Why turning off the lights is a waste of your time

[nth_degree]

Alright I’m hoping someone on this forum can set me straight on a contrarian opinion I’m forming to piss off my math professor roommate. Here is the problem;

My irritating AF roommate follows me around the house turning off the lights everywhere I go and I’m living in darkness. I’m all for saving energy (I replaced all the bulbs w LEDs last year) but what he’s doing IMO is a repetitive task for dopamine payoff and virtue signaling. Little different to the behaviors encouraged by many religions. I’m thinking rosary beads. Anyway

I don’t think what he’s doing either saves energy or money. For one thing if you turn off the lights while it may slow the meter, if that energy isn’t stored it will still go to waste. And how about this; even if we use the economy bulbs the cost in average purchase consumer quantity of 16 is $35, so say $2 a piece. The energy cost of 24/7 operation at 11W is 12.50 a year here in Berkeley at 0.13KWH. Each bulb has a quoted MTBF of 15,000 hours but I believe the manufacturers are stating the LED MTBF not the driver MTBF there. For the bulb as a unit it’s the lower of course but the difference is if you frequently turn the power on and off the driver will have a significantly reduced life and your 13 years of service for $2 just became 10 months of service. So you lose $1.85, per bulb. Furthermore there was an energy cost to manufacturing every component of the bulb so there go your energy savings as well, if there ever were any.

I think turning off the lights was a 60’s habit to save money when incandescent bulbs were 150W and the cost of energy was sky high. I don’t think it ever saved energy either except in the sense that if the power station saw lesser demand collectively it would reduce the quota for an area and waste less in that sense.

Please tell me why I’m wrong

[DrG]

By my analysis over the last few days, I have turned on my bathroom light 8 times and turned it off 11 times. I am surprised that the two numbers do not show greater agreement.

Could this be related to the pandemic culture war?

[wraper]

if that energy isn’t stored it will still go to waste.

Nothing will be lost since power generation is adjusted according to consumption.

For the bulb as a unit it’s the lower of course but the difference is if you frequently turn the power on and off the driver will have a significantly reduced life

Unless it's a badly designed bulb, it will not significantly lose it's lifetime from frequent switching. Heat is what wears them the most. And running for a long time increases the temperature bulb experiences.

MTBF of 15,000 hours

MTBF is not a lifetime. https://www.controleng.com/articles/learn-or-review-the-difference-between-mtbf-and-lifetime/

[Capernicus]

What about the amount of power the industry uses compared to the "public civilian sector"  I bet its more than 1000x more power usage,  but I'm only guessing.

[fordem]

For the bulb as a unit it’s the lower of course but the difference is if you frequently turn the power on and off the driver will have a significantly reduced life

Unless it's a badly designed bulb, it will not significantly lose it's lifetime from frequent switching. Heat is what wears them the most. And running for a long time increases the temperature bulb experiences.

Aren't you neglecting the impact of "inrush" current every time the lamp is powered on?  I switched to LED lighting around 2010/2011 and I've had about a half dozen or so bulbs fail, every one has been a driver failure, not the LEDs and it's on the LED end that the heat is being generated.

[nth_degree]

“Nothing will be lost since power generation is adjusted according to consumption.”

That’s simply not true in practice. If a bulb is on or off in my home the generation quota from the plant will be the same. Sure if our collective behavior of thousands of people creates enough reduction in demand for the station to reduce the quota power will be saved assuming those people have behavior that is consistent. In reality though if I turn off the light, the power being distributed in the moment just goes to ground and since people are unpredictable even as a group, the quota for a sector never changes.

[nth_degree]

“I've had about a half dozen or so bulbs fail”

LED bulbs at my home have a very short lifespan, so much so we’ve created an Amazon subscription. On average a bulb lasts 5 months in a recessed socket. I think heat is responsible, and the drivers are dying. I can’t imagine the LEDs can fail so quickly.

[rob77]

“Nothing will be lost since power generation is adjusted according to consumption.”

That’s simply not true in practice. If a bulb is on or off in my home the generation quota from the plant will be the same. Sure if our collective behavior of thousands of people creates enough reduction in demand for the station to reduce the quota power will be saved assuming those people have behavior that is consistent. In reality though if I turn off the light, the power being distributed in the moment just goes to ground and since people are unpredictable even as a group, the quota for a sector never changes.

you're sooo wrong at many levels...

the generator at the power plant generates only the amount it's loaded with.. and loads the mechanical input the same amount + loses. your light bulb will be a miniscule change in the load but it's there...
just do an experiment with a petrol power generator - load it with a single light bulb.. and listen to the sound of the engine.. then connect a big load (e.g. heater) and listen to the sound.. you will hear the change because the load changed... you will clearly hear the engine will go at higher power... when you disconnect the big  load the engine will go back to the previous state.

regarding the grid... if there is less demand the load goes down on generators hence mechanical load goes down on the input (water turbine, steam turbine) and they start spin faster... that's why the frequency of the grid goes up when the load is lower and opposite way goes down when the load is higher because it loads down the generators and their mechanical inputs slowing them down. no energy "goes to ground" if it's not "used".

[wraper]

“Nothing will be lost since power generation is adjusted according to consumption.”

That’s simply not true in practice. If a bulb is on or off in my home the generation quota from the plant will be the same. Sure if our collective behavior of thousands of people creates enough reduction in demand for the station to reduce the quota power will be saved assuming those people have behavior that is consistent. In reality though if I turn off the light, the power being distributed in the moment just goes to ground and since people are unpredictable even as a group, the quota for a sector never changes.

Electric generation is done not according to quota but according to what the grid needs at the moment, otherwise voltage/frequency will go out of spec. Too much generation is not good for the grid. So even though your contribution is tiny, it's what impacts the power output needed.

[wraper]

LED bulbs at my home have a very short lifespan, so much so we’ve created an Amazon subscription. On average a bulb lasts 5 months in a recessed socket.

Don't buy garbage. Instead buy something decent which will last many times longer. $2 a piece certainly sounds like a bottom of the barrel junk. Lumens is what matters, not Watts. And cheap bulbs are less efficient, therefore generate more heat for the same amount of power consumed.

On average a bulb lasts 5 months in a recessed socket.

It's part of the answer why they don't last long.

I think heat is responsible, and the drivers are dying. I can’t imagine the LEDs can fail so quickly.

They certainly can. Since in the cheaper bulbs LEDs are driven to the brink. And poor cooling only makes it worse.

[nth_degree]

“ regarding the grid... if there is less demand the load goes down on generators hence mechanical load goes down on the input (water turbine, steam turbine) and they start spin faster... that's why the frequency of the grid goes up when the load is lower and opposite way goes down when the load is higher because it loads down the generators and their mechanical inputs slowing them down”

The load may go down for the turbines of the generators but the source of energy they use is heat from fission or combustion, and so the energy is still lost, and the act of unloading the turbine has no meaning.

[rob77]

“ regarding the grid... if there is less demand the load goes down on generators hence mechanical load goes down on the input (water turbine, steam turbine) and they start spin faster... that's why the frequency of the grid goes up when the load is lower and opposite way goes down when the load is higher because it loads down the generators and their mechanical inputs slowing them down”

The load may go down for the turbines of the generators but the source of energy they use is heat from fission or combustion, and so the energy is still lost, and the act of unloading the turbine has no meaning.

apparently we have another "i'll talk bullshit till the end and never admit i was wrong" dude here 

[MK14]

my math professor roommate

The thing is, many people, have little/no idea on how electronics/Physics works. They are just black boxes, which do some secret source/magic, and simply just work. This can lead to such people believing that devices which don't really use much electricity (as a percentage of the overall electricity bill), being major consumers of it, even if they aren't.
On the other hand (as others, are mentioning in this thread). You seem to have your own, possible misunderstandings. Such as how electric power generation really works, and what determines the lifetime of LED lighting.

[nth_degree]

“i'll talk bullshit till the end and never admit i was wrong"

Not really, I just want it explained what exactly it is I’m missing in my understanding. Better yet if you can spell out how energy is saved when I turn off a bulb, that would be great. Better still would be if you could give me an argument my roommate can’t shoot down so I can annoy him by leaving the lights on all the time

[wraper]

The load may go down for the turbines of the generators but the source of energy they use is heat from fission or combustion, and so the energy is still lost, and the act of unloading the turbine has no meaning.

Electric grid consists from slow and fast response power stations. Fast response stations react to sudden power demand changes. Also your blabbering about you being a special snowflake is simply lame. If everyone thinks that your "Why turning off the lights is a waste of your time" is true and acts accordingly, total impact on the grid will be huge. Lame the same way as claiming that your individual vote does not matter during elections.

[Nusa]

Alright I’m hoping someone on this forum can set me straight on a contrarian opinion I’m forming to piss off my math professor roommate. Here is the problem;

My irritating AF roommate follows me around the house turning off the lights everywhere I go and I’m living in darkness. I’m all for saving energy (I replaced all the bulbs w LEDs last year) but what he’s doing IMO is a repetitive task for dopamine payoff and virtue signaling. Little different to the behaviors encouraged by many religions. I’m thinking rosary beads. Anyway

I don’t think what he’s doing either saves energy or money. For one thing if you turn off the lights while it may slow the meter, if that energy isn’t stored it will still go to waste. And how about this; even if we use the economy bulbs the cost in average purchase consumer quantity of 16 is $35, so say $2 a piece. The energy cost of 24/7 operation at 11W is 12.50 a year here in Berkeley at 0.13KWH. Each bulb has a quoted MTBF of 15,000 hours but I believe the manufacturers are stating the LED MTBF not the driver MTBF there. For the bulb as a unit it’s the lower of course but the difference is if you frequently turn the power on and off the driver will have a significantly reduced life and your 13 years of service for $2 just became 10 months of service. So you lose $1.85, per bulb. Furthermore there was an energy cost to manufacturing every component of the bulb so there go your energy savings as well, if there ever were any.

I think turning off the lights was a 60’s habit to save money when incandescent bulbs were 150W and the cost of energy was sky high. I don’t think it ever saved energy either except in the sense that if the power station saw lesser demand collectively it would reduce the quota for an area and waste less in that sense.

Please tell me why I’m wrong

Well, if your goal is to piss off your roommate, then you might as well forget this thread and anything we say. We won't be helping your argument.

I suggest you offer to pay the entire electric bill for a couple months if he'll let you do it your way and you truly believe it doesn't matter. That will give you an empirical test of cost differences when the bills come.

Let's assume your costs math is correct (doing the reality check isn't the point here), and the 24/7 cost is 12.5/12=$1.04/month. That's PER BULB, so multiply it by how many you want to leave on. 12 bulbs, and it's $12.50/month.

Electricity wasn't terribly expensive in the 1960's, even adjusted for inflation. Sure you could get 150W bulbs, but 100W and 60W were much more common. You're right that people used incandescent bulbs, so yes the cost of operating a light was higher, and the cost of buying that bulb was WAY lower. Also in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, and some are still in use today (in my case closets still have 100W bulbs in them, and the bathroom mirror fixture still has 6x40W globes). (Source: I've been around that long, no research necessary.)

Note: Fluorescents were a different story. The energy cost of starting them is much higher than the cost of running them, so there was a legitimate energy argument for not turning them on and off too frequently. They're obsolete technology now. Those still in use will be replaced as they fail, if not sooner.

[nth_degree]

Ah I’m blabbering, and here I was thinking I had an opinion! Here in Berkeley we have a vocal minority who believe controlling the behavior of the group is key to a better world. Swaying group opinion is their highest priority and no tactic is underhanded enough. They are as corrupt as any cult ever was and yet have no clue.

Then there are others that believe a better way can be engineered into product. I’m with them. Because I don’t want to live in darkness for the greater good.

[Siwastaja]

The difference is small because LED lights are so damn efficient anyway.

It's still important to avoid unnecessary waste. Amount of wasted energy is of course 10x less than with incandescent bulbs, but not insignificant nevertheless.

The idea of "excess production" going to waste if not used by you in your bulbs is just ridiculous and has not even a grain of truth in it, totally made up bogus argument "to win". But you know what, the only thing that counts is truth. Mental dishonesty sucks, don't be one of those guys.

Now the game changes if you have direct electric heating, and it's heating season. Then additional heat production by the lights will be sensed by the thermostats and the end-result is the same.

[rob77]

“i'll talk bullshit till the end and never admit i was wrong"

Not really, I just want it explained what exactly it is I’m missing in my understanding. Better yet if you can spell out how energy is saved when I turn off a bulb, that would be great. Better still would be if you could give me an argument my roommate can’t shoot down so I can annoy him by leaving the lights on all the time

ok so let me try to explain then

when you unload the generator mechanical input starts turning faster.. so we need to slow it down to not raise the grid frequency.

1. hydroelectric plant. water inlet is chocked so less water goes to turbine and slows it down to the correct speed needed at the moment.
2. coal or gas fired plat - steam is choked a bit so the steam turbine is slowed down to correct speed, that raises the temperature in the steam generator/boiler (because less steam is consumed) so the furnace regulation lowers the fuel input (chokes down the gas input or slows down the conveyor belt with coal.. or whatever else is burned there).
3. thermonuclear : can't be regulated easily so it's mainly used to power the constant load on the grid. it can be regulated to some degree but it's mainly used as a constant output.
4. renewables : solar is great for compensating day peaks - production coincides with those peaks. wind is a unpredictable source so it's used when it blows but the turbines might be mechanically braked to slower rotation or even halted if the grid frequency is high.

no energy is wasted.. hydro will accumulate the water in the dam to be used later , coal/gas will lower the fuel input.

[Capernicus]

If you power your house pneumatically, and use sun heat for your water heating, you dont even get light in your house at night, cause u dont have any electricity anyway.
Problem solved.

[Nusa]

Ah I’m blabbering, and here I was thinking I had an opinion! Here in Berkeley we have a vocal minority who believe controlling the behavior of the group is key to a better world. Swaying group opinion is their highest priority and no tactic is underhanded enough. They are as corrupt as any cult ever was and yet have no clue.

That's called power politics. Truth and reality take a backseat to the exercise of power. I could say more, but actual politics doesn't belong in this forum.

[SpecialK]

With the efficiency of LED bulbs, this conservation effect will probably not really be reflected in your electricity bill.  My utility company has other line items on it that are likely to be larger like "debt repayment".  Figure that one out.

[Siwastaja]

Ah I’m blabbering, and here I was thinking I had an opinion!

Oh, don't mix up opinions and facts. They both have their places.

How electricity generation and distribution works is not a matter of your opinion, it's a fact. You sound like myself when 13 years old during some heated discussion with friends. I'm so great and usually right that I can just make up arguments, maybe they'll believe me!? But in long run, this attitude doesn't help you, so I suggest you just grow up.

