Did fluorescent bulbs save you money?

[James]

My father used to turn off unnecessary lights. After converting to
fluorescent bulbs he didn't turn off lights, had some on all night,
and even left a few on 24/7. Now fluorescent bulbs might only take a
quarter of the energy but he certainly had the lights on more than 4
times as long.

[Michael Black]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Just because he leaves them on all the time doesn't mean everyone does.

Michael

[Daniel T.]

James <j006...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Good for him, he was able to increase the number of hours of light usage
while substantially lowering the cost of that usage per hour.

[Don K]

"Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:daniel_t-63AFE2...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

Just because light was being generated, doesn't mean light was being used.

If the light is wasted, then all the power and cost to generate that light is
wasted too.

Don

[Logan Shaw]

James wrote:
> My father used to turn off unnecessary lights. After converting to
> fluorescent bulbs he didn't turn off lights, had some on all night,
> and even left a few on 24/7.

I would never do that. I can't stand anything but the minimum amount of
light while I'm trying to sleep. Lights on in another room would drive
me batty.

Having said all that, perhaps your father hated having to worry about
constantly turning the lights off and on, and his switch to fluorescent
lighting was a wash as far as energy savings goes but a huge benefit in
the area of not having to fuss with things you don't want to fuss with.

- Logan

[Jeff]

Many might.

I leave a few on almost all the time. I leave a 6W light on in the
bathroom for example. Not a lot of power but after a month it's over 4
kWhr. Now if it was incandescent I would have turned that off, at least
part of the reason being that incandescent lights don't last anywhere
near as long. Those fluorescents just keep going and going and you don't
have to worry about not having a working light when you need it
(although many have significant warm up times).

Now, the bathroom isn't the only place I keep a light on. And I
suspect many others do the same.

So leaving that light on may cost me 35 cents (per month) rather than
a buck and change. Of course higher wattage CFs will cost much more. I
just did a tour and found three lights on (~26W) and they had probably
been on quite a while. I did turn two off and I have been more conscious
of turning off lights when I leave.

So, you have a few questions to answer.

What does conservation mean to you? If it's larger than saving a few
bucks out of a much larger electric bill then it's worthwhile to treat
those lights similar to incandescents.

Are you (or Dad) leaving whole rooms well lit rather than just enough
light to pass through? That could be costing the better part of $10/room
per month.

I'd say most Americans don't know where their power is being used.
Many are still stuck on consumption anyways...

Jeff

>
>
> Michael
>

[Bob F]

"Greggie Gibson" <Greggie...@noonecares.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99B9C7E45241...@85.214.62.108...
> "Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in
> news:ivWdnbDErNW7w2Hb...@comcast.com:

> Unless it is winter and the heat of the wasted energy contributes to
> keeping him warm

At a cost of only twice his natural gas heat energy.

Bob

[Greggie Gibson]

"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:iISdnS8JvaGlB5za...@comcast.com:

> At a cost of only twice his natural gas heat energy.
>
> Bob
>

And how much light does his natural gas heater provide?

[Bob F]

"Greggie Gibson" <Greggie...@noonecares.com> wrote in message

news:Xns99BCDA61E44C9...@85.214.62.108...

Does it really matter? If he wants light, and uses CF bulbs, and gets heat from
his furnace, the net cost is less.

Bob