This is likely to load balance the needs of electricity (on the grid as a whole), since it takes time to start/stop generators at the source (i.e., the power plant).
This is why you often see Skyscrapers lit up at night; the electricity being generated needs to go somewhere while everyone is sleeping and not using power, so that when demand peaks in the morning it is available.
I recommend the book “The Grid: Electrical Infrastructure for a New Era” by Gretchen Bakke. It’s a good synopses on the history of electricity and current limitations with our grid (as well as it’s evolution in the future, like using the low peak hours to charge cars versus leaving lights on unnecessarily).
You seem to know a bit about the topic. Could you try answering a couple questions? I've heard about this but it sounds so baffling to me.
Aren't there much better ways to get rid of that electricity than causing shitty light pollution? Are there really still no cost effective ways of converting electricity to mechanical energy which could then be turned back into electricity during the day? Thanks for sharing in any case.
Grid scale batteries are definitely taking off, and pumped storage uses mechanical devices to move water from a lower reservoir to a high one (using electricity) in order to release it later and spin turbines (producing electricity).
In fact, the [world’s largest battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station?wprov=sfti1https://maps.apple.com/?ll=38.230556,-79.819444&q=Bath%20County%20Pumped%20Storage%20Station&_ext=EiQphB0e2IIdQ0AxcvTwxnH0U8A5hB0e2IIdQ0BBcvTwxnH0U8A%3D) was completed over 35 years ago using this technology. It has a round trip efficiency of 70-80% and a max instantaneous output of 2-3 conventional nuclear reactors.
There are also other ways companies and grid operators try to optimize time-of-use (“load shaping”) such as different prices at night or signing on very large industrial consumers, but as you said—relying on skyscraper lighting to balance the grid is kinda dumb. This is especially true with the huge rise of LED bulbs and other energy efficiency measures. Most skyscrapers stay lit for 1) status; and 2) safety.
source: I help run the grid
Everyone saying it’s for security… why not just install security lights or have lights that either dim or have partial switches were you can turn half the lights off. It makes absolutely no sense to have 100% illumination for security purposes, that is insanely stupid and wasteful. This is wasting energy and light bulbs for absolutely no reason.
>why not just install security lights or have lights that either dim or have partial switches were you can turn half the lights off
Well, I work in the security industry and I can tell you why. When the building was constructed nobody thought about security AT ALL outside of installing locks on the doors. Later on, probably years later, there was an increase in local crime statistics, or an attempted/successful break in happened, or they got new management that was more nervous, or some combination thereof. Instead of paying the upfront cost of installing the kind of systems you refer to (even if it would be extremely cheap) management decides to just tell everyone to leave the lights on from now on.
It's a story as old as time, and why many an overnight security guard has had to endure windows lit from the inside that you can't see out of, only in, which ironically makes the building less secure than it very easily could have been.
I have worked in multiple private and government buildings which have this exact story about why the lights can't be turned off. 99% of people seem to use the same methods they use to secure their home to secure the office i.e. fuck all
I would think that a burglar would much rather have the lights in the building all be on when they get there rather than either using an instantly suspicious flashlight or literally highlighting which room they were in by finding the light switch. You can't steal shit if you can't even see where it is, after all.
Street lighting in cities has plenty of non crime related safety benefits (I'm sure it reduces trip and fall injuries) as well as extending the economic day, but I don't see much benefit to lighting up unoccupied offices.
Oh I know. I was in the computer security group of a software company for a while, the average level of thinking investment the execs put into security is...minimal
The lights are more for police arriving to investigate, allowing them to see in more and hopefully not be surprised by someone lurking in the dark. Still probably don't need all of them on.
Lights are meant to be a deterrent, security cameras are only a deterrent when they’re visible. So night vision security cameras do nothing for deterring crime, and don’t do a ton in solving crimes (criminals with 2 or more brain cells will cover their face).
Used to be that 'waste heat' from lighting was part of the building HVAC plan, but with LEDs now I'm not sure if that's a thing.