Now, there is room for opinions in your debate: the relative importance of the undeniable energy saving. Being a purist and going to extremes is not helpful, in big picture. Thanks to the high efficiency of LED lights, you can forgive yourself (and your roommate can forgive you) if you sometimes forget to turn the lights off. It isn't that important.

Then again, keeping all lights on just to "make a point", and coming up with made-up arguments to support that is just childish. Let them turn off unused lights, and do that yourself whenever you remember, without stressing about it - then what's the problem? The only problem I see is you have already made it a debate, and matter of personal pride. Avoid escalating things in the future before you actually learn about the stuff, and you'll do fine. Best of luck.

[rpiloverbd]

Well..... use motion-controlled switches instead. Happy roommate, happy you.

[Jester]

“Nothing will be lost since power generation is adjusted according to consumption.”

That’s simply not true in practice. If a bulb is on or off in my home the generation quota from the plant will be the same. Sure if our collective behavior of thousands of people creates enough reduction in demand for the station to reduce the quota power will be saved assuming those people have behavior that is consistent. In reality though if I turn off the light, the power being distributed in the moment just goes to ground and since people are unpredictable even as a group, the quota for a sector never changes.

Incorrect, that’s not how the power system operates, power in = power out + losses, if you turn off one lightbulb the power in at the source goes down by approximately that amount. The power is not shunted to ground, the voltage and frequency goes up ever so so slightly.

[nth_degree]

Some details I perhaps should’ve mentioned in the original post;
1. Our electric bill is included in the rent, we don’t pay based on use.
2. I run 5KW continuously with 8x silent xeon servers in my room. Seriously.
3. I also think recycling is a meaningless dopamine inducing repetitive conformity exercise for the purpose of conditioning people and has no significant benefit outside industrial environments. The good professor extracts my juice cartons from the designated cardboard bin and cuts the plastic nozzles out of them. It’s insanity and someone has to give the Emperor the memo.
4. He’s been away for Winter break for 10 days and every bulb in the house has been on since then. Not out if spite I just want to see what it’s like. And actually, it’s very pleasant and well worth paying for. If I ever buy a house I’ll remove the switches except in the bedrooms. The whole concept of light switches is obsolete. There I said it, look shocked. But it’s 2022. When did you last play a CD or watch the television? Times are a changing.

[MK14]

Let's assume your costs math is correct (doing the reality check isn't the point here), and the 24/7 cost is 12.5/12=$1.04/month. That's PER BULB, so multiply it by how many you want to leave on. 12 bulbs, and it's $12.50/month.

I'm not sure about your calculations. Assuming that they turn off all the lights, when they go to bed, and don't start turning them on, until nighttime. Then, it would be more like perhaps 6 rather than 24 hours, per bulb/evening, and hence a few dollars per month, rather than $12.50, also they might not use many of them and/or be out, some of the time. So the actual cost, may only be a dollar or two, each month.
The actual total savings could be even less, as even if you switch the lights off sometimes (during the evenings), they would still be on, when the room is being occupied.

[Nusa]

Let's assume your costs math is correct (doing the reality check isn't the point here), and the 24/7 cost is 12.5/12=$1.04/month. That's PER BULB, so multiply it by how many you want to leave on. 12 bulbs, and it's $12.50/month.

I'm not sure about your calculations. Assuming that they turn off all the lights, when they go to bed, and don't start turning them on, until nighttime. Then, it would be more like perhaps 6 rather than 24 hours, per bulb/evening, and hence a few dollars per month, rather than $12.50, also they might not use many of them and/or be out, some of the time. So the actual cost, may only be a dollar or two, each month.
The actual total savings could be even less, as even if you switch the lights off sometimes (during the evenings), they would still be on, when the room is being occupied.

The 24/7 scenario was the OP's frame of argument, not mine. Changing the scenario is getting into the reality check I clearly said I wasn't doing.

[MK14]

2. I run 5KW continuously with 8x silent xeon servers in my room. Seriously.

Why not go down to, one modern, power efficient server/computer, at perhaps 0.15KW, by using virtualization software, to create all the other servers, on the single server/computer. It would make your room more habitable as well.

[Nusa]

Some details I perhaps should’ve mentioned in the original post;
1. Our electric bill is included in the rent, we don’t pay based on use.
2. I run 5KW continuously with 8x silent xeon servers in my room. Seriously.

Then whoever rents to you should change the arrangement. You are clearly abusing the relationship.

[Siwastaja]

Then whoever rents to you should change the arrangement. You are clearly abusing the relationship.

When I was studying we had apartments with similar arrangement.

The idea of getting something for free builds an unhealthy dopamine system in your brain. Heck, I consider myself a sensible person but I did distill some water Just Because I could do it "for free". I had no real use for distilled water. Bitcoin was a brand new thing back then, obviously many were mining.

"Free" resources make people misbehave. It's a crappy system; someone else finally pays for all of it. The worst part isn't someone else paying; the worst part is that people become very inefficient and stop thinking.

This is the root cause of the OP's problem. I hope it gets fixed so that running that massive server "just because" becomes economically nonviable and directs the OP towards sensible and healthy hobbies.

[SilverSolder]

“I've had about a half dozen or so bulbs fail”

LED bulbs at my home have a very short lifespan, so much so we’ve created an Amazon subscription. On average a bulb lasts 5 months in a recessed socket. I think heat is responsible, and the drivers are dying. I can’t imagine the LEDs can fail so quickly.

Incandescents can last 20+ years in a recessed can, if used with a dimmer and limiting time at max power...

[nth_degree]

“Why not go down to, one modern, power efficient server/computer, at perhaps 0.15KW, by using virtualization software, to create all the other servers, on the single server/computer. It would make your room more habitable as well.”

For one thing, it’s heating my room up and it’s cold this time of year. Actually I could set them to idle or turn some of them off altogether but it’s proxy revenge against my roommate via society with interest for having to turn the hall lights on 30 times a day for the last few months. They aren’t even mining I have them computing Pi. Crypto is a mania I predict a complete collapse this year.

“Then whoever rents to you should change the arrangement. You are clearly abusing the relationship.“

I agree. Fortunately our apartment is one of three in this house, and one meter counts for all three apartments so my use is obscured. But a deal is a deal, and should I be snared in a bad sign I have no doubt my landlord would jump at my jugular, so it’s fair game.

[MK14]

computing Pi

Just tell the Maths Professor, the answer is 3.14 ... = SQR(2)+SQR(3), that may annoy him.

[nth_degree]

Since we’re in confession territory here, I also always take the trash out and put all the bags into the wrong bins. Deliberately.

[Siwastaja]

OK, so you are just a horrible and harmful person, on purpose. For a moment I thought you just need some guidance, but now I'm quite sure you are unfixable.

I hope the best for those who need to clean up after your mess.

And for you, I hope no one tries to "fix" you in the wrong way.

[Nusa]

“I've had about a half dozen or so bulbs fail”

LED bulbs at my home have a very short lifespan, so much so we’ve created an Amazon subscription. On average a bulb lasts 5 months in a recessed socket. I think heat is responsible, and the drivers are dying. I can’t imagine the LEDs can fail so quickly.

Incandescents can last 20+ years in a recessed can, if used with a dimmer and limiting time at max power...

Incandescents generate light by heating filaments hot enough to generate light. Clearly heat isn't going to bother the bulb. They're even a fire hazard if the fixture isn't designed to handle the heat generated. Hence all the max wattage labels in older fixtures.

LED replacement bulbs also generate heat, but there is a limit to what the electronics can handle. The cheap bulbs are cheap for a reason...they will have a short life if put into traditional enclosed fixtures where the heat can't escape. They'll last a long time if put into stem-down open lampshade fixtures with open-air cooling. Most people find this out the hard way, because naturally manufacturers of cheap bulbs want to sell them, not tell you to buy the good ones.

Look for LED bulbs with "Enclosed Fixture Rated" if that's where you are going to use them.

[MK14]

“Why not go down to, one modern, power efficient server/computer, at perhaps 0.15KW, by using virtualization software, to create all the other servers, on the single server/computer. It would make your room more habitable as well.”

For one thing, it’s heating my room up and it’s cold this time of year. Actually I could set them to idle or turn some of them off altogether but it’s proxy revenge against my roommate via society with interest for having to turn the hall lights on 30 times a day for the last few months. They aren’t even mining I have them computing Pi. Crypto is a mania I predict a complete collapse this year.

On a more serious note. You might as well put/allow the servers to go into idle mode, switch them off when you are not using them and/or consider more power efficient equipment. On the other hand, I agree that a hall light (especially a shared one), should be on, at least during the evenings (maybe the day as well, depending on what natural light windows are available in the hall). But as already mentioned, there are also, automatic versions, for shared hall ways.

[nth_degree]

“OK, so you are just a horrible and harmful person, on purpose. For a moment I thought you just need some guidance, but now I'm quite sure you are unfixable.“

I sincerely want to know how the electrical system works. But yes I suppose I’m spiteful and vengeful and not only am I not ashamed of that, I’m outright proud of it. I don’t believe in the concept of a good person, and if I did subscribe to it the attributes that make someone good obviously wouldn’t be if they saved energy or recycled the trash. So I’m asking, again sincerely, what is the purpose of these addictive repetitive  activities we are being forced or coerced into performing? Could it be that the government thinks if they can make us perform a thousand nonsense actions without questioning we will be less likely to resist when they ask us to perform one with real consequences? I don’t know. Looking at the obsession in my roommate I have decided there’s more to this. I had to see the non sequitur example he made, for it to become clear there’s something less than genuine going on here. Not that I’m calling shenanigans and conspiracy at the government necessarily.

[Capernicus]

I think the energy is there be used.   Leave it to the power company to do things more conservatively,  its not our responsability.
My computer runs 24/7,  it's how I like it.

[SilverSolder]

“OK, so you are just a horrible and harmful person, on purpose. For a moment I thought you just need some guidance, but now I'm quite sure you are unfixable.“

I sincerely want to know how the electrical system works. But yes I suppose I’m spiteful and vengeful and not only am I not ashamed of that, I’m outright proud of it. I don’t believe in the concept of a good person, and if I did subscribe to it the attributes that make someone good obviously wouldn’t be if they saved energy or recycled the trash. So I’m asking, again sincerely, what is the purpose of these addictive repetitive  activities we are being forced or coerced into performing? Could it be that the government thinks if they can make us perform a thousand nonsense actions without questioning we will be less likely to resist when they ask us to perform one with real consequences? I don’t know. But these activities are a scam in my eyes.

A lot of things are done and said just to make people feel better.   Is that such a bad thing...  ?

[Capernicus]

“OK, so you are just a horrible and harmful person, on purpose. For a moment I thought you just need some guidance, but now I'm quite sure you are unfixable.“

I sincerely want to know how the electrical system works. But yes I suppose I’m spiteful and vengeful and not only am I not ashamed of that, I’m outright proud of it. I don’t believe in the concept of a good person, and if I did subscribe to it the attributes that make someone good obviously wouldn’t be if they saved energy or recycled the trash. So I’m asking, again sincerely, what is the purpose of these addictive repetitive  activities we are being forced or coerced into performing? Could it be that the government thinks if they can make us perform a thousand nonsense actions without questioning we will be less likely to resist when they ask us to perform one with real consequences? I don’t know. But these activities are a scam in my eyes.

A lot of things are done and said just to make people feel better.   Is that such a bad thing...  ?

Then we are telling each other "white lies"  and its politicly correct bullcrap.  > : )

[Siwastaja]

Oh, I even agree with you in that people mix up the order of importance, concentrating on tiny actions that have tiny consequences, while being totally oblivious about large contributors of energy usage.

Large issues: house insulation, living standards regarding the size of the family home and room temperature, usage of hot water in taking excessively long showers, communities designed around using private cars regularly to get anywhere, excessive long-distance traveling, excessive throwaway single-use fashion

Small issues: single-use plastic straws (a huge discussion in EU), leaving LED lights on for a few minutes more than necessary...

Your conclusion (others are in your eyes hypocrites -> do deliberate harm) is just illogical, and incorrect.

Instead, take your time into learning about how the world around you really works - and no, just asking heated questions on a forum, expecting a quick answer won't do, it takes more effort than that. As a result of understanding, you don't need to become one of the hypocrites, and you don't need to even advertise yourself being a "good person".

[MK14]

Oh, I even agree with you in that people mix up the order of importance, concentrating on tiny actions that have tiny consequences, while being totally oblivious about large contributors of energy usage.

I haven't done the precise calculations, so could be wrong. But when I hear, people say, they collected a bag of recycling, be it paper/plastic and so on. Then DROVE IT to their local recycling centre, and recycled it. Because, on the one hand, they saved a tiny bit of precious Earth resources, by recycling that stuff. But probably consumed massively more by DRIVING there. Because that probably consumes far more energy and resource consumption. Because of burning the fuel and wearing out their car, in order to get there.
tl;dr
Saving £0.02 worth of recycling, but spending £2 in Petrol (Gasoline) fuel costs, car running costs, and perhaps £10 worth of their time, which perhaps could have been used, more productively.
Sure, saving the planet is a good idea, but not if it involves wasting far more resources in the process.

[nth_degree]

Because its about the social rewards they get from people witnessing their ‘altruistic’ act. They get a job promotion for being a principled character on the same political team, or the pretty girl with green hair will notice them. It has -nothing- to do with the environment. They found a system to game.

[Siwastaja]

I haven't done the precise calculations, so could be wrong. But when I hear, people say, they collected a bag of recycling, be it paper/plastic and so on. Then DROVE IT to their local recycling centre, and recycled it.

The root issue in your example is the production of that waste to begin with. Why was it needed? If it was needed, then why it needs to go to waste? Chances are, 95% of it was completely unnecessary to begin with (typical example being single-use throwaway fashion, which I thought was a small problem, but then saw the numbers somewhere and it's really huge, like a well-organized industrial process designed to produce unbelievable amounts of waste).

But this is just how our lives are organized today. Go to work, get paid, have to do something with that money so buy some unnecessary crap, then throw it away.

[voltsandjolts]

some unnecessary crap, then throw it away.

This. There is so much unecessary crap, and people lap it up, often goods going from shelf to waste in days.

BS flyers in the mail is one example that wastes thousands (millions?) of tonnes of paper every year.
You can register to opt-out, but it should be register to opt-in.
But government won't do that because 'it hurts economy, some flyers actually sell crap you know'.

The environment loses every time, until we all lose big time.

