We are being encouraged to use energy saver bulbs in every room but in areas where lights are flicked on for a very short time - eg broom cupboard, utility rooms or toilets, it would seem wasteful to use energy savers as they do not give good light in the short time they are on AND they burn more electricty when first switched on. Is this true?
2007-02-22 08:49:29 · 5 answers · asked by Herbloke 1 in Environment
No they don't use more energy when first switched on. They require to come up to an operating temperature before they will give out the stated amount of light. This might be useful in a bathroom where the last thing you want during the night is to switch on a light that is bright.
They do, however, use much less electricity and as we leave our bathroom light on overnight (helps guide small child to the right room) it makes sense to use one instead of an incandescent one.
Fluorescent lights do use more energy starting up since they require to be "kick started"
2007-02-22 09:06:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They don't consume more electricity but for they effective brightness they have to be on more time than conventional bulbs. I believe that lighting systems that require a starter use more if they are used in toilets and closets etc as they are "started" more often relative to their use
2007-02-22 08:59:44 · answer #2 · answered by Keef 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. They don't burn more electricity when they are switched on. They put out the same amount of light.
2007-02-22 08:54:06 · answer #3 · answered by Chris B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I must spend more time in my restroom than you do :) I have old-fashioned bulbs in my attic though.
2007-02-22 09:00:27 · answer #4 · answered by Jennifer B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not if you don't screw them in.
2007-02-22 09:00:53 · answer #5 · answered by H.C.Will 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