Did You Hit The Light Switches Last Night?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
ABM

ABM

Happily Married In Music City, USA!
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
31,865
Likes
5,785
Points
113
My wife e-mailed me from Portland right at 8:30 last night and told me that we were "signed-up" to support Earth Hour. I had forgotten, so (reluctantly) I went around the house and flipped off all the lights.....all in the name of husbandly appeasement, mind you. :dunno:

That said, I heard it was a global bust.
 
I'm not sure...but isn't turning them off for an hour and then turning them back on....isn't it going to actually consume more electricity? I recall that shut down and start up power takes more energy than a constant, always on?
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
I'm not sure...but isn't turning them off for an hour and then turning them back on....isn't it going to actually consume more electricity? I recall that shut down and start up power takes more energy than a constant, always on?
Click to expand...

I think Mythbusters did a show on that, and it turns out it doesn't take more energy to turn on a light than to leave it on.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
I'm not sure...but isn't turning them off for an hour and then turning them back on....isn't it going to actually consume more electricity? I recall that shut down and start up power takes more energy than a constant, always on?
Click to expand...

You're thinking of computers. Standard lightbulbs don't require any elaborate "startup" -- the current is either there, or it's not.

I like the idea behind getting people to turn things off (it drives me crazy to come home to an empty house with all the lights on...), but this little scheme was just too gimmicky for my taste.
 
TripTango said:
You're thinking of computers. Standard lightbulbs don't require any elaborate "startup" -- the current is either there, or it's not.

I like the idea behind getting people to turn things off (it drives me crazy to come home to an empty house with all the lights on...), but this little scheme was just too gimmicky for my taste.
Click to expand...

But what about big neon signs, entire buildings (like the Staples Center), etc. I would think to shut down all the power and then turn it down an hour later would consumer more than just simply leaving it all on.
 
I know neon signs wouldn't consume more power to start, but I have no idea about the kinds of electronics necessary to operate Staples...
 
TripTango said:
I know neon signs wouldn't consume more power to start, but I have no idea about the kinds of electronics necessary to operate Staples...
Click to expand...

Like even those jumbo trons on the side of the building.....Televisions inside, etc...everything. regarding neon- don't they just require a small spark and then the power use is extremely small since its just a gas tube? by leaving it on, it seems like it would consume less than shutting down.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
Like even those jumbo trons on the side of the building.....Televisions inside, etc...everything. regarding neon- don't they just require a small spark and then the power use is extremely small since its just a gas tube? by leaving it on, it seems like it would consume less than shutting down.
Click to expand...

How much energy does it take to "shut down" a neon light? As far as I know you are simply cutting the current. Although there may be a small surge required to start the process up again, it seems very unlikely that this would come close to the total energy used over the course of an hour.
 
TripTango said:
How much energy does it take to "shut down" a neon light? As far as I know you are simply cutting the current. Although there may be a small surge required to start the process up again, it seems very unlikely that this would come close to the total energy used over the course of an hour.
Click to expand...

that's assuming a very simple mechanism, the more complex and larger it gets, it should get more intricate.
 
Heh... what kind of mechanism are you envisioning? If you save power turning off one bulb, you will save more power turning off 1,000 bulbs. Just having MORE of them does not make them a different mechanism. Of course, it is certainly possible to have a machine that requires more energy to startup than to run for an hour -- it's just that standard consumer electronics (televisions, lights, monitors, etc...) generally don't.
 
TripTango said:
Heh... what kind of mechanism are you envisioning? If you save power turning off one bulb, you will save more power turning off 1,000 bulbs. Just having MORE of them does not make them a different mechanism. Of course, it is certainly possible to have a machine that requires more energy to startup than to run for an hour -- it's just that standard consumer electronics (televisions, lights, monitors, etc...) generally don't.
Click to expand...

There are probably several systems to control an intricate array of neon....relays, switches, computers...I doubt its as simple as an "on and off" switch. When you have a network, you need a system to organize and control that network, so yes...there will be a different system. They may have to use some kind of generator backup that is also bypassed, for example.

The studies I've seen online in a quick search used energy efficient lightbulbs. I've always personally assumed leaving a computer on and letting it "sleep" saves more energy than shutting it down fully.
 
There may be other reasons to leave your computer on (automatic updates, quick startup, or whatever), but sleep mode is still not as efficient as turning it off, from a strict power-usage perspective. Hibernate is better, but still uses more total power than turning it off and starting it up. Of course, it's close enough these days that the cost is pretty minimal, but again, the surge of power on startup does not offset the power used during standby.

If you have information that says otherwise, please post the link -- I'd be very interested in seeing it!