[CaptDon]

Obviously nth_degree is nothing more than a f--king troll who gets jollies from pissing people off. 5kw of servers......Bullshit, maybe if the supplies were fully loaded which they aren't. Calculating Pi, to what end?? Are you intending to print it out on 5 tons of paper to show to the world??? You are an analog to the douche bags of the CB daze running a 2kw linear amplifier to disrupt everyone else's intelligent conversations with your mindless rhetoric and bullshit dribble. Since you obviously don't work in the power industry you have only an opinion and no factual support to your made up theories. This is what allows us to know your are an asshat of the nth_degree. For anyone reading my post, stop replying to his posts and end this thread now. He is nothing but a troll.

[MK14]

I thought I'd put a funny picture up, to describe your two nice replies (nth_degree and Siwastaja) to my post.

[Microdoser]

Asks "Tell me why I am wrong"

Doesn't accept or try to understand any of the reasons why they are wrong.

Hilarious.

[Simon]

turning off unused lights is worthwhile. I have to admit that I am guilty of leaving them on more than necessary partly because they are now low power partly because I can claim that I am generating the power for them anyway but this is not quite true as I generate with solar by day so while I save a little emissions by day I may create more by night as more carbon based generation will be running.

Whether or not it is worth turning them off at this point is slightly subjective. Yes if it becomes your constant focus you are worrying too much. but it also makes sense not to be wasteful. The grid as a whole has a fairly steady load and yes is reasonably predictable which is why prices at the same time of two consecutive days can be one 10 times the other because they are good at forecasting, know what to do and how much it will cost them.

Yes if we all try to not waste it does make a difference. We have made great strides in device efficiency such that for 20 years we stabilized demand against a growing population. Those easy gains made by the designers are now over and we are down to our own behaviours and other more forcibly reactive technologies like smart grids that will turn loads off automatically to protect the grid from failure.

In the UK each household has available about 2kW at any one time or 660W per person. That is why as shown in that youtube clip the turning on of millions of kettles after a TV program is a big deal, each kettle will use 2-3kW so 100-150% of that households average availability, either by chance other houses are not using as much or some extra power is found pretty damn quick. Let's not forget that while the missus may be watching corrie, her husband may be using some other power hungry device not mention the heating demand in winter.

[Nusa]

Just occurred to me that the 5 kW claim doesn't pass the smell test.

First, it's unlikely a residential rental room would have that much available. It would need to be spread among three 15 or 20A 120V circuits to avoid tripping breakers.

Second, if you were really dumping 5 kW of heat into one room continuously, you'd have to have open windows to avoid boiling.

So you're either deliberately exaggerating, or you're adding up power supply ratings and are ignorant of the fact they are almost never run anywhere near full power.

[MK14]

or you're adding up power supply ratings and are ignorant of the fact they are almost never run anywhere near full power.

If it has dual power supplies, and only uses (at max), half the maximum power output, of just one power supply (over-rated for long life expectancy and reliability). Then they could be confused, by the fact they have a pair of (perhaps) 300 watt power supplies, in each server.
So, 300W x 2 (dual) x 8 (servers) = 4,800 Watts.
Which is just the maximum capacity of all the supplies. But the real power consumption, could be, more like a killowatt, or so.

As you suggested, 5KW would rapidly make a small (typical students room), like a sauna.

[Siwastaja]

Just occurred to me that the 5 kW claim doesn't pass the smell test.

Of course. 5kW is the heating power I need to keep the whole house (two stairs) at +21degC when it's -20degC outside. (Obviously, with decent insulation for the climate.) In a single room, even during heating season, that would mean keeping the windows all open. Obviously it's bogus, like some nominal maximum rating of the power supplies summed up or similar.

Especially in warmer climates, instead of calculating Pi at COP=1.0, use an air source heat pump for heating and forget the Pi. It has been calculated to enough decimal places already by others.

[BrianHG]

We are ignoring this guy might be a crypto miner.  Then his servers will consume full power all time.
Then again, if he was, he would be minimizing power losses by shutting off the damn lights when not in use.

[Gyro]

We are ignoring this guy might be a crypto miner....

He certainly shows the environmental consciousness of one!

[MK14]

We are ignoring this guy might be a crypto miner.  Then his servers will consume full power all time.
Then again, if he was, he would be minimizing power losses by shutting off the damn lights when not in use.

I ruled that option out, as they seem to think it is a bad idea investing computation/money in it.

Crypto is a mania I predict a complete collapse this year.

[Ground_Loop]

Wow, a non conformist not doing everything possible to save humanity from scourge of energy waste while living in Berkeley.  I escaped decades ago to a carbon footprint friendly environment.  You must have a hard existence there.  Get out while you can.

[tszaboo]

I have to somewhat agree. There is always someone who turns off the CCFL light in the company restroom. Takes 15 seconds to turn on, otherwise you are blind. And it is CCFL, so every time you turn it on, it dies a bit. I could probably make a small TED talk about how this is stupid, but whatever.

[nth_degree]

Double this plus some K80s. yea its pretty cozy in here. yea I use 4 dual sockets to spread the load

[MK14]

You could be burning up more money in electricity, than the rent you pay.

[nth_degree]

It's like being warmed by the fires of hell

[MK14]

It's like being warmed by the fires of hell

Somehow, that doesn't seem to add up.

[nth_degree]

Check this out https://qst.darkfactor.org/

One of the questions is;

I would like to make some people suffer, even if it meant that I would go to hell with them.

[Zero999]

Note: Fluorescents were a different story. The energy cost of starting them is much higher than the cost of running them, so there was a legitimate energy argument for not turning them on and off too frequently. They're obsolete technology now. Those still in use will be replaced as they fail, if not sooner.

That's not true at all. Regardless of whether a fluorescent lamp has an inductive, or electronic ballast, the extra starting power is negligible. The main issue with turning fluorescent lamps on/off repeatedly is it can shorten the life of the tube and it takes awhile for them to warm up.

Just occurred to me that the 5 kW claim doesn't pass the smell test.

Of course. 5kW is the heating power I need to keep the whole house (two stairs) at +21degC when it's -20degC outside. (Obviously, with decent insulation for the climate.) In a single room, even during heating season, that would mean keeping the windows all open. Obviously it's bogus, like some nominal maximum rating of the power supplies summed up or similar.

Especially in warmer climates, instead of calculating Pi at COP=1.0, use an air source heat pump for heating and forget the Pi. It has been calculated to enough decimal places already by others.

Unless the electrical power is mostly renewable, he'd be better off using natural gas for heating, rather than resistive heating!

[Bicurico]

From an economical and environmental point of view, I would say the roommate is corect. Switching off all electric devices when they are not needed, saves energy, saves the environment and results in a lower energy bill.

Most consumer electronics are perfectly able to withstand many switching cycles and there are probably few devices where an increased reduction of lifetime is noticable, mainly due to heat/cooling cycles.

All of this seems to have been discussed in this thread.

However, there is one aspect that I have not seen being discussed (but then, I only read this thread superficially, maybe I missed it): "quality of life".

Not everything in life has to be optimized! It gives pleasure and comfort to enter a room which is lighted. Same goes with having a radio switched on even if you are not actively listening to it. There are many more examples.

I moved from a period of my life, where i switched everything off (using the switch on the socket strip to physically disconnect everything like TV, STB, consoles, etc.) to the current state, where I leave everything switched on or in standby. My main computer is switched on 24/7 - this way I don't have to boot it up when I need to use it and I can remote access every time I need it.

I may be paying 100 Euro more per year, but heck, it is totally worth it.

My wife likes to have the night stand light in the bedrooms switched on at night before going to bed, even with nobody in the room. It used to annoy me, but nowadays I actually understand the warmth of going into the bedroom and there is light.

Am I bad person for "wasting" energy? Well, I don't think so: I try to spend less in fuel and why is my behaviour worse than another person heating the house to 21ºC in the winter, crypto-mining or playing Xbox or Playstation (which is totally useless from a biological point of view and only serves to waste energy).

Conclusion: If you want to speak with your roommate and if he is really annoying you, you can try to explain him that having the lights on means comfort to you and it is worth the extra money spent in the electrical bill. You may then negotiate if he is willing to pay for half of the excess money (perhaps in compensation for his habits that cost you money). Otherwise, offer to pay the excess energy bill yourself.

But don't use physics to argue for something that will simply not be true.

Regards,
Vitor

[Simon]

I have to somewhat agree. There is always someone who turns off the CCFL light in the company restroom. Takes 15 seconds to turn on, otherwise you are blind. And it is CCFL, so every time you turn it on, it dies a bit. I could probably make a small TED talk about how this is stupid, but whatever.

I used to turn CFL's on and off all the time, never had them die particularly quickly. Thankfully all LED now and white. I remember people leaving PC's turned on because apparently it was better than constantly thermal shocking them - there may be some tiny truth there, but so tiny against all the other reality that it becomes a lie....

[Alti]

Thank you for starting this topic. IMHO this is a valid question.
Is there any benefit in switching off lights nowadays?

It is true that times change, incandescent is being phased out, fluorescent took its place and now LED is anticipated to dominate the market. However, the lighting control process did not change much. This still involves producing power, distribution, switching loads ON/OFF, maintaining bulbs(manufacturing, distribution, replacing, cleaning, recycling) etc. Just the parameters march in time, and so does the "beneficial" behaviour.

So, after defining what "benefit" is, what are the actual gains and losses, this process can be characterised and objective answer can be given.

In case of OP the answer is quite simple since benefit involves only the negative factors of work and planning needed to click on the light switches, fights with professor, the discomfort when there is not enough light to pass the corridor, the need for bulb replacement. There is no energy cost involved in his "benefit" concept. This is quite a special case but only under these conditions described the question posed can be answered.

Of course I cannot show you a precise mathematical model of lighting environment but I can give some guidelines how to build it and understand if these behaviours are beneficial or not.

1. When considering the "benefit" model, imagine that you are not a unique person and there are millions (of clones) around with similar behaviour, who start kettle at the same time as you do. Don't count 5W bulb but X millions of 5W bulbs. All of them click ON/OFF straining input caps, there are M factories that constantly spill out bulbs to supply them, N processing plants that recycle worn-out LEDs, P electricians running around and fixing worn out switches, etc.

2. The switching ON or OFF the light comes at a price. This is mostly inconvenience, cost of accidents that happen because of darkness, but also some fixed cost of the necessity of including gazillions of switches and wiring and maintaining this additional part. Keep in mind this is not how street lighting is managed - it is turned on once and turned off once, per day.

3. It is clear that varying the efficacy of light, at some point of development, with other factors fixed, it is less and less "beneficial" to tightly control the energy used by the bulbs.

Can anyone link some papers that describe the "benefit" process? I'd be interested to analyse some coarse approximation with 3-4 parameters. The real world process is of course very complicated, that is obvious I hope. But it does exist, same as "beneficial" behaviour.

[Simon]

2. The switching ON or OFF the light comes at a price. This is mostly inconvenience, cost of accidents that happen because of darkness, but also some fixed cost of the necessity of including gazillions of switches and wiring and maintaining this additional part. Keep in mind this is not how street lighting is managed - it is turned on once and turned off once, per day.

Just think about it, how can you control street lights? I guess now that they are LED they can be turned on quickly. My local council tried to save money by halving the amount of lights, now the streets are poorly lit. You could use some sort of motion sensing but this would become rather complex. It works for my driveway floodlight so instead of running 10W all night it comes on for less than 1 hour although every cat triggers it too.

[mcz]

What about the amount of power the industry uses compared to the "public civilian sector"  I bet its more than 1000x more power usage,  but I'm only guessing.

I don't want to hijack this nice troll thread but this guess could not be further from the truth.

While I don't live in the US, my country also has still a bit of industry left and the total energy usage when you compary industry and private households is about the same.
If you just compare the electrical energy usage it will end up at a (very roughly) 2:1 ratio. So industry only using twice the amount of electrical energy compared to private homes.



In this more or less recent image the central pie chart is the important one. It's in german but the translations are:
Verkehr -> traffic
Industrie -> industry
Gewerbe, Handel und Diensleistungen -> commercial stuff (but not industrial stuff)
Haushalte -> private households

If you want to use google translate you can actually figure out how much of which energy source each sector uses (the 4 surrounding pie charts)


cheers

[Simon]

efficiencies are being made all round. Factory lighting is being swapped to LED and there is with LED more of a chance that light sensing lights will be used that will turn on and off automatically. For example my last place had transparent sections in the factory roof such that in the summer lights were not needed but as the factory floor manager did not like to spend money he did not have the automatic lights installed. Instead he went around manually turning them off to cut his running costs and make his bonus bigger.

[Simon]

One of the members here works at a wind tunnel that uses 4MW at full output, that is just one facility using 0.01% of all of the power used on average in the UK.

[tszaboo]

I have to somewhat agree. There is always someone who turns off the CCFL light in the company restroom. Takes 15 seconds to turn on, otherwise you are blind. And it is CCFL, so every time you turn it on, it dies a bit. I could probably make a small TED talk about how this is stupid, but whatever.

I used to turn CFL's on and off all the time, never had them die particularly quickly. Thankfully all LED now and white. I remember people leaving PC's turned on because apparently it was better than constantly thermal shocking them - there may be some tiny truth there, but so tiny against all the other reality that it becomes a lie....

https://www.lightingdesignlab.com/resources/articles/articles-lighting-fundamentals/should-i-turn-fluorescent-lights-when-leaving-room

"Every time a fluorescent light is turned on, a tiny amount of the coating on the electrodes is burned off. Eventually, enough coating is burned off, and the lamp fails to start. Most full-size fluorescent lamps are rated to last 20,000 hours when left on for 3 hours every time they are turned on. This means that the lamp has roughly 6,667 starts available to use up. (20,000/3 = 6,667)"
But honestly, just calculate how much time is wasted, by people waiting for the lights to turn on, then be blinded by the blinky-blinky. For a corporate setting, having that extra dozens of watts is nothing.
That being said, I usually turn off lights in unused room. I also keep it on in corridors at home, they are on a timer, because not seeing enough is just a safety danger.

2. The switching ON or OFF the light comes at a price. This is mostly inconvenience, cost of accidents that happen because of darkness, but also some fixed cost of the necessity of including gazillions of switches and wiring and maintaining this additional part. Keep in mind this is not how street lighting is managed - it is turned on once and turned off once, per day.

Just think about it, how can you control street lights? I guess now that they are LED they can be turned on quickly. My local council tried to save money by halving the amount of lights, now the streets are poorly lit. You could use some sort of motion sensing but this would become rather complex. It works for my driveway floodlight so instead of running 10W all night it comes on for less than 1 hour although every cat triggers it too.

They had a test run of this near where I was living. Motion sensors to turn on street lighting for cars and pedestrians. It was miserable to drive that way, the system never worked as it should.