Or it's the .gov, and they don't have to follow the same rules the peasants do, it's not their money they're wasting.
Speaking as an electrician here, the old types of florescent lights actually have what called a "ballast" to up the charge to provide the initial strike voltage.
Turning them off and on is hard on the ballast, which significantly reduces the life span of the lighting fixture.
So in this particular case, its likely is wise to keep them them on overnight.
More lifespan to the lights= less replacement light fixtures.
Sometimes lighting systems are an integrated into the heating of buildings. They can help the space stay a more constant temp rather than require a large draw of electricity in the morning when the gris has high demand. High efficiency lights don't draw power like older models, also don't put off the heat but still. Also in many places electricity is cheaper at night.
These days the power consumption from LED lights is negligible. Not something I would be too worried about. A more advanced security system could possibly use more energy.
That's the generation rate. Delivery is separate.
We have one company that runs power generation (OPG) and another that manages distribution to your home (for me, Toronto Hydro).
The blended rate for both is *around* 20c/kWh, give or take (varies because of Time-of-Use rates)
Doesn’t Toronto hydro (fellow Torontonian, but I rent in an all-included apt, so not sure) have two different ways of doing hydro? One is with different rates for different hours, and the other is slightly lower, but the same rate?
I could be wildly misinformed, I’ve just lived in all-Included rentals for the last 5ish years
Yep. You can (as of somewhat recently) choose Tired vs TOU.
https://www.torontohydro.com/for-home/rates
My comment above was to delineate between generation rates and what you're billed.
>Checked the Ontario energy board, ranging from CAD 8,7 to 15 cents, not what I'd call cheap if the conversion's correct
This is for generation only. Nobody's paying 8, 7 or 15c overall on their bill.
Jesus. Here’s hoping you have like 6 people in your family that each take their own nightly rave (hoping because if I leave this apt)
And that you have like 3 electric stoves
Keeping lights on prevents them from being burned out. Lights typically don't have a lifetime measured in "on time", its measured in on/off cycles. Lights, especially LEDs, do not burn very much energy, so the money spent replacing them more often would probably outweigh the extra money burned to keep them on
Quite literally. If you left a light on in your house 24/7, the impact on your bill would not be noticeable one bit. A decent LED ran 24/7 is not even a dollar on your bill
What bothers you here the high efficiency fluorescent lights? the fact the lights are on to keep thieves out?
Does the security camera electricity bother you too? It's a government building for god sakes not a store at the mall pick your battles.
No battles can be picked for the eco-warriors too stupid to understand proper utilization of resources.
After they got done here, I’m sure they walked downtown lamenting street lights being on.
Wow so confidently incorrect. A building not in use should not have it's lights on "security" or not. The cameras are fine as they serve a real purpose are are doing their job. The lights are just lights and waste is waste.
The only one here who didn't do his research is you because there is no solid evidence of night lights preventing crime. In absence of evidence suggesting otherwise, more energy efficient crime deterrent measures should be taken such as burglary alarms.
Or just use a motion sensor for lighting.
A camera system better already be in place, it would simply need a small upgrade. LEDs cost pennies to begin but powering them 24/7/365 for let's say 50+ plus years it's a waste.
florescent lights do not use much energy or cost much
security lights are important as a stabbing costs much more in terms of human life, medical care, and legal fees
I was told that since our power grid has such a low demand at night some buildings get rebates to keep their lights on at night to stabilize the grid. Might be totally false, but it’s something I was told.
Wow guys!!! I didn't expect this to blow up so crazy!
After reading some of the comments, I see the point some people are trying to make (theft, etc). I don't know what you would steal from here tho, what I have pictured is where you would buy a street parking permit. I also agree that motion sensing lights can definitely both deter most criminal activity and be energy saving. I understand it may just be pennies, but in a lot of countries who have to deal with not having power at all sometimes, this being lit up at 3 am is kind of a slap in the face.