P.S. I'd also be interested in seeing what you mean by an "intricate array of neon". ;)
 
like the Las Vegas strip for example. I think leaving the neon on for an hour would use less energy than shutting the sytems that control it down.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
like the Las Vegas strip for example. I think leaving the neon on for an hour would use less energy than shutting the sytems that control it down.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a simple example of higher quantity, not higher complexity. The strip doesn't have some kind of Master Control Unit Supercomputer that runs everything -- individual businesses and (ahem) establishments handle their own lights. They leave em on to attract business, not because they want to save power. I can guarantee you that if all they wanted to do was reduce their power consumption (say, during a 24 hour period when there would be absolutely zero potential customers around for some reason), they would turn out all the lights.
 
TripTango said:
Again, this is a simple example of higher quantity, not higher complexity. The strip doesn't have some kind of Master Control Unit Supercomputer that runs everything -- individual businesses and (ahem) establishments handle their own lights. They leave em on to attract business, not because they want to save power. I can guarantee you that if all they wanted to do was reduce their power consumption (say, during a 24 hour period when there would be absolutely zero potential customers around for some reason), they would turn out all the lights.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about for an hour. I would venture to think that there is some kind of master control unit "supercomputer" versus a simple "on and off" switch that controls everything. Some of the lights are controlled by time, for example...they have moving displays, some may even have moving parts.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
I'm talking about for an hour. I would venture to think that there is some kind of master control unit "supercomputer" versus a simple "on and off" switch that controls everything. Some of the lights are controlled by time, for example...they have moving displays, some may even have moving parts.
Click to expand...

Even for an hour.

I still don't see where you think the added complexity lies. Lights (fluorescent or incandescent) use more energy if left on. Computers use more energy if left on. Moving displays (especially moving displays!) use more energy if left on. Where is the power savings?
 
TripTango said:
Even for an hour.

I still don't see where you think the added complexity lies. Lights (fluorescent or incandescent) use more energy if left on. Computers use more energy if left on. Moving displays (especially moving displays!) use more energy if left on. Where is the power savings?
Click to expand...

In the start-up of the systems that control these lights. I'm not sure how they work but I would imagine multiple systems in place. Its not a sprinkler system, they're probably more complex. Even arena lights....have you ever turned on lights inside a gymnasium? Sometimes it takes 15-20 minutes just for the lights to come on completely...they warm up and gradually light up.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
In the start-up of the systems that control these lights. I'm not sure how they work but I would imagine multiple systems in place. Its not a sprinkler system, they're probably more complex. Even arena lights....have you ever turned on lights inside a gymnasium? Sometimes it takes 15-20 minutes just for the lights to come on completely...they warm up and gradually light up.
Click to expand...

But they don't draw more power while they are warming up. The confusion lies in that it is inefficient from a use perspective to turn that sort of light off for an hour, because of the long start up time. But that's time, not electricity.

It's really not any different than a kitchen sink faucet. Does it use more water to turn it off when you aren't using it? Or does it use more water to leave it running all the time? The answer there is obvious, right?

Electricity isn't really any different.

barfo
 
barfo said:
It's really not any different than a kitchen sink faucet. Does it use more water to turn it off when you aren't using it? Or does it use more water to leave it running all the time? The answer there is obvious, right?

Electricity isn't really any different.

barfo
Click to expand...

Then, of course, there's the leaving the car running vs. turning it off then re-starting argument.
 
so did anyone here turn off everything in their house and just sit in the dark for an hour? besides ABM of course...what was your experience?
 
ABM said:
Then, of course, there's the leaving the car running vs. turning it off then re-starting argument.
Click to expand...

Certainly if the car has a crank on the front, I'd leave it running.

barfo
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
First one, no....this is for a simple lightbulb in a simple on-off switch environment.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what sort of a system you are imagining. Certainly if the lights were turned on by a mechanical device, like maybe a giant flywheel that had to be brought from rest to spinning at high RPMs, turning them on would take a lot of energy - but why would anyone design such a system? Electrical devices are turned on by flipping a switch that allows electrons to flow. There's no other technology needed.

barfo
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
so did anyone here turn off everything in their house and just sit in the dark for an hour? besides ABM of course...what was your experience?
Click to expand...

I leave the lights off unless I need them anyway, so it was sort of a no-op for me.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Certainly if the car has a crank on the front, I'd leave it running.

barfo
Click to expand...

In my days, I've seen a few of those guys bent over peering under the their respective hoods. Invariably, they're scruffily bearded and with wife-beaters on.
 
barfo said:
I'm not sure what sort of a system you are imagining. Certainly if the lights were turned on by a mechanical device, like maybe a giant flywheel that had to be brought from rest to spinning at high RPMs, turning them on would take a lot of energy - but why would anyone design such a system? Electrical devices are turned on by flipping a switch that allows electrons to flow. There's no other technology needed.

barfo
Click to expand...

So you're saying the Las Vegas strip is simply turned on and off by one simple switch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top