Daylight savings time (green?)

[cannon_fodder]

Argh!  For years I have been told that we change our clocks to save money.  It's green so it's good.  A minor inconvenience but it saves me money and increases efficiency in the economy overall.

As it turns out, not one has ever bothered to really look into it.  Until now:

quote:ABSTRACT
The history of Daylight Saving Time (DST) has been long and controversial. Throughout its implementation
during World Wars I and II, the oil embargo of the 1970s, consistent practice today, and recent extensions,
the primary rationale for DST has always been to promote energy conservation. Nevertheless, there
is surprisingly little evidence that DST actually saves energy. This paper takes advantage of a natural
experiment in the state of Indiana to provide the first empirical estimates of DST effects on electricity
consumption in the United States since the mid-1970s. Focusing on residential electricity demand,
we conduct the first-ever study that uses micro-data on households to estimate an overall DST effect.
The dataset consists of more than 7 million observations on monthly billing data for the vast majority
of households in southern Indiana for three years. Our main finding is that—contrary to the policy's
intent—DST increases residential electricity demand. Estimates of the overall increase are approximately
1 percent, but we find that the effect is not constant throughout the DST period. DST causes the greatest
increase in electricity consumption in the fall, when estimates range between 2 and 4 percent. These
findings are consistent with simulation results that point to a tradeoff between reducing demand for
lighting and increasing demand for heating and cooling. We estimate a cost of increased electricity
bills to Indiana households of $9 million per year. We also estimate social costs of increased pollution
emissions that range from $1.7 to $5.5 million per year. Finally, we argue that the effect is likely to
be even stronger in other regions of the United States.

"DOES DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME SAVE ENERGY? EVIDENCE FROM A NATURAL EXPERIMENT IN INDIANA." Matthew J. Kotchen & Laura E. Grant for the National Bureau of Economic Research, presented by the University of California Santa Barbara.  Available at:  http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~kotchen/links/DSTpaper.pdf (last visited 11/25/08).

It would cost a state like Oklahoma nearly $10,000,000 a year in extra energy consumption, it increases pollution, reduces productivity, and screws with my head!  What?  No.  Yes!  Damn it.

Personally it costs each of us just a few extra bucks in utility bills.  But cumulatively that's a ton.  Consider the CF bulbs we are all supposed to buy only save a little individually, but the effect of everyone saving energy is what matters.  Here, we all use a little extra.  

The math hurts my head.  But they have it in there for peer review.  Pretty charts too.  I can not attest to the facts they present, but it is the only study on the matter and the scientific finding is that daylight savings time sucks.  And I agree.

Q.E.D.

[Red Arrow]

I'm not a morning person. I like DST. I can do something outside after work. This week is combined vacation and holiday for me. I woke up this morning at 8AM when the alarm clock buzzed.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder



Personally it costs each of us just a few extra bucks in utility bills.  But cumulatively that's a ton.  Consider the CF bulbs we are all supposed to buy only save a little individually, but the effect of everyone saving energy is what matters.  Here, we all use a little extra.  

Save a little, hell. CFLs will save the average home $100 in electricity per year. And the bulbs are getting cheaper all the time.

[cannon_fodder]

Do light bulbs really account for ~20% of my power bill?

In the summer my electric bill is maybe $150.  In the winter is is far, far less than that.  CFL cut power consumption by a factor of 5... but still.  Perhaps I did not realize the difference they make or perhaps I conserve energy better than some people.

I probably have at least 50% CFLs.  The other 50% are vanity lights of some sort (dining room table, bathroom vanity, etc).  Maybe that's why my bill is so low?  Who knows.

But my point still stands above.

[shadows]

There is a possibility that the clustering of light emitting LED's will replace the CFL's in the near future.  It could be assumed that the foreign investors with those trillion's of dollars in promissory (Federal Reserve note's) greenbacks that are building the wind farms in U.S. anticipate an increase in power grid consumption
in the near future.  We could revert back to the candles as in the 30's as the increases in power cost continues.  

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

There is a possibility that the clustering of light emitting LED's will replace the CFL's in the near future.  It could be assumed that the foreign investors with those trillion's of dollars in promissory (Federal Reserve note's) greenbacks that are building the wind farms in U.S. anticipate an increase in power grid consumption
in the near future.  We could revert back to the candles as in the 30's as the increases in power cost continues.  

True to form.

I am not aware of any massive holders of T-Bills that are building wind farms.  For that matter, most of those have now been canceled.  The idea never really made cents or sense.

And lets examine the logic behind your last statement:

LEDs may replace CFLs.
T-Bill holders building wind farms expect power demand to increase.
Therefor, we will all use candles - like in the 30's.

Worst. Proof. Ever.

Statement 1 can stand alone.  Statements 2 and 3 fail by themselves.  And together, they make less sense.

By 1930 most US houses (even rural) had electricity and running lights was cheaper than buying candles.  The same is true today.  Lighting with candles would be more expenses, even if power bills tripled.  And then daylight savings time would be even worse!

[PonderInc]

The "energy savings" argument for DST was always used as a justification, but never proven.  In fact, there is now evidence that energy use actually increases during DST b/c more people go out, and they are more likely to go shopping, etc.  This means they are using fuel in their cars (that would otherwise remain parked in their driveways), and they are going to commercial developments that require large amounts of energy to heat/cool and light. (That previously might have closed earlier.)

Guess who has always been the strongest lobbyist for DST?  The farmers?  Nope.

The real proponents are the The US Chamber of Commerce....and the candy industry!  (Did you notice that DST was recently extended to encompass Halloween?  The candy industry has been working on that one for a long time.)  It seems that the Chamber likes DST, b/c more people get out and shop when there's more light.  When it's dark, more people stay home and watch TV.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

It seems that the Chamber likes DST, b/c more people get out and shop when there's more light.  When it's dark, more people stay home and watch TV.

When theres more light there is more activity of all sorts.  Shopping, recreation, and crime all pick up when people are awake and able to see.

[sauerkraut]

Back in the early 1970's during the oil embargo president Nixon ordered the nation to go on year 'round DST to save fuel. It did not last long because kids were going to school in the dark morn. hours and many kids got hit by cars, so they ordered everyone back to standard time. Parents complained about starting school in the dark. Some schools changed their school hours and started school an hour latter when it would be lighter outside. it was a flop.