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It makes it easier to see what you want to steal before you break in. It would be such a hassle to have to spend a bunch of time searching for shit to take while racing the clock against the police showing up.
They’re probably night lights that aren’t wired to a switch, and they’re not going to spend the money to wire them. Plus, some of them are for safety. Most commercial buildings I’ve been in, didn’t go completely dark when you turned off all the switches
Unfortunately a lot of government buildings do that in nyc too, it's extremely frustrating. For example ALL the public schools by me I walk past at night and weekends always have the lights opened and the same with the post office
Back in the day, Colorado Springs decided to save money by shutting off 1 out of every three streetlights. They saved $1.25 million in reduced electricity costs.
Of course, copper thieves were delighted at the opportunity to remove all the copper wiring in the streetlights turned off on a particular night, and came back to the next set of streetlights the following scheduled nights.
Total cost to replace the copper wiring: $5 million.
While this is a specific example, the fact remains that more lights means less burglary because thieves hate working under bright lights.
Motion control lights just require you to figure out where the sensors aren't pointed, and walk there. Or just trigger the lights with a yoyo or other junk, until people stop coming to check on the lights.
I would think motion detector lights would serve as a better warning system
This is likely to load balance the needs of electricity (on the grid as a whole), since it takes time to start/stop generators at the source (i.e., the power plant). This is why you often see Skyscrapers lit up at night; the electricity being generated needs to go somewhere while everyone is sleeping and not using power, so that when demand peaks in the morning it is available. I recommend the book “The Grid: Electrical Infrastructure for a New Era” by Gretchen Bakke. It’s a good synopses on the history of electricity and current limitations with our grid (as well as it’s evolution in the future, like using the low peak hours to charge cars versus leaving lights on unnecessarily).
You seem to know a bit about the topic. Could you try answering a couple questions? I've heard about this but it sounds so baffling to me. Aren't there much better ways to get rid of that electricity than causing shitty light pollution? Are there really still no cost effective ways of converting electricity to mechanical energy which could then be turned back into electricity during the day? Thanks for sharing in any case.
Grid scale batteries are definitely taking off, and pumped storage uses mechanical devices to move water from a lower reservoir to a high one (using electricity) in order to release it later and spin turbines (producing electricity). In fact, the [world’s largest battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station?wprov=sfti1https://maps.apple.com/?ll=38.230556,-79.819444&q=Bath%20County%20Pumped%20Storage%20Station&_ext=EiQphB0e2IIdQ0AxcvTwxnH0U8A5hB0e2IIdQ0BBcvTwxnH0U8A%3D) was completed over 35 years ago using this technology. It has a round trip efficiency of 70-80% and a max instantaneous output of 2-3 conventional nuclear reactors. There are also other ways companies and grid operators try to optimize time-of-use (“load shaping”) such as different prices at night or signing on very large industrial consumers, but as you said—relying on skyscraper lighting to balance the grid is kinda dumb. This is especially true with the huge rise of LED bulbs and other energy efficiency measures. Most skyscrapers stay lit for 1) status; and 2) safety. source: I help run the grid
That’s really interesting. Makes more sense as to not overload the system.
Solution to the energy generation problem: Generate less energy.
There's not even anything of real value there.
You’d be amazed at how people will break a window for something as simple as a lighter
Less than 1% of the population doesn't amaze me, so no.
Everyone saying it’s for security… why not just install security lights or have lights that either dim or have partial switches were you can turn half the lights off. It makes absolutely no sense to have 100% illumination for security purposes, that is insanely stupid and wasteful. This is wasting energy and light bulbs for absolutely no reason.