[bson]

I habitually turn off lights when I leave a room; there is no waste of time since it doesn't take any.  It also doesn't really matter with LED lighting, but back when we used bulbs if they weren't turned off you could easily end up with 10-15 75W bulbs burning around the clock around the house.  750W+ for 24 hours, 30 days a month will add up.  Most lighting was also not frequently used - things like attic, storage, garage, and so on so not much wear from thermal cycling.  These days those areas of course have LED lighting on motion sensors.  I grew up poor, so there wasn't money to waste on things that provided zero utility or benefit.

But it's totally just a habit these days.  Just like I always wash my hands after going to the bathroom, before handling food, or after coming in from outside.  I don't even think about it.  The pre-frontal cortex isn't active and I usually don't even remember it.

[Simon]

When I swapped my home lights from CFL to LED I took the old CFL's into work and swapped out the 4 100W incandescent's in the office toilets for them. I just could not believe it when I took the bulbs down and read on them that they were 100W. So 400Wh were running about 9 hours a day or 3.6kWh was being used a day for lights that were actually of used for about 1 hour a day. They then had all the lights changed to LED and  motion sensor lights were put in.

But no one in particular was paying for that power so no one cared. In my simple act of recycling I saved 3.2kWh a day!

[Zero999]

One of the members here works at a wind tunnel that uses 4MW at full output, that is just one facility using 0.01% of all of the power used on average in the UK.

32MW peak and managers worry about saving energy.

[Simon]

so nearly 1% of average consumption. Yes but still other aspects of the business should be efficient. It's not like they would just run at 50% wind tunnel power because who cares. The small things matter too because we all do them. As I said we have maintained a flat consumption over 20 years with a growing population as things got more efficient. Now power consumption is going up and we have to start providing that power. there anly has to be a fractional shortage of power on the grid and standby plants are called on who will charge much higher rates.

[Simon]

So I just left the house to drop off some parcels.

As I've been rather inactive I cycled rather than drive, with the round trip of 2.6 miles this saved about 1kW that the car will not be recharging by tonight. As I am running BOINC and folding at home my PC is loaded to the hilt all the time and it was not worth turning it off, but the two 50W monitors did turn off once I left my desk, so 100W saved. I also turned off the room lights as I left, 15W worth. So for the 30 minutes I was out 57.5Wh was saved at a rate of 115W, now consider that out of a population of 70 million some 1000 other people are doing similar things at the same time, turning 10's of watts of things off for a short time while not needed, that would equate to 115kW less draw on the grid. In the UK that is equivalent to the power available to 50 homes or 150 people who now can use that power. We use on average 2kW per home or 660W per person precisely because there is a certain profile of power consumption. If lots of people are practicing the same thing on average it will make a difference - for better or worse. If on average our consumption increases to more than 660W per person on average then more supply has to be called in and prices rise as the energy market is a live auction system running on the demand for a 30 minute slot, every 30 minutes the price changes based on who is supplying and what type of generator they are. Most of these are prearranged the day before some are held on standby and we pay for them regardless of whether they are used or not.

[mcz]

One of the members here works at a wind tunnel that uses 4MW at full output, that is just one facility using 0.01% of all of the power used on average in the UK.

32MW peak and managers worry about saving energy.

32MW for a wind tunnel? That's the rated power output of 10 decent size land based windmills. With a rotor diameter in the ballpark of 100 meters each. Does this thing fit an entire A380 or what?

Also I find it odd to discuss turning the lights off. Since you walk by the damn switch when leaving the room you might as well hit it. It does not take any additional time and I would assume most people have been properly educated about it as a child so they don't even have to think about it. But whatever, maybe some people need to burn some extra cash so they don't need to worry about inflation.

[Simon]

32MW for a wind tunnel? That's the rated power output of 10 decent size land based windmills. With a rotor diameter in the ballpark of 100 meters each. Does this thing fit an entire A380 or what?

look up fan laws........

[Alti]

Also I find it odd to discuss turning the lights off. Since you walk by the damn switch when leaving the room you might as well hit it.

I disagree, the discussion is an important one.
This is an activity everyone (8B of us?) is doing not questioning "what for".

"Hitting a damn switch" is an activity that eats up resources. If switch is in a convenient location when leaving the room, it might not be as convenient when you get back. What if you get back in half a minute? What if you come back with tea in one hand and plate with some cookies in the other? This switch had to be bought, installed and maintained you know. This does not come for free. From the fact you switch on/off the light every time you leave the room and then with both hands occupied turn light on with your forehead is odd, not the OP's question. Or you could do that in two rounds, first tea then cookies. Now please tell us what do you do with corridor lights once you turn the room light on? So you put the tea on the table and then you hit the switch and leave the room to hit the corridor lights off? Or do you run around in complte darkness? Your "when leaving the room you might as well hit it" we do that quite frequently but NONE of us does that every time. Attitudes span from 7/24 lights ON down to switching light OFF while blinking.

Of course you can have gazillion of switches in every room and corridor, on this and other side of the door, for left and right handed, short and tall, motion sensors and timers. This does not change the fact that this "light demand adjustment" eats up resources.  Training, wiring, maintenance, spilled tea, planning and inconvenience, disagreements within family and tenants.

Is this dance justified? My answer is: I do not know. What I know that at some efficacy/kWh_price fraction this is irrational as this leads to more losses than benefits (OP's point).

[james_s]

“Nothing will be lost since power generation is adjusted according to consumption.”

That’s simply not true in practice. If a bulb is on or off in my home the generation quota from the plant will be the same. Sure if our collective behavior of thousands of people creates enough reduction in demand for the station to reduce the quota power will be saved assuming those people have behavior that is consistent. In reality though if I turn off the light, the power being distributed in the moment just goes to ground and since people are unpredictable even as a group, the quota for a sector never changes.

It's all averaged out. You are looking at this the wrong way, it is not just your roommate turning off that light, it's millions of other people out there turning off lights, while other people are turning on lights. You may not think it matters if you take a rock from a national park for example, it's just a rock, there are millions of rocks, so what are you really saving by not taking one? Well consider if every visitor to the park took a rock.

Personally I turn off lights I'm not using because I feel more relaxed in subdued lighting. I doubt I would really notice much difference in my bill if I left them all on but it adds up over time.

[jonovid]

in the age of energy efficient lighting, hitting light switch's everywhere is symbolic or visual signaling I have family members that will do this.
but its the big domestic appliances that matter. as walking into dark rooms is a little unpleasant. real estate agents understand this selling point.
on the flip side some home builders will pix up a plastic bag, but dump a trailer load if to avoid rubbish tip fees.
if it looks biodegradable.

[SiliconWizard]

I've not read quite all, but... No, the energy won't be lost if you don't use it here. So yes, switching off the lights will save energy.
Now is that worth the trouble? As many have probably said, if all your lighting is LED-based, the power consumption of your lighting in the whole house, even if you left them all on 24/7, would be pretty negligible compared to all the rest.

So yeah, it's more a symbolic gesture than anything else. But in that, it's no different from a lot of what we currently do for "saving the planet".
If anyone feels better doing it, so be it. Although, if it becomes borderline obsessive, it may in the end do more harm to them than good. But that's for his doctor to say, not us. =)

[John B]

Well..... use motion-controlled switches instead. Happy roommate, happy you.

For an electronics forum, I'm surprised only 1 person suggested this. I make my own lighting using 5V DC powered motion sensors paired to a micro, but you could even use a 555.

It doesn't have to be a permanent installation, and it's all powered through offline power supplies, so no issues with setting it up a rental yourself, and removing it when you leave.

[BILLPOD]

Good Morning Simon, they put motion sensing switches in the men's room where I used to work.  Then the BIG boss went into a stall to take a dump and after a couple minutes the motion switches shut the lights out and he had to guess when his bum was wiped sufficiently.  The next day the motion switches were gone.
 in the office toilets for them. I just could not believe it when I took the bulbs down and read on them that they were 100W. So 400Wh were running about 9 hours a day or 3.6kWh was being used a day for lights that were actually of used for about 1 hour a day. They then had all the lights changed to LED and  motion sensor lights were put in.

[Simon]

Good Morning Simon, they put motion sensing switches in the men's room where I used to work.  Then the BIG boss went into a stall to take a dump and after a couple minutes the motion switches shut the lights out and he had to guess when his bum was wiped sufficiently.  The next day the motion switches were gone.
 in the office toilets for them. I just could not believe it when I took the bulbs down and read on them that they were 100W. So 400Wh were running about 9 hours a day or 3.6kWh was being used a day for lights that were actually of used for about 1 hour a day. They then had all the lights changed to LED and  motion sensor lights were put in.

Yes, motion lights with too short a time out are pointless, and they did that too. I mean it should be 10 minutes not 2.

[John B]

Toilet stalls are also a problem for motion sensors as it creates a lot of dark/shadowed areas for the sensor(s) with the high stall walls. Not to mention being a commercial/work penny pinching environment, probably only 1 senor gets installed 

[HobGoblyn]

I haven't done the precise calculations, so could be wrong. But when I hear, people say, they collected a bag of recycling, be it paper/plastic and so on. Then DROVE IT to their local recycling centre, and recycled it.

The root issue in your example is the production of that waste to begin with. Why was it needed? If it was needed, then why it needs to go to waste? Chances are, 95% of it was completely unnecessary to begin with (typical example being single-use throwaway fashion, which I thought was a small problem, but then saw the numbers somewhere and it's really huge, like a well-organized industrial process designed to produce unbelievable amounts of waste).

When I was a kid (60/70s) I don’t recall anyone complaining that veg or meat wasn’t wrapped in plastic, confectionery wrapping was always made of paper etc.

No consumer asked for it, now we have to spend the extra time sorting it into the right coloured bins (and occasionally find out months later that it all ended up in the same place anyway)

The fashion trade as a whole is messed up, but it seems to go into other areas.  If someone famous was seen out in the same dress twice, it would probably make headline news in the tabloids.

Most people here enjoy fixing things. Before I took up this hobby, about 7 years ago my Zanussi Dryer packed up.

I contacted Zanussi, will cost more to fix than a new machine.

Went to a white goods forum, someone said it’s the main board, you can’t fix them and it’s something like £250 for a new one.

I thought it was worth a go trying to fix it, all I did was run my cheap fixed temperature soldering iron over most of the joints.  7 years later it’s still working 100% fine and as my wife is a mobile hairdresser, gets used multiple times per week.


Mind you, if I called someone out to remove the board, take it to their lab and see if they could fix it etc, it probably would be cheaper to buy a new machine.


It’s a strange world we live in, but it’s not one that most consumers asked for.

[CatalinaWOW]

There are a variety of arguments here.  On the simplest, the physics says that turning off lights and other energy conserving tactics works.  More complicated, is the savings worth it based on comfort, happiness etc.

But the real zinger is that if there are going to be 16 billion of us living here in a few years, comfort and happiness will not be important.  You can only split the pie so many ways.  The real optimization would be to figure out how many people it takes to support an advanced technology civilization in comfort and how do we turn off the babies to get to that number.

[not1xor1]

There is a known and well studied negative effect of all those energy saving measures, but it depends on the biased human nature.
Most people using LED lighting, electric cars, etc. unknowingly leave them on more and more often or make more road trips and at higher speed... «who cares we are saving energy» !?!?

Switching off lights makes sense if you do not have to go back into that room in a couple of minutes. But I've seen youngster keeping TVs, PCs, lights always on and local politicians adding more and more street lights because they are energy savings so who matters or those electric cars with ludicrous power, hundredths of KW just for making a couple of km from home to the shopping mall... and all those (typical US) homes lit like huge Christmas trees.

But we all have to make our best efforts to reduce energy waste. Switch off unused lights as soon as possible. If possible switch on small power light spots where needed rather than a more powerful light in the middle of the room, and so on.

[mcz]

Also I find it odd to discuss turning the lights off. Since you walk by the damn switch when leaving the room you might as well hit it.

I disagree, the discussion is an important one.
This is an activity everyone (8B of us?) is doing not questioning "what for".

"Hitting a damn switch" is an activity that eats up resources. If switch is in a convenient location when leaving the room, it might not be as convenient when you get back. What if you get back in half a minute? What if you come back with tea in one hand and plate with some cookies in the other? This switch had to be bought, installed and maintained you know. This does not come for free. From the fact you switch on/off the light every time you leave the room and then with both hands occupied turn light on with your forehead is odd, not the OP's question. Or you could do that in two rounds, first tea then cookies. Now please tell us what do you do with corridor lights once you turn the room light on? So you put the tea on the table and then you hit the switch and leave the room to hit the corridor lights off? Or do you run around in complte darkness? Your "when leaving the room you might as well hit it" we do that quite frequently but NONE of us does that every time. Attitudes span from 7/24 lights ON down to switching light OFF while blinking.

Of course you can have gazillion of switches in every room and corridor, on this and other side of the door, for left and right handed, short and tall, motion sensors and timers. This does not change the fact that this "light demand adjustment" eats up resources.  Training, wiring, maintenance, spilled tea, planning and inconvenience, disagreements within family and tenants.

Is this dance justified? My answer is: I do not know. What I know that at some efficacy/kWh_price fraction this is irrational as this leads to more losses than benefits (OP's point).

If I leave the room and I do not use it anymore (aka I do not plan on coming back) I turn the lights off. The chances of me returning because I forgot something might be high but I very likely won't do that with a cup of tea.
On the other hand you might not turn the light off and go do something else for just a short while (oh so you thought) when suddenly a family member or friend calls and you gotta leave. Now you left the lights on but want to leave the house so you run all the way back upstairs and flip the switch. Meh.
Yes, you can discuss this all the time but in the end beeing mindful about what the heck I am doing right now and hitting a switch does not cost me any money while electricity does. We all forget it quite frequently but the general intention is still there and it works most of the time.

A 10W LED bulb costs me about 7.2 cents a day. Assuming 8 hours a day usage of a room that's 4.8 cents gone for nothing. So installing a light switch for 20 bucks total (assuming it is done right away) actually pays in about 420 days (nice).
Over a lifetime of 20 years it is 350 bucks saved. And even it it didn't, having a 24/7 light is hugely annoying.

I think electricity as well as central heat lost the appreciation it deserves for bringing us so much comfort in our daily lives. Letting it go to waste just because of my own lazyness is not something I intend to do.

[james_s]

Good Morning Simon, they put motion sensing switches in the men's room where I used to work.  Then the BIG boss went into a stall to take a dump and after a couple minutes the motion switches shut the lights out and he had to guess when his bum was wiped sufficiently.  The next day the motion switches were gone.
 in the office toilets for them. I just could not believe it when I took the bulbs down and read on them that they were 100W. So 400Wh were running about 9 hours a day or 3.6kWh was being used a day for lights that were actually of used for about 1 hour a day. They then had all the lights changed to LED and  motion sensor lights were put in.

