Hey Mr. Green,
I heard that fluorescent lights consume the most energy when first turned on. After that they consume little energy. Is this true? If so, is it better to leave them on when I am out of the room or turn them off and on as I leave and return to the room? —Bettie in San Francisco
It’s true that an extra jolt of energy is needed to ignite a fluorescent bulb, but way less than widely believed. The power surge lasts for only 1/120 of a second, and only takes as much energy as the bulb would need for about 5 seconds of normal operation. So, to save energy, you should turn off the fluorescent bulbs if you are leaving a room for more than 15 minutes.
But why 15 minutes instead of 5 seconds, if it only takes 5 seconds worth of operating power to fire up the bulb? Well, because turning a fluorescent bulb on and off frequently can shorten its life, and since little energy is used in those 15 minutes, it makes sense to leave it on for that length of time to make the bulb last as long as possible. You’ll save on the replacement cost, while conserving the material and energy needed to make a replacement if the old one dies before its rightful time.
Since fluorescent bulbs need only about a fourth as much energy as incandescent bulbs for the same amount of light, if all incandescent bulbs were replaced by fluorescents, the United States would save the energy equivalent of about 4 billion gallons of gasoline each year. Unfortunately, less than 20 percent of new bulbs being sold are the efficient fluorescents. Consumers are still unwilling the shell out extra money for these bulbs, even though they could save up to $40 on utility bills over the lifetime of just one fluorescent.
But unless incandescents can be made more efficient, we will soon have to purchase energy saving alternatives like fluorescents or LEDs anyway. By 2014, incandescent bulbs will have to be 27% more efficient than today, and by 2020 they will have to reach 60% greater efficiency, or they’ll won’t be allowed on the market. These energy-saving rules were mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It is such convincing piece of legislation that even George Bush, the dear dim bulb, could see its value when he signed it into law. Nevertheless, right-wing contrarians are raising a fuss over this common-sense provision. Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and 26 other Republican senators have proposed the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, known as BULB, which would flat-out repeal the law’s light bulb standards. BURN, as in Burn Up Resources Now, might be a more honest name for this nutty move, since many of its sponsors are chums of the coal and oil industry and the Burn, Baby, Burn, Drill, Baby Drill sorority.
The U.S. House of Representatives is up to similar mischief, with, get this, The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, sponsored by Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.), who is now regarded as a serious candidate for president. It's another fine example of politicians pandering to the bulbous likes of Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and a horde of bloggers whining about the nanny state jamming fluorescent light bulbs down our throats. Read the tea leaves in the Tea Party's cup: The burning issue of the day is not our hellacious conflagration of oil and coal, or the lives and dollars wasted in wars for fossil fuel, but the inalienable right to buy an obsolete light bulb.
For more about the bulb issue, just type “fluorescent” up above where it says“Search Hey Mr Green.”