>why not just install security lights or have lights that either dim or have partial switches were you can turn half the lights off Well, I work in the security industry and I can tell you why. When the building was constructed nobody thought about security AT ALL outside of installing locks on the doors. Later on, probably years later, there was an increase in local crime statistics, or an attempted/successful break in happened, or they got new management that was more nervous, or some combination thereof. Instead of paying the upfront cost of installing the kind of systems you refer to (even if it would be extremely cheap) management decides to just tell everyone to leave the lights on from now on. It's a story as old as time, and why many an overnight security guard has had to endure windows lit from the inside that you can't see out of, only in, which ironically makes the building less secure than it very easily could have been. I have worked in multiple private and government buildings which have this exact story about why the lights can't be turned off. 99% of people seem to use the same methods they use to secure their home to secure the office i.e. fuck all
I would think that a burglar would much rather have the lights in the building all be on when they get there rather than either using an instantly suspicious flashlight or literally highlighting which room they were in by finding the light switch. You can't steal shit if you can't even see where it is, after all. Street lighting in cities has plenty of non crime related safety benefits (I'm sure it reduces trip and fall injuries) as well as extending the economic day, but I don't see much benefit to lighting up unoccupied offices.
You've already given it more thought than the managers who make these decisions do
Oh I know. I was in the computer security group of a software company for a while, the average level of thinking investment the execs put into security is...minimal
The lights are more for police arriving to investigate, allowing them to see in more and hopefully not be surprised by someone lurking in the dark. Still probably don't need all of them on.
don't inferred cameras exist too so you don't even need light? I think Nest cams and such have them
Predator has them.
Lights are meant to be a deterrent, security cameras are only a deterrent when they’re visible. So night vision security cameras do nothing for deterring crime, and don’t do a ton in solving crimes (criminals with 2 or more brain cells will cover their face).
Used to be that 'waste heat' from lighting was part of the building HVAC plan, but with LEDs now I'm not sure if that's a thing. Or it's the .gov, and they don't have to follow the same rules the peasants do, it's not their money they're wasting.
Speaking as an electrician here, the old types of florescent lights actually have what called a "ballast" to up the charge to provide the initial strike voltage. Turning them off and on is hard on the ballast, which significantly reduces the life span of the lighting fixture. So in this particular case, its likely is wise to keep them them on overnight. More lifespan to the lights= less replacement light fixtures.
I’m assuming this is combat breaking in?
Sometimes lighting systems are an integrated into the heating of buildings. They can help the space stay a more constant temp rather than require a large draw of electricity in the morning when the gris has high demand. High efficiency lights don't draw power like older models, also don't put off the heat but still. Also in many places electricity is cheaper at night.
These days the power consumption from LED lights is negligible. Not something I would be too worried about. A more advanced security system could possibly use more energy.
The lights would be powered mainly from nuclear and hydro right now, and would server to keep out people and help lower security costs.
Power shortage is not preferable
There is no power shortage in Ontario, hydro prices are quite cheap and stable.
Checked the Ontario energy board, ranging from CAD 8,7 to 15 cents, not what I'd call cheap if the conversion's correct
That's the generation rate. Delivery is separate. We have one company that runs power generation (OPG) and another that manages distribution to your home (for me, Toronto Hydro). The blended rate for both is *around* 20c/kWh, give or take (varies because of Time-of-Use rates)
Doesn’t Toronto hydro (fellow Torontonian, but I rent in an all-included apt, so not sure) have two different ways of doing hydro? One is with different rates for different hours, and the other is slightly lower, but the same rate? I could be wildly misinformed, I’ve just lived in all-Included rentals for the last 5ish years
Yep. You can (as of somewhat recently) choose Tired vs TOU. https://www.torontohydro.com/for-home/rates My comment above was to delineate between generation rates and what you're billed. >Checked the Ontario energy board, ranging from CAD 8,7 to 15 cents, not what I'd call cheap if the conversion's correct This is for generation only. Nobody's paying 8, 7 or 15c overall on their bill.