I worked at a place that had that too, it was the dumbest thing ever. They installed the sensors where there were originally switches, next to the door and facing the opposite wall rather than out into the room. Multiple times I had the lights shut off while I was in a stall and had to use the flashlight on my phone.

[coppercone2]

in the USA: 5.6 billion bulbs, times 10 watts (conservative), 56 (GW) billion watts in use.

The quotes are 2% of total use. 2% of anything for national things is very big.

[Siwastaja]

The quality of life argument is interesting.

The best thing that's happened during last decade is the phase-out of CFLs. Good riddance.

Take an example of a bathroom or storage room bulb. Low duty cycle of use, short on-period in just minutes.

Say, it's originally a 60W incandescent bulb. Light switch placed at convenient location, it's no big deal to turn lights on and off.

Now replaced with a 11W CFL, it's simply too dim for a minute or two, especially if the room is cold. So while the energy efficiency seemingly goes up, the quality of life is devastated below what is acceptable; it's simply too dark. Now this issue is sidestepped by keeping that light always on. The end result is hugely increased energy consumption compared to the original incandescent bulb (because the duty cycle of use was so low that average power with the incandescent was small).

Now enter the LED. Not only the power consumption drops to 6W, meaning keeping the light on all the time (by accident, or on purpose) has significantly smaller impact, but the user can also go back in the old habit of turning the light on and off as they enter and exit the room, basically dropping the energy consumption to zero.

[Bicurico]

As I mentioned in my previous post, quality of life is a huge argument.

For private homes, leaving light switched on can have many subjective reasons, which are all rationally wrong, but contribute to well being none the less.

If you have pets like dogs or cats for instance, it is not uncommon to leave a light on when you are not at home, so that the pet can be more comfortable - at least in the human's opinion.

If you are at night doing stuff (cleaning, getting a snack, watching TV and going to toilet), it just is more convenient and comfortable to have lights switched on in the room and corridors. It makes the ambient more cosy and secure.

Of course you could move in the house switching lights on and off as you move around. But is that really worth it? In the extreme you could just use a flashlight!

And if I pay for my electricity, I don't care if the power I consume requires a turbine to rotate faster or not. I am paying for it.

All this environmental issues are based on misconceptions. The problem is not the consumer who uses more or less power, fuel or whatever. The root of all environmental issues is the fact that there are too many humans on the planet. We should see politicians start thinking of ways to reduce the birth rate, especially in those regions where it is too high.

And we should do something about interest rates, resulting need for economic growth and the whole Pontzi scheme that is social security and pensions.

These are in my opinion the real reasons why we have environmental problems. Switching the light off every time you leave a room will not make any difference at all when all African, Chinese and Indian people (no offense) have access to a house, heating, fridge, car, etc. And why shouldn't they be entitled to the same luxury as us western people?

Regards,
Vitor

[not1xor1]

As I mentioned in my previous post, quality of life is a huge argument.

For private homes, leaving light switched on can have many subjective reasons, which are all rationally wrong, but contribute to well being none the less.

If you have pets like dogs or cats for instance, it is not uncommon to leave a light on when you are not at home, so that the pet can be more comfortable - at least in the human's opinion.

pets usually are more comfortable with dim lights... cats need almost no light
but go on and keep as many lights on as you like... today... and barely survive in the dark tomorrow

[Zero999]

The best thing that's happened during last decade is the phase-out of CFLs. Good riddance.

I've found CFL to be more reliable, than LED, in some applications, especially where it's hot and the lamp is left on for extended periods. CFLs is a bit more efficient, but not enough to outweigh the cost and environmental impact of having to replace LEDs, in places where I've found they're more prone to failure.

[Siwastaja]

Just use incandescent bulbs in hot environments. (And by hot, I don't mean +40degC ambient.)

Yes, I have seen two failed LED bulbs in my life and neither were originally mine so I don't know. One was in sauna, regularly seeing temperatures around 70degC and high humidity. I replaced this with an incandescent bulb. Massive amount of energy is spent heating up the sauna anyway. The loss of the light bulb only contributes to that.

Another one, I have no idea why it failed. So one real failure. Possibly; maybe this bulb was abused as well.

I have seen many CFLs that failed early. Many are dim beyond acceptable after mere 5000h.

The root causes for early LED and CFL failures are very similar, both contain electronics subject to high temperatures.

CFL lasting longer than LED is definitely false generalization which might be true as a single personal observation thanks to small enough sample size - i.e., bad luck. My observation is the opposite. But my sample size is very small (maybe just N=10?) thanks to the fact that every LED bulb I have ever bought still works. Good luck - maybe.

[mcz]

As I mentioned in my previous post, quality of life is a huge argument.

For private homes, leaving light switched on can have many subjective reasons, which are all rationally wrong, but contribute to well being none the less.

If you have pets like dogs or cats for instance, it is not uncommon to leave a light on when you are not at home, so that the pet can be more comfortable - at least in the human's opinion.

If you are at night doing stuff (cleaning, getting a snack, watching TV and going to toilet), it just is more convenient and comfortable to have lights switched on in the room and corridors. It makes the ambient more cosy and secure.

Of course you could move in the house switching lights on and off as you move around. But is that really worth it? In the extreme you could just use a flashlight!

And if I pay for my electricity, I don't care if the power I consume requires a turbine to rotate faster or not. I am paying for it.

[...]

If I have to get up at night I rather use my phone flashlight because it takes too long for my eyes to adjust if I turn the main lights on. Also I need to use the flashlight anyway because I don't want to turn on the bedroom lights and make my wife angry.
And I'm also not scared of the dark so if it's a nice moonshine outside I don't turn on any lights.
On all other occasions I usually use/adjust the light to my needs. Some work requires additional lighting but while watching TV in the evening I like to turn the main lights off and just use a small lamp.

But my point is not related to our personal comfort but that leaving the light on for no reason apart from beeing too lazy to actuate a switch like OP suggested is just lazyness. And there is nothing about it that makes it special and edgy and cool.

And most importantly, the power turbines run at the same speed all the time. Most mechanical generators are of the synchronous type. Electrical power consumption varies the load (torque) that the generator poses but not the frequency (well, hopefully not!)

[MK14]

Electrical power consumption varies the load (torque) that the generator poses but not the frequency (well, hopefully not!)

My understanding is, that the frequency does change (by a rather small amount), as the overall load changes. For example, a major football match, just finishes. So, there is a sudden load increase, as so many people, decide to switch on their 2/3KW Kettles, and make some coffee/tea and/or start their Microwave or conventional ovens, to make a meal, and many other options. So the power company, are constantly adjusting their power generators, to correct for these rather small frequency variations.
Over a period of time, they try and keep the average frequency, at just about bang on the desired 50/60 Hz, so that any mains appliances, such as many digital alarm clocks.
Can keep accurate time. Even though, on a second/minute by second/minute basis, it might be out by a bit. But will not need adjusting, even over many months or years. Assuming the power company have been successful, at keeping up with load variations and other factors.

EDIT: Typos.

[Zero999]

Just use incandescent bulbs in hot environments. (And by hot, I don't mean +40degC ambient.)

I'm talking about 40C such as in the loft, or and enclosure, where I find CFL to be more reliable, than LED, but it's not so hot, that I should use incandescent, which I only use in the oven.

The root causes for early LED and CFL failures are very similar, both contain electronics subject to high temperatures.

The electronics on CFLs are separate from the tube and being 95% efficient don't dissipate much power themselves. They are heated by the tube, but not much, compared to an LED. I can comfortably hold the base of a 11W CFL, but an LED lamp's base gets burningly hot. LEDs are much more temperature sensitive than a fluorescent lamp and dissipate more power than the driver electronics.

[mcz]

Electrical power consumption varies the load (torque) that the generator poses but not the frequency (well, hopefully not!)

My understanding is, that the frequency does change (by a rather small amount), as the overall load changes. For example, a major football match, just finishes. So, there is a sudden load increase, as so many people, decide to switch on their 2/3KW Kettles, and make some coffee/tea and/or start their Microwave or conventional ovens, to make a meal, and many other options. So the power company, are constantly adjusting their power generators, to correct for these rather small frequency variations.
Over a period of time, they try and keep the average frequency, at just about bang on the desired 50/60 Hz, so that any mains appliances, such as many digital alarm clocks.
Can keep accurate time. Even though, on a second/minute by second/minute basis, it might be out by a bit. But will not need adjusting, even over many months or years. Assuming the power company have been successful, at keeping up with load variations and other factors.

EDIT: Typos.

Yeah correct, they (power stations) can use the the frequency as a load indicator. It changes at about 70mHz/GW in continental europe (ballpark figures)..
They also have their predictions for wind/solar and consumption profiles and whatnot so most of the power variation and switching power stations on/off is not just simply reacting to the frequency.

But what I meant was that fundamentally the frequency does not change in the proposed way of
"I boil water" -> "turbine speeds up/freq rise"
The turbine never speeds up to faster speed with all the kettles on than before the end of that football game.

cheers

[rob77]

Yeah correct, they (power stations) can use the the frequency as a load indicator. It changes at about 70mHz/GW in continental europe (ballpark figures)..
They also have their predictions for wind/solar and consumption profiles and whatnot so most of the power variation and switching power stations on/off is not just simply reacting to the frequency.

But what I meant was that fundamentally the frequency does not change in the proposed way of
"I boil water" -> "turbine speeds up/freq rise"
The turbine never speeds up to faster speed with all the kettles on than before the end of that football game.

cheers

no it's: turn the kettle on -> increase the load -> generator slows down because of the load -> turbine gets more power to compensate.. same stuff as the governor/speed controller does on your small petrol power generator.
if there is no extra power to compensate then it stays like that on lower speed and the frequency is lower...

fortunately we have a grid - so all the powerplants are sharing the load, so the frequency drops only when the whole grid is loaded down, and you can compensate by increasing the production on several places.

once a generator is on the grid it doesn't regulate by load anymore , it regulates by the frequency of the grid - it's kept in sync with grid frequency and phase no matter what and if it can't keep up with the frequency of the grid it will get disconnected from the grid, that's why the regulation of grid frequency is important.. it's not because of the clocks using the 50 or 60Hz.. it's because of the grid itself.. 
imagine the grid is loaded so heavily it slows down all the generators a bit , if there was no frequency regulation at grid level , then it would stay at lower frequency, meaning lower speed of generators meaning lower output power which would cause even more slow-down... the grid would slow down to halt - into a blackout. so that's why the frequency is regulated, if it drops the power output of powerplants is raised to compensate. if the frequency raises power output is lowered to compensate (grid could also run-away to high frequencies up to the moment when generators start fail because of overspeed)

[Siwastaja]

Short time deviations are "for the grid itself", you could say so indeed.

But grid is long-time regulated to average 50 or 60Hz exactly because of clocks. Today's there are fewer of them, but it's still a thing.

For the grid itself, what the long time average is doesn't matter, it's just an arbitrary decision, but for timekeeping purposes, the grid is a handy resource, that's why it's carefully regulated so that grid-based timekeeping never requires adjusting - if you can accept self-correcting drift so that the time is never accurate, but also never drifts too far.

[isambard]

“I've had about a half dozen or so bulbs fail”

LED bulbs at my home have a very short lifespan, so much so we’ve created an Amazon subscription. On average a bulb lasts 5 months in a recessed socket. I think heat is responsible, and the drivers are dying. I can’t imagine the LEDs can fail so quickly.

My parents had this problem. I was ordering dozens of bulbs for them constantly to replace the recessed bulbs in the kitchen. In the end, I got fed up and in desperation paid for much more expensive brand name bulbs instead of the cheapo units. They lasted much longer. It seems that the main culprit is that the ceiling recesses basically captured heat and the cheaper ones seemed to die very easily whereas the more expensive ones either had better cooling, components or were better built and lasted way, way longer.

[Terry Bites]

Its a piffling amount of of CO2 saved compared with the AC or heating system. 
To your overall energy costs it's microscopic saving.

Froth on the ocean.

[Vovk_Z]

What about the amount of power the industry uses compared to the "public civilian sector"  I bet its more than 1000x more power usage,  but I'm only guessing.

It can be about 50/50, or 40/60 (an industry has a bit higher consumption typically, but not much).

[Vovk_Z]

Short time deviations are "for the grid itself", you could say so indeed.

But grid is long-time regulated to average 50 or 60Hz exactly because of clocks. Today's there are fewer of them, but it's still a thing.

For the grid itself, what the long time average is doesn't matter, it's just an arbitrary decision, but for timekeeping purposes, the grid is a handy resource, that's why it's carefully regulated so that grid-based timekeeping never requires adjusting - if you can accept self-correcting drift so that the time is never accurate, but also never drifts too far.

I don't think there are exist time-controlled clocks nowadays. I heard of them many-many years ago, and I have seen those clocks disconnected (as a museum exponate), but I haven't seen any working clock in my life.

[MK14]

I don't think there are exist time-controlled clocks nowadays. I heard of them many-many years ago, and I have seen thone clocks disconnected, but I haven't seen any working clock in my life.

I might miss things off the list and/or get some items wrong, but I think it is things like:
Mains Digital Alarm clocks, Microwave oven clocks, Kitchen clocks built into mains powered devices, (Now vintage) Video Tape Recorder Clocks, DVD/Bluray clocks, mechanical (older mains, and newer digital ones) timer clocks (plugs into mains, switches things on/off at set times), central heating clocks, probably other stuff.

[not1xor1]

Its a piffling amount of of CO2 saved compared with the AC or heating system. 
To your overall energy costs it's microscopic saving.

Froth on the ocean.

A journey of a thousand li starts with a single step but too many people feel they have the right to waste energy just because they have energy saving lights

[coppercone2]

I don't see what the argument in this thread is

https://www.energy.gov/articles/rise-and-shine-lighting-world-10-billion-led-bulbs

15% of global energy use and 5% of emissions. Why would you ignore that?

Lighting accounts for 15 percent of global electricity consumption and 5 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, 1.2 billion people lack access to modern energy services, including reliable lighting. For many, hazardous energy sources like kerosene are the only option.

[Bicurico]

That would be true is all lights were ALWAYS off, i.e. nobody would use lights at all.

The question here is: what difference does it make to switch out the light of a room you leave temporarily, like for 5 minutes.

[Siwastaja]

The question here is: what difference does it make to switch out the light of a room you leave temporarily, like for 5 minutes.

Not much. Especially given LED lighting, you don't need to go that far.

