leave the lights on all the time to save money on your electric bill.

Reality: When you turn on a fluorescent light bulb, there is a very brief jump in current when the ballast charges the cathodes and causes the lamp to start. This inrush of current can be many times greater than the normal operating current of the lamp. However, the spike of current draw normally lasts no longer than 1/10th of a second, and draws the equivalent of about 5 seconds of normal operation. So, if you turn your fluorescent lamp off and on more frequently than every 5 seconds, you will use more power than normal. So, normal switching of fluorescent lamps has very, very, very little effect on a power bill.



The article also explains how long burns extend the lamp life, but since they use more energy, there's a trade-off point. The calculation needed is shown.
 
Last edited:
brewnog said:
but thought it only applied to 'strip-light' style fluorescent tubes, rather than the 'energy saving' replacement light bulbs for domestic use.
Yes, those were the ones I was referring to.

So really, that book was wrong, or atleast very inaccurate.
So, if you turn your fluorescent lamp off and on more frequently than every 5 seconds, you will use more power than normal
5 seconds, not even close to 1 hour.

OK, thanks, I thought it sounded a little hokey.
 
This misconception may come from people thinking HID lamps (those big lamps at stadiums or in parking lots) work the same as fluorescents. An HID takes several minutes to heat up before operating and likely does use as much power in those few minutes as in the rest of the hour combined.
 
russ_watters said:
This misconception may come from people thinking HID lamps (those big lamps at stadiums or in parking lots) work the same as fluorescents. An HID takes several minutes to heat up before operating and likely does use as much power in those few minutes as in the rest of the hour combined.

I work on HID ballasts. A 100 Watt arc tube would use 200 Watts for
maybe one minute. This is only twice, not 59 times the running power.

If it used as much power to start (in one minute) as it did to run for the
rest of the hour, then it would have to use 5900 Watts for the one minute.
I assure you, it does not.

What does take a couple of minutes is for the lamp to reach peak temperature
and emit maximum light. The power by then is usually at the constant burn
power even though the light is getting brighter.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
66
Views
11K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 122 ·
5
Replies
122
Views
11K