Fluorescent bulb energy use?

Technically, fluorescent lights do have a surge when turning on, but only for about 200 to 300 milliseconds, which means that it uses the amount of energy as if left on for about 1 or 2 seconds.

Formula - 3X ampere surge for .2 to .3 seconds = ampere draw the same as being on for about 1 or 2 seconds in the .2 to .3 seconds. The additional cost in the .2 to .3 seconds in equivalent to being on for 2 to 3 seconds.

There is not a savings to leave it on if you will leave it on when not in use.

The new CFL's are a bit of a different situation. Though they do have a slight surge when first turned on, if on for less than 15 minutes or so and turned off, they will burn out in a month or two. If left on for the 15 to 20 minutes before turning off, they will last a few years.

There is only a couple dollars per month savings also, nt the big savings like they claim, because they use savings over years, not over a month.

10 sixty watt lights for an average of 4 hours = 600 W X 4 hours = 2.4 kwh = $0.24 per day = $7.20 per month

10 CFL's = 140 watts X 4 hours = .56 kwh = $1.69 per month

There is a savings of $5.52 per month. If the CFL's don't burn out and do last for a couple years there is about $66 per year savings over the year, but at $1 to $2 per bulb for CFL's, when they do burn out in a month or two, there is actually a net increase in cost for using them.

CFL's do not work well in cold temperatures like porches or garages. You have to either use standard lights or expensive HO fluorescent lights for temperatures below about 50 degrees.

In some ways the CFL's are acceptable, in some ways are not acceptable.

So, if you are going to turn off the fluorescent lights (not CFL's) for more than about 10 seconds, there is a savings. That they draw more when they first turn on and you should leave them on for hours before you save money is an old rumor. The first time I heard that one was about 40 years ago. Goes to show that myths, rumors, urban legends and superstitions can be told for generations. Also shows that some have no idea what they are talking about and/or guss and/or just make up something to show how smart they aren't (though they think they are trying to show how smart they are).

Yes it true that it takes more energy to get a fluorescent bulb started than it does to run. But according to a test done by Mythbusters. The start-up power is equal to 23 seconds of run time. So basically you should leave you light on if you were only going to leave it off for 23 seconds or less. Not the several hours you mentioned.

Just read the side of the bulb. It tells you the power consumption. Was usually 40 watts for a long bulb. 80 watts for 2. But the life was incredible. Years .. and a lot of light.

Doesn't matter .. on - off.. just amperage at a certain voltage.

yes its true it takes slight high amount for few seconds but it nothing matters as efficieny will be in lumen/watt thats in tube is appx 64-110 lumens/watt and same in cfl etc i think tube and cfl is quite same but still they most efficient artificial light that economical too but due to mercury they arenot easy to dispose off thing as worldwide increase in there production also create mess to dispose safely now days cfl are assembled even in thousand of homes in india and china as small scale industries and they are not work more than 6 month to a year but cheap as 50 cent for 15-20 watt one and tubes were already used from many decades the burnt tubes from commmercial complexes count whole full of truck that were thrown in garbage

buy into the surge but find it only a minor draw back to the fluroesent bulbs ..what i find to be a problem is they are hazordous waste when they burn out .. and contain mercury