But seeing OP is a protester who makes their room uncomfortable sauna by burning 5kW to waste just to say "fuck you" to their roommates and everybody else on this planet, the chances are really high that the original description is a severe exaggeration as well. Probably the roommate is just being like any normal sensible human being and has developed the habit of turning the lights off when not needed, without this causing any significant cognitive load to them. The only problem is the OP getting irritated with this.

[nth_degree]

No my roommate is genuinely obsessed with turning out the lights. I don’t think it’s normal or sensible, I’ll challenge that. It's cult like conditioning he is a victim of. He thinks these addictive repetitive tasks are necessary to be ‘good’. And that the people of the world will suffer unless he presses a button when he leaves every room, and worse, that everyone else must agree and conform to the same behavior.

If you can’t see the problem here then you are a part if it.

Now to addressing the spite response of unnecessarily burning energy as a form of protest to this brainwashing - I don’t agree that it makes me a ‘bad’ person. If a percentage of the population do what I do as a response, it removes the incentive for drones like my roommate. As a consequence we no longer will have to live in the dark, and that improves the quality of life for everyone. These do gooders have decided to tell us all how to live, but we have a choice.

[Siwastaja]

Yeah, I can totally see the improvement in quality-of-life by keeping the lights on. Furthermore, thanks to LEDs, the environmental sacrifice to gain that quality is smaller than ever (still non-zero, to be fair).

What I fail to see how burning 5kW, calculating Pi, would improve your quality of life. I only see it as an arbitrary and meaningless act decreasing it, similar what you think your roommate is doing.

I don't believe anyone gets your message, so it's a very inefficient protest.

If you want to really protest to demonstrate your point, maybe screw the light bulbs slightly off so that your roommate really needs to enjoy the darkness, or spend a lot of effort to always screw the bulbs back? 

[rsjsouza]

As Bicurico mentioned, leaving lightbulbs on is unjustified from a pure technical perspective. A single lightbulb means almost nothing to your electricity bill but every fraction of a percent seems to be significant enough in the greater scheme of things - one of the reasons that, annually, a change in the lives of more than a billion of people is materialized in the shape of Daylight Savings Time.

I, for one, hate waste and try to minimize it as much as possible but I try to balance it when comfort and quality of life are involved. Our house is furnished with three and four way switches all around just to ease this task, but people hear a bit from me when lights are left on for hours in unoccupied rooms - "the one who pays the bills is the one that turns off the lights" 

With LEDs all around our house now (save from specific areas) and the "instant on" ability, the cost of leaving them on is much higher than prior technologies - their electronics usually suffer quite a heavy toll due to heat (I have many already replaced due to this) and the on/off will not make you navigate in blind territory for long (in contrast to CFLs and their slow ramp up to 100% brightness). I have quite a number of pristine LED lighting boards removed from lamps that already went bad.

As for CFL/LED lifetime comparison, my anecdoctal experience is the latter tends to fail much more prematurely. You could blame on brands, but I always used branded models on both technologies and the difference is palpable. Heck, I used to illuminate the front of my house with a 60W CFL (200W equivalent) lightbulb that I replaced once in 12 years due to a lightning storm! Turned on daily for 8/9h per day.

I have also seen the motion sensor lights on places like bathrooms and the like. The most intelligent ones I saw used to turn off just a fraction of the lighting on the room (60/70%), leaving the room still lit up to a certain extent. I have also seen the stupidity of turning off everything, which is a terrible idea indeed.

Anyways, these are my $0.02.

[MK14]

No my roommate is genuinely obsessed with turning out the lights. I don’t think it’s normal or sensible, I’ll challenge that. It's cult like conditioning he is a victim of. He thinks these addictive repetitive tasks are necessary to be ‘good’. And that the people of the world will suffer unless he presses a button when he leaves every room, and worse, that everyone else must agree and conform to the same behavior.

Then it sounds like to me, the better solution is to resolve this potential area of conflict, between yourself and this other flatmate/occupier. Because if multiple people share the same hallway/corridor, and hence its lighting. It would seem reasonable for the occupiers to come to an agreement, as to if they are going to keep that light on, especially during dark hours or only switch it on as necessary. There are probably ways of solving the issue, if the fundamental problem is that you both disagree with each other about it.
Such as discussing it, calmly together, possible mutual friends or even bringing in whoever is in charge of the situation. Such as the University and/or landlord of the property(s).

[nth_degree]

“I don't believe anyone gets your message, so it's a very inefficient protest.“

I strongly disagree. It is a highly efficient protest. Here’s why;

Assuming an off bulb saves 11W and an average home has 40 light bulbs, then for every disgruntled supporter of my protest that copies me and burns 5KW out of spite, the savings for 11 large sized homes is nullified. Now suppose we make it a movement, something like STOTFL (guess) and print posters and make youtube videos and wear tshirts and bright hats and whatever. Now if the message is that every supporter of the protest wastes all this energy, people will start to think twice before pulling this virtue signaling. It creates deterrence which in fact also will waste electricity, just not as much as pissing people like me off. But here’s the kicker - there’s no way to prove if the spiteful players are actually wasting the energy they claim (I am). Many will, many won’t. And so you get the leverage of wasting 5KW just by advertising you are a protester, which as a deterrent mechanism is very power efficient. So there you have it! A new internet movement born right here on the eevblog! STOTFL for the love of god

[wraper]

“I don't believe anyone gets your message, so it's a very inefficient protest.“

I strongly disagree. It is a highly efficient protest. Here’s why;

Assuming an off bulb saves 11W and an average home has 40 light bulbs, then for every disgruntled supporter of my protest that copies me and burns 5KW out of spite, the savings for 11 large sized homes is nullified. Now suppose we make it a movement, something like STOTFL (guess) and print posters and make youtube videos and wear tshirts and bright hats and whatever. Now if the message is that every supporter of the protest wastes all this energy, people will start to think twice before pulling this virtue signaling. It creates deterrence which in fact also will waste electricity, just not as much as pissing people like me off. But here’s the kicker - there’s no way to prove if the spiteful players are actually wasting the energy they claim (I am). Many will, many won’t. And so you get the leverage of wasting 5KW just by advertising you are a protester, which as a deterrent mechanism is very power efficient. So there you have it! A new internet movement born right here on the eevblog! STOTFL for the love of god

I hope that your landlord notices your protest and forces you to pay for the energy wasted  ($560 per month for continuously running 5kW load according to electricity price in Berkley, CA) or kicks you out . It's very nice to protest with someone else's money, not so nice to finance it out of your own pocket. Get a life.

[Siwastaja]

This guy sounds eerily similar to someone who I knew who is now sitting in prison (or in mental institution) from planning/preparing a terrorist act (a university shooting).

The arguments were really similar, and regarding such seemingly non-important small matters. After that, it didn't take too many years to escalate.

Be careful with this kind of people even if discussions like this are seemingly entertaining.

The warning signs specifically are,
* Strong reactions to other's mundane and actually harmless habits, dehumanizing them as a result, or claiming these people do bad
* The idea of forceful demonstration by threatening doing X unless people do (or not do) Y, while from the viewpoint of normally thinking people, neither X or Y connect or should be of any interest.

[Vtile]

I will not read a whole 5 pages, but assuming your roommate is constantly running around the house after you and nagging about it, then congrats sounds like an old married couple. However, I don't know if you have already made an estimation how much energy is wasted by motion of body and heat generation, not to mention the exhaust gases this switching off contoller is producing (methane was 10k worse greenhouse gas IIRC).

[nth_degree]

@Siwastaja that’s not fair. Protesting your roommate turning off the lights is a long way from terrorism.

“The warning signs specifically are,
* Strong reactions to other's mundane and actually harmless habits, dehumanizing them as a result, or claiming these people do bad
* The idea of forceful demonstration by threatening doing X unless people do (or not do) Y, while from the viewpoint of normally thinking people, neither X or Y connect or should be of any interest.“

Oh really these are the warning signs for a terrorist in the making? Says who?

Let me tell you something these are not mundane and harmless habits. I am being hurt because living in the dark is depressing AF. And having to be constantly flipping light switches for no reason is a form of harassment, whether or not my roommate realizes it. What’s worse is I’m one of a million people suffering from this nonsense with no recourse. Well now we have one. We can waste energy, a legal free expression of the belief that saving energy is not necessarily more important than living well.

And you know it’s not a petty or trivial point I’m making. It’s actually derived from a better understanding of our predicament and can be extrapolated to a larger strategy. Because the logic of saving energy in this way hasn’t been thought all the way through. It’s derived from these observations that the environment is in trouble and there’s only so much to go around and sure there is a huge population to feed and so on. But, it grossly undervalues the individual human experience. And if we can’t deliver an enjoyable experience to a single person why bother scaling to eight billion? Eight billion miserable people living in the dark is no kind of win.

[Cerebus]

Let me tell you something these are not mundane and harmless habits. I am being hurt because living in the dark is depressing AF. And having to be constantly flipping light switches for no reason is a form of harassment, whether or not my roommate realizes it. What’s worse is I’m one of a million people suffering from this nonsense with no recourse. Well now we have one. We can waste energy, a legal free expression of the belief that saving energy is not necessarily more important than living well.

No, no, you're not "one of a million people suffering from this nonsense", you're one self-centred individual that is so bad at "playing well with others" that went to the trouble of joining the board here just to accumulate arguments to pursue a petty vendetta against your roommate. Well, you didn't get what you wanted, because there are rational people on here who rightfully don't want to support you in your spiteful behaviour.

So, why don't you:

• Go away. It ought to be pretty obvious by now that you won't achieve your aim of acquiring faux "evidence" here.
• Move out and leave your harmless, socially responsible roommate in peace instead of living with a sociopath who's plotting to show them the error of their ways in as nasty a way as possible.

[SiliconWizard]

That would be true is all lights were ALWAYS off, i.e. nobody would use lights at all.

The question here is: what difference does it make to switch out the light of a room you leave temporarily, like for 5 minutes.

Yeah. And it's not just that. So...

1. What part of this consumption is actual "waste", as you mentioned? (So light left on when not needed) And what part is unavoidable?
2. What part of this comes from individual lighting, and what part comes from public lighting, stores, etc?

Without that info, those figures are absolutely meaningless, and at the same time an excellent illustration of how politics use meaningless figures to justify anything.

[emece67]

.

[rsjsouza]

Let me tell you something these are not mundane and harmless habits. I am being hurt because living in the dark is depressing AF. And having to be constantly flipping light switches for no reason is a form of harassment, whether or not my roommate realizes it. What’s worse is I’m one of a million people suffering from this nonsense with no recourse. Well now we have one. We can waste energy, a legal free expression of the belief that saving energy is not necessarily more important than living well.

No, no, you're not "one of a million people suffering from this nonsense", you're one self-centred individual that is so bad at "playing well with others" that went to the trouble of joining the board here just to accumulate arguments to pursue a petty vendetta against your roommate. Well, you didn't get what you wanted, because there are rational people on here who rightfully don't want to support you in your spiteful behaviour.

So, why don't you:

• Go away. It ought to be pretty obvious by now that you won't achieve your aim of acquiring faux "evidence" here.
• Move out and leave your harmless, socially responsible roommate in peace instead of living with a sociopath who's plotting to show them the error of their ways in as nasty a way as possible.

Although I understand the OP's reaction seems a bit extreme w.r.t. the light switching, I will give the benefit of the doubt and take it as one of the limitations of the written word - i.e., emotions and other cues such as sarcasm, irony do not translate well.
What I can say is that I have been in similar shoes: I used to have various "standards" for mundane activities that were expressed in various forms aganst the ones around me: contempt, anger, revenge, etc. That led to years long resentment that affected those relationships. After quite some time I pursued help and  started to recognize those patterns and keep my peace with them. I can only guess if that is OP's case, but it is quite detracting to one's health and well being.

About the other power consumption sources - i.e. the 5kW servers - I can tell that, after moving to the first world, I can tell the behaviour towards power usage is quite different (and more wasteful) as in my home country.

[james_s]

My view is that every bit counts, I have the same attitude about money. A dollar here, a dollar there, pretty insignificant amounts but eventually it adds up to real money. The fact that my mortgage payment dwarfs most of my other expenses doesn't mean I shouldn't bother trying to keep my smaller spending under control. I had a powered subwoofer for quite a few years before I realized it was drawing 18 watts in standby. I did a quick calculation and realized it had consumed around 1MWh in the time I had owned it, most of the time just sitting there.

[DrG]

I agree that every bit counts and there is no reason not to consider every bit, at least within reason. I would like to think that I do, but I have to check myself.

Weber's law (Weber/Fechner/Stevens), which you have probably heard of in other areas, operates on money as well, and it suggests that how much that dollar "counts" depends on the size of the purchase (or the saving). Marketing people have been studying it and implementing price changes based on it for a long time.

To me, I would like to think that $1 has the same value whether it is related to buying electricity for a light, or buying a pizza or a car or a home. Intellectually and objectively it does. In buying practice, however, how many dollars it takes to have an impact on perception or "change my mind", is related to how much the total price is.

For illustration, if I find that the price of a loaf of bread has gone up $1 and the price is now $3, it has a noticeable effect on my perception. A $1 increase in the price of a $30,000 automobile or a $300,000 house becomes almost imperceptible - same $1 amount. Would I not by the house when it is $300,001 but buy it $300,000? Not likely, but the $1 amount is the same in the case of bread and in the case of the house.

I think that you are absolutely right that small amounts matter, but look how you said it: "A dollar here, a dollar there, pretty insignificant amounts but eventually it adds up to real money." The individual amount appears pretty insignificant in the sense that it is being related to a much larger total - i.e., monthly expense or something like that. Buying is different than saving but I can't help but think there are some similar processes going on.

It seems we are naturally designed to notice differences between things, rather than absolute measures. Perhaps that is a fiscal liability

[jonovid]

just as clothing fabric on the face can not stop 250–400 nm viruses so the odd light bulb or two are not going to effect weather forecasts anytime soon.
horses for courses.

[james_s]

just as clothing fabric on the face can not stop 250–400 nm viruses so the odd light bulb or two are not going to effect weather forecasts anytime soon.
horses for courses.

Nobody has ever rationally claimed that fabric will stop a virus. What it does stop are the much larger liquid droplets in which viruses are transmitted. Nobody is saying one odd light bulb will "affect the weather", they are saying that millions and millions and millions of light bulbs on a planet with over 8 Billion people adds up to a very non-trivial amount of energy and it all counts.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Remember when your hotel room had a slot for your door card which turned off the lights when you exited the room? Then they connected the Air conditioning to the switch. And we soon learned to just feed the slot with some random card so your room wasn't so stuffy upon return.

Well, on cruise ships now, the card will be removed from the slot by your cabin steward while you are away from your cabin. You might say fair enough. It's wasteful running the power while you're not even in there.