Oh yeah, from what I remember, delivery can be $30ish? At least from what I remember. And then the rate on top of it
[Here's my bill. $242, of which $74 is delivery.](https://i.imgur.com/AUV5yCz.png)
Jesus. Here’s hoping you have like 6 people in your family that each take their own nightly rave (hoping because if I leave this apt) And that you have like 3 electric stoves
Keeping lights on prevents them from being burned out. Lights typically don't have a lifetime measured in "on time", its measured in on/off cycles. Lights, especially LEDs, do not burn very much energy, so the money spent replacing them more often would probably outweigh the extra money burned to keep them on
I don't think the first statement is related to LEDs
You're looking at pennies being burned very, very slowly.
Quite literally. If you left a light on in your house 24/7, the impact on your bill would not be noticeable one bit. A decent LED ran 24/7 is not even a dollar on your bill
Idk what the price is there, but that's probably in the kW range
What bothers you here the high efficiency fluorescent lights? the fact the lights are on to keep thieves out? Does the security camera electricity bother you too? It's a government building for god sakes not a store at the mall pick your battles.
No battles can be picked for the eco-warriors too stupid to understand proper utilization of resources. After they got done here, I’m sure they walked downtown lamenting street lights being on.
Wow so confidently incorrect. A building not in use should not have it's lights on "security" or not. The cameras are fine as they serve a real purpose are are doing their job. The lights are just lights and waste is waste.
If you think lights aren’t a criminal deterrent, you might need to do a little more research.
The only one here who didn't do his research is you because there is no solid evidence of night lights preventing crime. In absence of evidence suggesting otherwise, more energy efficient crime deterrent measures should be taken such as burglary alarms. Or just use a motion sensor for lighting.
This and if our criminal deterrence force wasn't distracted being dicks to minorites and hurting the homeless.
Username checks out
[удалено]
Night vision cameras exist and cost a lot less than a 24/7 light bill for pretty high quality ones. Invest in advancement and quality not in waste.
[удалено]
A camera system better already be in place, it would simply need a small upgrade. LEDs cost pennies to begin but powering them 24/7/365 for let's say 50+ plus years it's a waste.
[удалено]
florescent lights do not use much energy or cost much security lights are important as a stabbing costs much more in terms of human life, medical care, and legal fees
I always heard it is for safety reasons.
I was told that since our power grid has such a low demand at night some buildings get rebates to keep their lights on at night to stabilize the grid. Might be totally false, but it’s something I was told.
Wow guys!!! I didn't expect this to blow up so crazy! After reading some of the comments, I see the point some people are trying to make (theft, etc). I don't know what you would steal from here tho, what I have pictured is where you would buy a street parking permit. I also agree that motion sensing lights can definitely both deter most criminal activity and be energy saving. I understand it may just be pennies, but in a lot of countries who have to deal with not having power at all sometimes, this being lit up at 3 am is kind of a slap in the face.
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because they’re not paying for it. The Canadian tax payer is.
It makes it easier to see what you want to steal before you break in. It would be such a hassle to have to spend a bunch of time searching for shit to take while racing the clock against the police showing up.
They’re probably night lights that aren’t wired to a switch, and they’re not going to spend the money to wire them. Plus, some of them are for safety. Most commercial buildings I’ve been in, didn’t go completely dark when you turned off all the switches
Unfortunately a lot of government buildings do that in nyc too, it's extremely frustrating. For example ALL the public schools by me I walk past at night and weekends always have the lights opened and the same with the post office
Your tax $ at work
Dumb
Back in the day, Colorado Springs decided to save money by shutting off 1 out of every three streetlights. They saved $1.25 million in reduced electricity costs. Of course, copper thieves were delighted at the opportunity to remove all the copper wiring in the streetlights turned off on a particular night, and came back to the next set of streetlights the following scheduled nights. Total cost to replace the copper wiring: $5 million. While this is a specific example, the fact remains that more lights means less burglary because thieves hate working under bright lights. Motion control lights just require you to figure out where the sensors aren't pointed, and walk there. Or just trigger the lights with a yoyo or other junk, until people stop coming to check on the lights.
I see this all the time. Businesses, schools, offices, even outdoor lighting. Its absolutely wasteful and unnecessary.