Skip to main content

Turn off the Lights

In this episode (172) – Turn off the Lights . . .

It happened on Thursday; Fall officially arrived, and soon darkness will be upon us by 5:00 p.m. To prepare, let's look at our energy usage and the most cost-effective way to light our home this winter. Compulsively turning off household lights to save money is a habit most of us have, but it's not the money-saving power move we think it is - unless . . . 

Back in my day, it made sense to turn the lights off when you left the room. As Mom always said, "Turn off the lights! We're not made of money."

Let's be clear, if you turn off any device in your home that uses electricity, no matter how big or small the device, you will, of course, save money. It doesn't matter if the device is a power-hungry tungsten lamp or a tiny night light in the bathroom. You are obviously not paying for electricity if it isn't using electricity.

However, LEDs completely changed the game regarding serious energy savings. The efficiency of LED lighting compared to traditional incandescent lighting is mind-blowing. LED lights use a fraction of conventional incandescent bulbs' energy. Such a small fraction that—depending on the bulbs in question—you can power anywhere from six to a dozen LED bulbs with the power required by the one incandescent bulb you're replacing.

It helps to look at some numbers to put things in perspective. For example, let's say that there are ten light bulbs in your home that you keep on. And let's say you leave them on for five (5) hours every night. These are ten 60-watt (w) incandescent bulbs. They consume a total of 600w per hour or 0.6 kWh. Multiply that usage by the cost your local utility charges per kWh; the U.S. national residential average is ~$0.12 per kWh, so we'll use that. (Note; California average is ~$0.25 per kWh).

Each evening when you leave those ten bulbs on after work, it costs you $0.36 [($0.12 x 0.6) x 5]. Per month, that's * $10.96; per year, it's $131.49. Now let's say you have ten 60w-equivalent LED bulbs used under the same conditions—5 hours per day in the evening after work. Most 60w-equivalent bulbs use 8-9 watts of energy, so we will use 8.5w for our calculations.

Now your per-hour energy use isn't 600w; it's 85w. At the U.S. national average ($0.12), running those ten bulbs for 5 hours after work costs you $0.03 per day [($0.12 x 0.051) x 5], that's $0.91 per month and only $10.96 per year.

To get close to the energy expense of leaving the ten incandescent bulbs on in the evening, you'd need to leave on roughly 70 equivalent LED bulbs.

The point of this exercise isn't to encourage you to be wasteful for the sake of being extravagant. But with the efficiency of LED bulbs, flipping lights off in a room you'll be returning to shortly or not leaving accent lights on around your house just doesn't make a lot of sense.

The cost to run one 60w-equivalent LED bulb is ~$0.001 —a tenth of a cent per hour. You're talking 1,000 hours of operation to hit one dollar at that price point. And hey, if you want to save more money (power), unplug your lesser-used electronics or put them on a power strip; so you can flip them off when you're not using them.

For example, a TV uses about 18W of idle power. That's two LED bulbs worth of energy, 24/7 ($18.93/yr.), completely wasted because it's just powering a TV that's not even turned on.

And granted, you probably leave frequently used items and crucial things like your internet modem and router plugged in; you'll save way more power per year by unplugging unused electronics than you will by beating yourself up for leaving the kitchen lights on.

With winter approaching, if you haven't made the switch to LED lights - think about it.

I'm Patrick Ball; thanks for listening. I'll see you in the next episode.

* (Calculations assume 30.44 days/month & 365.25 days/year) 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Most Popular of All Time

Confidently Wrong: The Art of the AI Tall Tale

In this episode, A chat with Adamas the Chef on hidden recipes causing digital hallucinations. Pull up a chair and pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee—and please, for your own sake, taste it first. We need to have a quiet chat about why your computer sometimes decides to reinvent reality with the confidence of a five-star chef who has clearly lost his mind. In the world of technology, we call it a  hallucination . It sounds pretty dramatic, doesn’t it? As if the computer decided to ignore your instructions altogether in favor of a vivid, technicolor imagination that simply hasn’t met reality yet. But in truth, an AI hallucination isn’t a breakdown; it’s just a very confident, very polite mistake. Think of it like our friend Adamas , the Chef. Adamas is a master of the kitchen, but he is also a bit of a romantic who refuses to say “I don’t know.” When you ask him for a classic recipe he hasn’t made in years, he doesn’t stop to consult a cookbook—that’s far too pedestrian. Instead, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Opening Day Magic 2026 . . .

It’s back. Baseball—yes, baseball ! If you’re someone who finds themselves inexplicably drawn to this peculiar ritual, let’s be honest with each other: it’s a bit odd, right? I mean, 162 games. That’s a lot of hot dogs, a lot of standing around, and a lot of grown men in oddly tailored trousers spitting with remarkable precision. And yet, here we are, poised on the precipice of another season. Thursday, March 26, 2026, to be precise—Opening Day. It’s a curious thing, this Opening Day. You walk into a stadium, or turn on the TV, and suddenly, everyone is infected with a highly contagious strain of . . . Optimism . It’s a spectacular form of collective amnesia. All of last year’s fumbles, the endless losing streaks, the existential dread of watching your bullpen implode in the eighth inning—poof. Gone. It’s entirely replaced by a wide-eyed, childlike belief that this year, finally, the baseball gods will smile upon us. The Cycle of Hope and Despair As a Cubs fan, I know this cycle intim...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Cowardice of Corporate Jargon

Picture this: an email lands in your inbox. A colleague—maybe even a friend—needs a favor, a second set of eyes, a moment of your time. You sigh, stare at the glow of your monitor, and type: “I’d love to help, but I just don’t have the bandwidth right now.” Hit send. Problem solved. Conscience clear. Except it shouldn’t be. Most of us have said or sent that line at least once, hoping it would land gently. On the surface, it’s perfect—efficient, polite, even self-aware. And that’s exactly the problem. It lets you decline without ever quite telling the truth. You didn’t just say no; you softened the discomfort of being human until it barely felt like a feeling at all. Instead of admitting, I’m overwhelmed , or I don’t have the energy , you reach for the sterile vocabulary of a server room. You turn a feeling into a metric. A boundary into a system limitation. Apologies, my data transfer rate is capped. Please submit a ticket to my emotional help desk. It’s a clever little trick—and an un...
Post a Comment
Read more

Overcooking the Grid

In this episode, terrified of smart toasters, yet demanding infinite electricity for potato personality tests. Pull up that chair again, and let’s hope your coffee is safe this time. In our last chat, we talked about our well-meaning but occasionally delusional AI friend, Chef Adamas, and his penchant for hallucinating blueberries into your Carbonara. We learned how to manage his quirks by keeping our “digital pantry” organized. But today, we need to look past the chef and take a hard look at the sheer size of the kitchen we are building for him. And folks, that kitchen has gotten completely out of hand. Down in Louisiana, tech companies are currently building an artificial intelligence data center the size of 70 football fields. It is a four-million-square-foot digital brain that requires so much electricity they are building three new natural gas power plants just to keep the servers from literally melting down into a puddle of expensive silicon. And what are we using this god-like, ...
1 comment
Read more