Does Turning Fluorescent Lights Off Use More Energy Than Leaving Them On?

Incandescent lightbulbs are lumbering toward extinction. Now, how best to use their energy-efficient replacements?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


So you bought a compact fluorescent lightbulb in a bid to be green. Such bulbs are vastly more energy-efficient than traditional incandescents and screw into standard sockets. Should you treat them like their older cousins?

After all, four- and eight-foot- (1.2- and 2.4-meter-) long tubular bulbs common in more institutional settings are sometimes left on permanently, perhaps due to their slow, flickering start-ups. The thinking is that the boost of energy such bulbs require to power up means that it might be best to keep them on when leaving a room, rather than subjecting them to the stress of a restart on your return.

Turns out, however, that power surge is so brief that its energy draw doesn't amount to much: the equivalent of a few seconds or so of normal operation, according to U.S. Department of Energy estimates. In other words, from a strict energy-conservation standpoint, it's almost always beneficial to shut off fluorescents when leaving the room—the start-up energy is offset by the power saved in even the briefest outages.

But what about the wear and tear on the bulb itself? Being too switch-happy reduces the operating life of the lamp, and given that newer fluorescents are still a few times more expensive than old-fashioned incandescents, it makes sense to forestall burnouts. There are also real environmental impacts of their production and disposal to consider.

A simple rule of thumb that balances both concerns is to shut off fluorescents if you’re planning to leave a room for more than five minutes, according to Francis Rubinstein, a staff scientist in the Building Technologies Department at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Environmental Energy Technologies Division. Mary Beth Gotti, manager of the GE Lighting & Electrical Institute in Cleveland, agrees. For all practical purposes, "it almost always makes sense to turn the lights off," Gotti says. "From an environmental standpoint, the best way to save energy is to turn off the things that you're not using."

Rubinstein notes that, even for fluorescents, the cost of electricity over a bulb's lifetime far outpaces the cost of the bulb itself. "Even if you switch on and off a fluorescent light frequently," he says, "the slight reduction in lamp life is a small effect relative to the energy savings you accomplish by being a good citizen." Gotti adds that the reduction in lamp life from frequent on-and-off switching can often be counterbalanced by the extension of "calendar life"—the actual passage of time between lightbulb replacements—that results from using the bulb for fewer hours.

That sort of calculation will probably become more common as compact fluorescent lightbulbs come down in price, cast more pleasant light and, most importantly, force their power-hungry competitors from store shelves. The Australian government will phase out the sale of traditional incandescents in that country by 2010, and the U.S. Congress has effectively mandated the same ban domestically by 2012. But whereas that new fluorescent bulb is sure to lower utility bills in your home, the real energy-crunch savior has been there all along: the light switch.

* Editor's Note: This is part one of a two-part series of Fact or Fiction? on fluorescent lightbulbs. The next, appearing on April 10, will address the question of the mercury inside them.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe