Daytime running lights waste gasoline

from "HowStuffWorks.com [by Anonymous Citizen on March 9, 2008]

If daytime running lights were mandatory in the U.S. and all vehicles had them how much extra gasoline would that use each year?

For several years now Canada has required all new cars sold to have daytime running lights. Any time the car is running the headlights are on, but the taillights and other lights are off. You have to turn on these other lights from the dashboard at night. Studies seem to indicate that having the headlights on during daylight hours reduces the number of multiple vehicle accidents (although there has been some controversy about people forgetting to turn on their other lights at night -- a mistake that causes extra accidents, and a good example of the "law of unintended consequences"!). The US has not adopted this law, but if it did they would definitely consume gasoline. Headlights require power, and a car's engine produces power using gasoline. If you make a few assumptions, it is possible to estimate how much gas the law would consume.

A typical headlight bulb uses about 55 watts; sometimes the daytime running lights run at a lower wattage so they use a little less power. Let's say the daytime running lights use 100 watts since there are two bulbs.

To calculate the energy used, we need to figure out how much time people will spend with their lights on. According the to NHTSA, vehicles in the US drove 2,560 billion miles in 1997. We need to make a guess at the average speed people drive including stops in order to figure out how much time people spent driving their cars. Let's guess

30 mph, which means each mile takes two minutes. That makes 5,120 billion minutes or 85.3 billion hours. Now if each car normally drives at night about half the time, that means that the daytime running lights would be on 42.6 billion hours a year. Multiplying by the 100 watts we get 4,260 billion watt-hours or 4.26 billion kilowatt-hours. The U.S. uses about that much electricity nationwide in 12 hours.

Now we need to figure out how much electrical energy we can get out of a gallon of gas. A gallon of gas contains about 60 kilowatt-hours of chemical energy, but this energy has to go through two conversion processes before we can use it in a light bulb. First the chemical energy must be turned into mechanical power by the engine of the car. Car engines don't do this very efficiently -- only about 25% of the chemical energy can be turned into mechanical power, and the rest is wasted as heat. After the engine gets done with our gallon of gas we have 15 kilowatt-hours left.

Now the alternator on the car has to turn the mechanical power from the engine into electrical power. The alternator does this a lot better than the engine, but it is still only about 70% efficient. In the end we get about 10.5 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy out of a gallon of gas.

To calculate how many gallons of gas this is, you can divide the 4.26 billion kilowatt hours of energy that the daytime running lights consume each year by the 10.5 kilowatt-hours of energy each gallon of gas yields. If daytime running lights were on all the vehicles in the U.S., we would burn an extra 406 million gallons of gas each year. That's only a couple gallons for each vehicle, but in total it is more than all of the vehicles in the country burn in a day. At $1.50 a gallon, that's $600 million per year. Looking at it another way, an extra 8 billion pounds of Carbon Dioxide would be added to the atmosphere by this law.

It's an interesting question because it shows how a simple idea like, "let's have everyone turn on their headlights all the time" can have a real cost when you try to implement it! Whether the benefit is worth the cost is an important question in almost any public policy decision.

****************************************************

Now I know some of you will question the date on the article and the cost of a gallon of gasoline. I did too, but I have no explanation. I'd love to know where Anonymous Citizen is buying gasoline at a $1.50 per. The rest of the article has some credibility.

Reply to
Pete E. Kruzer
Loading thread data ...

I bought the DRL module for our US-market 300M and installed it myself. This vehicle has an "automatic" headlight setting too, so all the lights switch on when it gets dark enough outside (and when the wipers are on).

The overall cost of DRLs is minuscule compared to the total cost of running the vehicle.

And remember that the accidents that might have been prevented by DRLs have a cost too, a cost that may be reflected in our insurance premiums.

Perce

Reply to
Percival P. Cassidy

Interesting article, but that gas price is very suspect.

Reply to
who

I Canada the 300M has the DRL function from the factory. Canadian cars have had DRLs for many years. I find it very helpful even in the summer on the highway when a car stands out and it's direction is obvious.

Reply to
Josh S

DRL operate in several European countries. In one or two the DRLs are needed only outside towns.

FWIW.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

The theory is interesting. The stated price of fuel tends to date the original article. Unfortunately, for the sake of argument, I suspect the stated amount of energy which each gallon of gasoline (what about diesel?) holds might vary with respect to the particular blending of fuel chemistries and elements thereof.

A good many years ago, when halogen headlights were starting to become standard equipment, on the back of one brand's box it touted a benefit of "additional fuel economy" as a selling point/benefit of using halogen headlights over then-conventional headlights. Greater light efficiency with less power input meant the engine had less load from the alternator to make the headlights work. Another valid theory.

So, if halogen headlights are more energy efficient and allow headlight manufacturers to state such, then having them run every minute the car is operating, the whole thing might be "a wash".

IF energy consumption of DRLs was really significant, you could have expected the environmentalists to have howled when GM made DRLs (and automatic headlights) standard over a decade ago (in the USA market). Consumers would be complaining about higher fuel bills, too, I suspect.

In earlier times, some Chrysler products with CA emissions stated to have the low beams turned on when you set the base idle speed of the motor. In these situations, the additional load of the headlights (back then) might change the idle speed slightly, which would then need to be compensated for in the idle speed screw adjustment. Usually, this was on Slant 6s rather than the V-8s. I suspect that as soon as the motors came "off idle", the issue of alternator loading went away as the carb's main system metering calibrations took over.

This could well be another situation where, individually, the energy consumption might be measureable in the lab and insignificant in the real world, but when collectively considered, becomes significant. Just like changing an air filter or keeping the tires fully inflated "to specs" can have similar or more significant effects on a vehicle's mpg.

Regards,

C-BODY

Reply to
C-BODY

Most environmentalists don't know how to decide whether to howl or not. They need an Al Gore to tell them what to howl about.

Its simple to calculate how much energy DRLs take. About 50 watts of electrical power, or roughly 1/16th of a horsepower. Not particularly insignificant, since a modern aerodynamic car only needs a few horsepower total to cruise at highway speed. Multiply by the millions of cars on the road....

Reply to
Steve

But, as I wrote upthread: ... remember that the accidents that might have been prevented by DRLs have a cost too, a cost that may be reflected in our insurance premiums.

And not just our auto insurance premiums, but our health insurance premiums too. And the taxes that go to law enforcement to investigate those accidents* and to fire/ambulance/rescue services to rescue people from those accidents.

*I still don't understand why the police are supposed to be called to every little fender bender that involves only a few thousand dollars of property damage and no bodily injuries.

Perce

Reply to
Percival P. Cassidy

Call me a skeptic, but I don't think they do ANYTHING to prevent accidents. Sure, when they were new and conspicuous, they might have. Now, half the cars on the road have them and they don't draw any attention at all. If you need lights to be seen, its time to turn on the headlamps. No reason to burn energy needlessly on a bright clear sunny day.

Reply to
Steve

We've had them for almost 20 yrs in CDA and believe me they help. On the highway you can tell from a distance that a car is moving, even on a bright sunny day, particularly if you are going towards the sun. Also much better than the full head lights when conditions are bad, such as in a rain storm, or none because people forget to turn them on.

I would like to see a change or ban on those too white, too bright, blinding discharge headlights.

Reply to
Some O

I'd rather see a ban on high-beam DRLs. While I think they're silly and wasteful, I have no real problem with DRLs that use the turn signals or a dedicated set of lamps (GMC trucks from recent years for example). But DRLs that run the high beams at a reduced output are more offensive than a whole array of HID headlamps. The whole point of not using high-beams in traffic is that they direct an image of the filament RIGHT INTO ONCOMING DRIVERS' EYES! That is just as true and irritating if the filmanent is at 75% intensity as it is whtn the filament is at full intensity. A turn signal, low beam, or dedicated light gives a completely different type of signal image at the oncoming drivers' eyes. Its recognizable, but not blinding.

For that matter, HID lamps have gotten so much better in the past 5 years, both in color rendering (they're not blue anymore) and beam control, that I'll bet you don't even notice about 2/3 of the ones you see as being any different.

Reply to
Steve

When GM first made DRLs standard, they had an accessory kit to put them on recent production year vehicles. They put out a poster of how much difference seeing a vehicle's placement with and without DRLs made. The location for the picture appeared to be on a bridge in the Florida Keys on a partly cloudy day. The difference was significant.

Later, I went to a swap meet in southern OK. On a long stretch of road on a sunny day, I could see a GM car (with DRLs) for well over a mile before we met on the two lane road. Otherwise, the car blended into the background--especially depending on the color or the car! DRLs are the equalizing factor that makes all colors of vehicles significantly visible in the day time. Until I started noticing that, I had the "WHY?" orientation too.

An observed issue with the "lights" is that many of them seem to be installed incorrectly OR in a vehicle not designed for them. OR aimed correctly! I'm getting used to the blue-tint bulbs, but do dislike some of their beam patterns.

On a normal vehicle, they aren't too bad, but on a lowered vehicle that hits the bump stops each time an imperfection on the road is encountered, causing the vehicle to bounce on the tires, those lights' beams THEN do bad things to oncoming traffic as the allegedly properly aimed headlight tilts upward and puts you squarely in the higher intensity part of the beam pattern for a split second, looking like bright flash that you then try to see where it's coming from. Looking for the source of that flash can cause an accident itself!

As for police investigation of minor accidents, if I was in a minor accident, I'd at least want some documentation to take to my insurance company to file a claim rather than a piece of paper with a name and address scribbled on it of the person who damaged my vehicle. In some cases, the police officer will just coordinate the exchange of information, plus serve as a witness that something did happen, and not write a ticket unless some significant indiscretion caused the accident. I consider this to be a valid use of municipal resources. Not quite as time consuming as directing traffic or serving as back-up on a traffic violation, but still desireable to happen.

Regards,

C-BODY

Reply to
C-BODY

The reason that high beams were used for DRLs was because those bulbs see less use than the low beams (which are the primary headlight). In the "next redesign" of most of the vehicles which used the low-intensity high beams for the DRLs, the DRLs either were moved to the turn signals or a separate bulb was incorporated into the headlight module (taking a common turn signal bulb rather than an expensive headlight bulb).

C-BODY

Reply to
C-BODY

In another country in which I lived for many years, everything seemed to work quite smoothly with a law requiring the police to be *notified* within 24 hours of an accident involving personal injury or property damage in excess of $1000 (that was 20 years ago, so imagine what that limit would be now if it were indexed for inflation). No requirement to

*call* police at all. Far lower insurance rates than in the US despite high labor costs; most insurance companies worked on the "We'll pay to fix ours, you pay to fix yours; why make the lawyers rich?" principle.

Perce

Reply to
Percival P. Cassidy

Would that be the "no fault" insurance orientation?

C-BODY

Reply to
C-BODY

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.