But here's the rub. Power outlets are turned off also. So that means if you come back to the ship and want to charge up phone/camera during dinner, no charging for you!

Cruise lines are claiming safety due to unattended lithium batteries.

Rotten. 

[rsjsouza]

Remember when your hotel room had a slot for your door card which turned off the lights when you exited the room?

That is one example of the contrasting aspects w.r.t. power consumption behaviour between here and my home country: this was not a thing of the past, but instead very much present in a great number of hotels (if not all of them).

Well, on cruise ships now, the card will be removed from the slot by your cabin steward while you are away from your cabin. You might say fair enough. It's wasteful running the power while you're not even in there.

Well, if there is one place to be frugal is when embarked in a transportation vehicle - boats, airplanes...

[not1xor1]

Yeah, I can totally see the improvement in quality-of-life by keeping the lights on. Furthermore, thanks to LEDs, the environmental sacrifice to gain that quality is smaller than ever (still non-zero, to be fair).

quality of life ? There are plenty of evidence of the damage on human health and wild life caused by artificial light. That should be off as long as possible.

[nth_degree]

Really. Care to site some studies showing that light is bad for human health?

[not1xor1]

Really. Care to site some studies showing that light is bad for human health?

site Do you mean cite ?
just one the first hits on a google search:

While artificial light at night (ALAN) has been a long established
man-made disturbance (Longcore & Rich, 2004), the number of stud-
ies documenting its ecological and human health impacts has grown
dramatically in the last decade

<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/gcb.13927>

[nth_degree]

That’s an opinion piece not a study.

[Zero999]

Remember when your hotel room had a slot for your door card which turned off the lights when you exited the room? Then they connected the Air conditioning to the switch. And we soon learned to just feed the slot with some random card so your room wasn't so stuffy upon return.

Well, on cruise ships now, the card will be removed from the slot by your cabin steward while you are away from your cabin. You might say fair enough. It's wasteful running the power while you're not even in there.

But here's the rub. Power outlets are turned off also. So that means if you come back to the ship and want to charge up phone/camera during dinner, no charging for you!

Cruise lines are claiming safety due to unattended lithium batteries.

Rotten.

You shouldn't be complaining, because you have plenty of time any money to spend in hotels and on cruises. I'm sure most people don't have that luxury.

Hotels want to save money and minimise their impact on the environment. Would you rather pay more for your room?

There's a limited amount of power on board a ship and they want to save fuel, so it makes sense they want to save as much power as possible.

[mikerj]

That’s an opinion piece not a study.

And your first post was what? Making excuses for leaving lighting on when it's not needed suggests a lazy/wasteful attitude, and I suspect that's the uncomfortable truth your room mate is highlighting.

FWIW I'm absolutely not an ecowarrior, but leaving lights and appliances turned on when they are not in use really irks me; it takes such a miniscule amount of effort to switch lights on and off that there's really no excuse no to.

[nth_degree]

That’s what you’re missing - I don’t need an excuse. Leaving the lights on remains a valid choice even if you disapprove of it.

@not1xor claimed there were plenty of studies proving light was unhealthy for humans. He couldn’t cite a single one, only that opinion piece.

[Nusa]

Ah I’m blabbering, and here I was thinking I had an opinion! Here in Berkeley we have a vocal minority who believe controlling the behavior of the group is key to a better world. Swaying group opinion is their highest priority and no tactic is underhanded enough. They are as corrupt as any cult ever was and yet have no clue.

Then there are others that believe a better way can be engineered into product. I’m with them. Because I don’t want to live in darkness for the greater good.

Based on what you've written to date, it suggests you're actually a member of the vocal minority you quote, despite your claim otherwise. The stance you take on anything is irrelevant to what you're willing to say to be "right".

[KaneTW]

Meh, I don't disagree about the vocal minority bit. Both nth_degree and the people he complains about are vocal minorities.

Most people just do whatever and ignore whatever they don't agree with.


On the actual topic: Turning off the lights is a relatively minor impact; do it if it's convenient and don't if it isn't. Convenience generally is more important than the tiny amount of energy savings, but there's also no reason to be wasteful.

We've probably spent more energy-equivalent discussing this topic than leaving all the lights' on at nth_degree's place forever would have

[not1xor1]

That’s an opinion piece not a study.

studies are referenced (4 pages of references)
and I won't waste my time for other references I've on my PC and or searching the net
a double waste: wasted time for an energy waster 

[nth_degree]

I wouldn’t dare pick a ‘study’ from that opinion piece either. Why don’t you go prove humans are allergic to air as well as light? Some people believe anything

[cgroen]

I wouldn’t dare pick a ‘study’ from that opinion piece either. Why don’t you go prove humans are allergic to air as well as light? Some people believe anything

A small advice from an "older" guy, grow up and get a life.....
And no, the whole world does not turn around you.

[nth_degree]

Well you don’t know how old I am so how can you say you’re older? So advice from a random old man on the internet; “grow up and get a life and the world doesn’t turn around you”. Yea Thanks.

No, look, that’s not good enough. I’m going to pin you guys down on this. Either make good on the claim that light is unhealthy for humans citing a real study, or concede. And you won’t be able to prove it because that’s desperate reaching. What that shows is that you’re willing to make stuff up in an attempt to maintain control over others.

[Cerebus]

Well you don’t know how old I am so how can you say you’re older? So advice from a random old man on the internet; “grow up and get a life and the world doesn’t turn around you”. Yea Thanks.

No, look, that’s not good enough. I’m going to pin you guys down on this. Either make good on the claim that light is unhealthy for humans citing a real study, or concede. And you won’t be able to prove it because that’s desperate reaching. What that shows is that you’re willing to make stuff up in an attempt to maintain control over others.

If you're too lazy to follow references up, and too lazy to determine their validity by reading them then you aren't deserving of any further assistance in that direction, unless you're saying that you're not competent to follow up a few references and read a few studies. If the latter, what the heck are you doing in academic lodgings at Berkley (it being unlikely that they'd put a janitor or gopher in rooms with a maths professor)?

So you won't take pointers to information you've asked for, and you casually dismiss any and all arguments against the anti-social plan you're cooking up. Goodness me, that sounds like trolling.

So, I for one an going to hit the 'ignore thread' button, not feed the troll any more, and suggest that everyone else does likewise (unless they enjoy tormenting trolls, in which case have at it boys). Thank you for playing, better luck next time.

[nth_degree]

No. Stop. Cite the study.

Copy the URL and put it in the next message, or concede.

You can’t point to a wall of references. Why not just say go google it? No, I challenge you, if there is a study that proved that light is unhealthy for human beings then give me the URL right now.

[MK14]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/
Which leads on to the full article, here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/pdf/EHP-117-a20.pdf

Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution
Ron Chepesiuk
Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Jan; 117(1): A20–A27. doi: 10.1289/ehp.117-a20
PMCID: PMC2627884

[james_s]

This thread is IMO a waste of time. It is someone who came here with an existing opinion looking for validation of that opinion and when he did not find that he became upset and argumentative. What is the point?

[Nusa]

You can’t point to a wall of references.

Sure he can, and he did. A legitimate published academic paper is going to have a wall of references to support their claims. A serious academic student at a school like Berkeley would know that, since citations would be required in their own research papers.

[nth_degree]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/
Which leads on to the full article, here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/pdf/EHP-117-a20.pdf

Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution
Ron Chepesiuk
Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Jan; 117(1): A20–A27. doi: 10.1289/ehp.117-a20
PMCID: PMC2627884

^^ Guys you're killing me here. This isn't a study - it presents no evidence that light is unhealthy and there are no samples and there is no rigor. It's another opinion piece that wildly speculates theories based on the results of other studies which don't even mention light. And anyone with basic common sense will see it fall apart under the most shallow of analysis. Just look at this;

In a study published in
the 17 October 2001 Journal of the National Cancer
Institute, Harvard University epidemiologist Eva S.
Schernhammer and colleagues from Brigham
and Women’s Hospital in
Boston used data from the
1988 Nurses’ Health Study
(NHS), which surveyed 121,701 registered
female nurses on a range of health issues.
Schernhammer and her colleagues found an
association between breast cancer and shift
work that was restricted to women who had
worked 30 or more years on rotating night
shifts (0.5% of the study population).
In another study of the NHS cohort,
Schernhammer and colleagues also found
elevated breast cancer risk associated with
rotating night shift work. Discussing this
finding in the January 2006 issue of Epidemiology,
they wrote that shift work was associated with only a modest increased breast
cancer risk among the women studied. The
researchers further wrote, however, that their
study’s findings “in combination with the
results of earlier work, reduce the likelihood
that this association is due solely to chance.”
Schernhammer and her colleagues have
also used their NHS cohort to investigate
the connection between artificial light, night
work, and colorectal cancer. In the 4 June
2003 issue of the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute, they reported that nurses who worked night shifts at least 3 times
a month for 15 years or more had a 35%
increased risk of colorectal cancer. This is the
first significant evidence so far linking night
work and colorectal cancer, so it’s too early
to draw conclusions about a causal association. “There is even less evidence about colorectal cancer and the larger subject of light
pollution,” explains Stevens. “That does not
mean there is no effect, but rather, there is
not enough evidence to render a verdict at
this time.”
The research on the shift work/cancer
relationship is not conclusive, but it was
enough for the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify shift
work as a probable human carcinogen in
2007. “The IARC didn’t definitely call night
shift work a carcinogen,” Brainard says. “It’s
still too soon to go there, but there is enough
evidence to raise the flag

---- In their own words, they're guessing, that maybe, there's a link between artificial light exposure in shift work that increases the risk of breast and colorectal cancer. Rampant speculation! you can't call that science. You know what maybe 30 years of night shifts in the cold, propped up on cheap black coffee when the only food option is KFC, and the low income that night workers get and all the factors that come from low income living caused those cancers? Night shifts may well be carcinogenic but don't blame the light bulbs. And if you do, back it up with data. And that's very difficult sure, but that doesn't make it Ok to take speculation and present it as fact. Especially when that 'fact' is aimed at affecting policy. Even more so when that new policy benefits you and leaves all the future members of stotfl.org miserable in the dark.

[KaneTW]

The linked article is not a peer reviewed paper. It's a journalistic article by a single author.

Pretty sure the entire piece can be summarized as "some evidence exists that there's a link between light and human health" and everything else is just correlations or hypotheses.

[MK14]

^^ Guys you're killing me here. This isn't a study - it presents no evidence that light is unhealthy and there are no samples and there is no rigor. It's another opinion piece that wildly speculates theories based on the results of other studies which don't even mention light. And anyone with basic common sense will see it fall apart under the most shallow of analysis. Just look at this;

There are problems, comparing medical science things, with engineering things.

Let's say, we wanted to know, how damaging 100,000 hours of LED light, is to LEDs themselves, and humans.

We could take an appropriate number of LEDs (maybe 500 of them), wire them up in a scientific/engineering experiment, and use techniques which speed up the life testing (such as higher temperatures, compared with normal). Then see if the LEDs survive 100,000 hours (equivalent), accelerated life testing. Hence make scientific research papers, largely based on experimental facts.

But with human studies, we are considerably more limited, as to how we can perform such tests. As they are usually NOT permitted to harm the humans, and accelerating the results of those 100,000 hours (more than 10 years!), would also be tricky, on humans.

So, actual 'facts' on humans, can be rather hard to come by. Also, LED lighting, has been a fairly recent occurrence (as regards the bulk of the population). So we haven't had that much time, to perform such studies.

Also, what one considers as the definition of 'harm' to humans, would probably very significantly affect the results of such studies. For example, does 'harm' mean, changes to sleep cycles, quality of life, alteration of usual habits, etc.

[KaneTW]

Some googling found me a literature review at DOI 10.3109/07420528.2015.1073158.

The majority of the data indicates a weak correlation or no impact of light pollution. Strong correlations can be seen with things like exposing people to different colors or temperatures of light, but that's a well-known effect.

You're welcome to analyze it in more detail, but at least for me it doesn't seem like there's anything to worry about at this stage.

E:

Also, what one considers as the definition of 'harm' to humans, would probably very significantly affect the results of such studies. For example, does 'harm' mean, changes to sleep cycles, quality of life, alteration of usual habits, etc.

Exactly. Harm isn't well-defined, and on top of that causation /= correlation so it's extra hard to pinpoint the cause.

Overall, a strong statement such as "There are plenty of evidence of the damage on human health and wild life caused by artificial light. That should be off as long as possible." is not something I can agree on until significant amounts of further research are done. In fact, there's significant evidence of psychological harm with insufficent light during periods of excessive natural darkness, which is treated by exposure to artificial light.

Is there an ideal amount of light per day? Does it vary per person? What kind of light is ideal? etc, etc.

Given the relatively weak correlations I've seen in that literature review, I'm pretty sure you don't need to worry unless you're actively experiencing health effects, in which case see a professional.

[Bud]

^^ Guys you're killing me here. This isn't a study - it presents no evidence that light is unhealthy and there are no samples and there is no rigor.

Having the lights on all the time in a prison cell is a known method of torture, isn't it.

[nth_degree]

Alright let me play devil's advocate. Let's say light is carcinogenic. Are you really suggesting we all live in the dark to avoid cancer? There's exactly nothing we can do about it if it's true. Since you only turn off the light when you leave a room it makes no difference anyway.

What we really need -engineers of eevblog- is a cheap light switch with some edge machine learning and a wifi module that can detect the proximity of users like this; https://www.mic.com/impact/wifi-signals-can-identify-people-through-walls-scientists-say-18816045


Just FYI, as humorous as the idea of STOTFL.org was, I don't want to pay the $12, and it's too hot to keep burning all this energy anyway. I'm not against energy saving really, but there needs to be a less irritating way to go about it.

[Nusa]

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/sunlight

[SiliconWizard]

Looks like people are starting mixing stuff together in a big bowl.

UV light can be carcinogenic. But common LED lighting does not emit any UV light, or only a negligible amount. LED-based UV lights are actually significantly more expensive, and of course dedicated to specific uses. But just have a look at datasheets.

Having light on at night can cause some health troubles - but nothing related to UV light. It just messes with our circadian rythm. But, unfortunately, our modern lives mess with our circadian rythm in many other ways than just the lighting...

[Nusa]

Perhaps he should have been more specific when he said "light", since he was being technical at the time.

[Nisei]

LED bulbs at my home have a very short lifespan, so much so we’ve created an Amazon subscription. On average a bulb lasts 5 months in a recessed socket. I think heat is responsible, and the drivers are dying. I can’t imagine the LEDs can fail so quickly.

Seriously? I bought my apartment 3 years ago and haven't had a single LED bulb die on me yet.

[Siwastaja]

Use lots of artificial light during daytime if you live somewhere with limited amount of natural light during winter.

Minimize amount of light during evening and nighttime, for example starting at 6pm. Especially avoid blue components.

In other words, try to mimic the natural light changes we have been exposed to for millions of years; not too far from the equator.

UV is of no concern in LED lights. With excessive sunlight though, protecting oneself from UV is a good idea.

It's this simple.

[MK14]

Seriously? I bought my apartment 3 years ago and haven't had a single LED bulb die on me yet.

Yes. because if most (I believe someone said here to get 'enclosure' rated LEDs, if necessary) current LED lights, don't get appropriate air-flow, for example enclosed or recessed lamp holders. They seem to suffer from rather short life-spans, presumably (widely believed) to be due to excessive temperatures inside the LED lights.
So, I assume, all your light fixtures, give good air flow (and hence cooling), for the LED lights.
There are other factors, such as LED bulb quality (often related to price/brand), and how often it is used, both on/off cycle rating and LED lamp on hours.

[Vtile]

Alright let me play devil's advocate. Let's say light is carcinogenic. Are you really suggesting we all live in the dark to avoid cancer? There's exactly nothing we can do about it if it's true.

We can start to paint our skin with black or other UV-blocking variety of paint.

I would be more concernef our eyes as many, myself included have empirical experience of eye problems with led illunination (as too concentraded, small and non glaring (eyes seems not to react, even if it is bright) light source where eyes normal light control (iris) seems not to react properly causing temporary blindness in form of exsessive glaring ... compared to other light sources ie. Halogen) .. with led illumination without proper diffusors that is.

[ejeffrey]

What about the amount of power the industry uses compared to the "public civilian sector"  I bet its more than 1000x more power usage,  but I'm only guessing.

If only there was some global information network where you could research this rater than posting guesses. In the US residential, commercial, and industrial use about 1/3 each of electricity production.  https://www.epa.gov/energy/electricity-customers

[nth_degree]

I would be more concernef our eyes as many, myself included have empirical experience of eye problems with led illunination (as too concentraded, small and non glaring (eyes seems not to react, even if it is bright) light source where eyes normal light control (iris) seems not to react properly causing temporary blindness in form of exsessive glaring ... compared to other light sources ie. Halogen) .. with led illumination without proper diffusors that is.

I've heard variations on this theme of "if you overuse it, you lose it". I suppose the logic follows that if you stare into the Sun you'll go blind, and if you hear a loud enough sound you'll burst your eardrums, therefore- Looking at bright lights and hearing loud noises will make you blind and deaf, slowly. Because you're using up an expendable product.

Well it doesn't work like that, your eyes and eardrums are continually being replaced. When those senses finally fail the cause is systemic and genetic. And you're overlooking the fact that most of our 8 billion strong population use these technologies every day. If it blinded people there would be plenty of evidence. Which is not to invalidate your experience as you may well have an issue with your vision, just your assumption as to the cause.

[Kasper]

My irritating AF roommate follows me around the house turning off the lights everywhere I go and I’m living in darkness. I’m all for saving energy (I replaced all the bulbs w LEDs last year) but what he’s doing IMO is a repetitive task for dopamine payoff and virtue signaling.

Please tell me why I’m wrong

My guess is your eyes and alertness are weak and your roommate's are strong.

Does he drink less caffine than you?

Not sure he'd tell you but does he get headaches?

Some people rely on stimulants: caffine, bright lights, etc to keep themselves awake. Other people have too much energy, they prefer dim lights and avoid caffine, either of those gives them headaches.

Regardless, the solution is obvious. Move out.  I think the important question here is why haven't you moved out yet?

[james_s]

I don't like bright lights, unless I'm trying to do some kind of focus work. It makes me feel uncomfortable and overstimulated. I much prefer subdued lighting if I'm relaxing at home. I like to either sit in a pool of light surrounded by shadows, or sit in the shadows between pools of light. I hate feeling like I'm sitting in the middle of a brightly lit stadium.

[Kasper]

I also don't like bright lights and I really don't like people who think that makes me a bad person. Usually they assume I'm lazy, 'what are you trying to sleep in here!?' They say as they turn on the lights.

[not1xor1]

I've heard variations on this theme of "if you overuse it, you lose it". I suppose the logic follows that if you stare into the Sun you'll go blind, and if you hear a loud enough sound you'll burst your eardrums, therefore- Looking at bright lights and hearing loud noises will make you blind and deaf, slowly. Because you're using up an expendable product.

Well it doesn't work like that, your eyes and eardrums are continually being replaced. When those senses finally fail the cause is systemic and genetic. And you're overlooking the fact that most of our 8 billion strong population use these technologies every day. If it blinded people there would be plenty of evidence. Which is not to invalidate your experience as you may well have an issue with your vision, just your assumption as to the cause.

you are overconfident... go and study some biology before writing such bullshit...

[nth_degree]

What specifically is bullshit and why?

[SilverSolder]

What specifically is bullshit and why?

Well, what you say is true, but within reason only!  - e.g. there would be no such thing as repetitive strain injury if the body was perfectly able to cope with being "used".

[not1xor1]

What specifically is bullshit and why?

your eyes and eardrums are continually being replaced. When those senses finally fail the cause is systemic and genetic. And you're overlooking the fact that most of our 8 billion strong population use these technologies every day. If it blinded people there would be plenty of evidence. Which is not to invalidate your experience as you may well have an issue with your vision, just your assumption as to the cause.

Not every kind of cell is replaceable.
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/how_does_loud_noise_cause_hearing_loss.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4763120/
and noise pollution damages go beyond your ears
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise

[coppercone2]

heres another thing too if you turn it off at least you check it once in a while if you never check it, it can catch on fire after slowly failing in many different ways

[nth_degree]

The LED bulbs will catch fire if you turn your back? What if intruders think you're away or asleep from the lights being off and break into your home? What if you trip from being unable to see and get hurt?

Perhaps we should hold our breath in case there's some poison in the air? It's best to breathe as little as possible so as to minimize the potential poison. Also, while holding your breath, you should shut your eyes in case the lights are too bright, in case you go blind. And - while holding your breath and shutting your eyes, you need you to hop up and down, in case gravity sucks your internal organs out of your ass. Now, if people stop and stare and point and laugh at you for hopping up and down with your eyes shut while holding your breath, be sure to correct them if they call you an idiot. Tell them that you're a liberal.

[Zero999]

What a load of bollocks. Good quality, well-designed LED lamps are not a fire hazard, any more than any other mains device. A decent LED lamp will have a fuse/fusible resistor and X-rated capacitors (nothing to do with porn, but capacitors which are designed not to fail short circuit and smoke) and some LED driver ICs even have thermal protection. There are far greater fire hazards than LED bulbs. Incandescent bulbs were much worse.

[Microdoser]

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

[nth_degree]

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

You're presenting 'fact' without a source. "One thing I know"? What does that mean? How do you know? And more importantly, at what point did your requirement for proof and rigor fly out of the window? Or did you think we took health advise from random strangers anywhere on planet earth with a gut feeling?

There's evidence that more sunshine reduces overall chance of cancer;

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more-vitamin-d

Let me tell you something, I don't care all that much about the subject of debate here but rather the tactics in play that are being revealed. It would appear many people today have lost their taste for reality. That means big trouble.

[Zero999]

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

You're presenting 'fact' without a source. "One thing I know"? What does that mean? How do you know? And more importantly, at what point did your requirement for proof and rigor fly out of the window? Or did you think we took health advise from random strangers anywhere on planet earth with a gut feeling?

There's evidence that more sunshine reduces overall chance of cancer;

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more-vitamin-d

Let me tell you something, I don't care all that much about the subject of debate here but rather the tactics in play that are being revealed. It would appear many people today have lost their taste for reality. That means big trouble.

(Attachment Link) (Attachment Link)

Correlation doesn't mean causation.

There's an optimal amount of UV exposure. Too much and it increases the risk of skin cancer. Too little and there's a higher risk of vitamin D deficiency. The optimal level is determined by skin type, which is genetic.

Vitamin D is important for a healthy immune system and brain development and low levels during pregnancy are associated with children with lower IQ scores.

Vitamin D is a critical nutrient and has many important functions in the body. A mother's vitamin D supply is passed to her baby in utero and helps regulate processes including brain development. A study published today in The Journal of Nutrition showed that mothers' vitamin D levels during pregnancy were associated with their children's IQ, suggesting that higher vitamin D levels in pregnancy may lead to greater childhood IQ scores. The study also identified significantly lower levels of vitamin D levels among Black pregnant women.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201102142242.htm
 

[not1xor1]

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

exposure to natural light during growth reduce the risk of developing shortsightedness.
While excessive exposure to sun light may be responsible for various kinds of skin cancer, sun light is essential to synthesize vitamin D. Food contain very little vitamin D (apart some fish) unless it is fortified.

You can easily find references on pubmed or similar search engine.

[Microdoser]

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

You're presenting 'fact' without a source. "One thing I know"? What does that mean? How do you know? And more importantly, at what point did your requirement for proof and rigor fly out of the window? Or did you think we took health advise from random strangers anywhere on planet earth with a gut feeling?

There's evidence that more sunshine reduces overall chance of cancer;

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more-vitamin-d

Let me tell you something, I don't care all that much about the subject of debate here but rather the tactics in play that are being revealed. It would appear many people today have lost their taste for reality. That means big trouble.

(Attachment Link) (Attachment Link)

Well aren't you simply a DELIGHT to converse with! Bless your soul, you must be the breath of life to every party you go to.

Personally, I find much commonality with Nietzsche who is famously attributed to the quote

"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!"

I myself find the modern practice of not conversing, but criticising the manner in which others converse, to be quite gauche and dull. It shows a base mind more concerned with earning brownie points and belittling their fellow man than it is in discussing a topic.

I note that you posted links that prove the validity of my statement. Well done, you added nothing to the discussion.

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

You're presenting 'fact' without a source. "One thing I know"? What does that mean? How do you know? And more importantly, at what point did your requirement for proof and rigor fly out of the window? Or did you think we took health advise from random strangers anywhere on planet earth with a gut feeling?

There's evidence that more sunshine reduces overall chance of cancer;

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more-vitamin-d

Let me tell you something, I don't care all that much about the subject of debate here but rather the tactics in play that are being revealed. It would appear many people today have lost their taste for reality. That means big trouble.

(Attachment Link) (Attachment Link)

There's an optimal amount of UV exposure. Too much and it increases the risk of skin cancer. Too little and there's a higher risk of vitamin D deficiency. The optimal level is determined by skin type, which is genetic.

Vitamin D is important for a healthy immune system and brain development and low levels during pregnancy are associated with children with lower IQ scores.

This is absolutely correct. A sensible amount of exposure to sun has a much lower risk of cancer than too much or too little. I have read that a walk in the summer sun of about 15 minutes three times a week is enough for someone with light skin. Of course, this will vary with the seasons and skin type.

All the effects that UV light has on the skin are not yet fully understood, although probably the largest and easiest to see the effects of (apart from melanin production) is the production of Vitamin D.

When large amounts of people moved from India to the UK in the 1950's, many of them continued to eat the same diet they had at home, which was low in Vitamin D. When the effects were noticed, they had to shift to a more Northern/Western diet to substitute for the vitamin D they were no longer getting from sunlight.

Now, for the people that don't want to talk and just want to nitpick, here is a big wall of text and a link

Code: [Select]

It has been suggested that a few minutes of sunlight each day to the face, neck, hands, and arms are all that is necessary to restore vitamin D sufficiency, but the amount of sunlight required for photoconversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol to pre–vitamin D varies considerably depending on a person's age, Fitzpatrick sun-reactive skin type, geographic location, and season. (The six Fitzpatrick skin types classify sensitivity to ultraviolet light; skin type I is fair skin that always burns, never tans; type III is darker white skin that burns and tans; type V is brown skin that rarely burns, tans easily.) Investigators employed the FastRT computational tool to predict the length of daily exposure required to obtain the sunlight equivalent of 400 and 1000 IU oral vitamin D supplementation.

At noon in Miami, someone with Fitzpatrick skin type III would require 6 minutes to synthesize 1000 IU of vitamin D in the summer and 15 minutes in the winter. Someone with skin type V would need 15 and 29 minutes, respectively. At noon in the summer in Boston, necessary exposure times approximate those in Miami, but in winter, it would take about 1 hour for type III skin and 2 hours for type V skin to synthesize 1000 IU of D. After 2 PM in the winter in Boston, it is impossible for even someone with Fitzpatrick type I skin to receive enough sun to equal even 400 IU of vitamin D.
https://www.jwatch.org/jd201006040000002/2010/06/04/how-much-sunlight-equivalent-vitamin-d

[nth_degree]

At the heart of this issue is the delusion that if you just calculate the safest path in daily living, you will live forever. Sure you haven't said that plainly, but it's very clear many here. believe it. No additional reasoning appears to have been processed past "it's the healthier choice".

Now the trouble is that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the human predicament. You're not getting the deal. Skipped the fine print it seems.

While you may indeed be able to reduce the likelihood of cancer by never going outside into the Sun, the experience you will have in your finite remaining time will be less enjoyable. Sooner or later one of the radicals in your environment be it an out of control car, or radiation from your cellphone, or choking on the lettuce in your salad, something is going to take you out. If you waste your time and lessen your experience on mantras and repetitive fear based behaviors, then not only will you end up equally dead as someone capable of thinking critically, but what little happiness you might have had will be snatched away forever.

[MK14]

If you waste your time and lessen your experience on mantras and repetitive fear based behaviors, then not only will you end up equally dead as someone capable of thinking critically, but what little happiness you might have had will be snatched away forever.

Says the person, who lives in a self made sauna (for reasons), under artificial, always on LED lighting.

[Bassman59]

At the heart of this issue is the delusion that if you just calculate the safest path in daily living, you will live forever. Sure you haven't said that plainly, but it's very clear many here. believe it. No additional reasoning appears to have been processed past "it's the healthier choice".

Now the trouble is that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the human predicament. You're not getting the deal. Skipped the fine print it seems.

While you may indeed be able to reduce the likelihood of cancer by never going outside into the Sun, the experience you will have in your finite remaining time will be less enjoyable. Sooner or later one of the radicals in your environment be it an out of control car, or radiation from your cellphone, or choking on the lettuce in your salad, something is going to take you out. If you waste your time and lessen your experience on mantras and repetitive fear based behaviors, then not only will you end up equally dead as someone capable of thinking critically, but what little happiness you might have had will be snatched away forever.

I read through all nine pages of this topic, and all I can really say about it is that you've picked a particular stupid hill on which to die.