Slashdot Mirror


Daylight Savings Change Proposed

AveryRegier writes "CNN is reporting that Congress has added an amendment to the Energy Bill to extend daylight-savings time by two months. They expect to "save the equivalent of 10,000 barrels of oil a day." How long it would take for the associated energy savings to overcome the cost to make, test, and deploy the necessary code changes? How would the cost of this change compare with Y2K? Does most date routines' reliance on GMT make this just an issue of presenting the right time to the user?"

5 of 1,392 comments (clear)

  1. I could be wrong... by DaHat · · Score: 5, Informative

    But isn't it "Daylight Saving Time" and not "Daylight Savings Time"? (ie no s)

  2. I'll take the daylight by vmcto · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't have the information necessary to make an observation regarding the net energy savings if any exists, but as a resident of Pennsylvania which runs from Lattitude 39 43' N to 42 N I would sure welcome the extra daylight.

    I gotta say that driving to work in the dark and driving home from work in the dark is not a prticularly gratifying experience. In fact it's downright depressing.

    Interestingly enough the times have been changed in the fairly recent past (according to the US Army:

    During the "energy crisis" years, Congress enacted earlier starting dates for daylight time. In 1974, daylight time began on 6 January and in 1975 it began on 23 February. After those two years the starting date reverted back to the last Sunday in April. In 1986, a law was passed permanently shifting the starting date of daylight time to the first Sunday in April, beginning in 1987. The ending date of daylight time has not been subject to such changes, and has remained the last Sunday in October.

  3. Re:Why not go to DST permanently? by Nos. · · Score: 5, Informative

    A lot of people have responded to your post with a variety of reasons on why not to go to a permanent time. All my life I have lived in Saskatchewan (just north of Montana and North Dakota). We do not change times, and are one of the few places in North America that doesn't. Usually every spring there's talk about it and without fail, the government decides to just leave things alone.

    Yes, this means that children to go to school when its dark. No, this typically does not mean that more are getting hit by cars. Farmers typically don't start work at a given time, they start with the dawn and finish when its to dark to see properly. The only reason they worry about the time is when they need parts to continue harvest/seeding/etc. Most parts places around here are starting to have extended hours during the seeding and harvest seasons.

    It does cause a little confusion at times. Most of our TV channels will start an hour earlier/later. If you're doing business outside of the province you have to be aware of the local time.

    Personally, I love the fact that regardless of the time of year, I can say that we are GMT -6. When a story gets posted that mentions an ecllipse or meteor shower, I can quickly determine the best viewing times from almost any summary.

  4. Re:how about just.... by tegjr · · Score: 5, Informative

    quoted from: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/reflect/may1401.htm "Your dad or grandpa probably taught you that you'd save electricity, or at least save money, by leaving fluorescent lights on for extended periods of time rather than turning them off and then back on. That may have been true once, but not any more. The following, borrowed from Kansas City Power and Light, answers the question: Should I turn off fluorescent lights when I don't need them, or is it more energy-efficient to leave them on in an empty room? Fluorescent lighting was developed in the 1940s when electricity costs were low. Design and manufacturing compromises in these early lamps caused them to burn out more quickly if switched on and off daily. Consequently, many companies left their fluorescent lamps on day and night. The electricity consumed -- given the extremely low power rates at that time -- actually cost less than the labor and material needed for lamp replacement. Much has changed during the past half century in the world of lighting. Technology advancements and increased electricity cost have prompted the lighting industry to rethink the conventional wisdom of fluorescent lighting system's operation. Many people continue to believe that it takes significantly more electricity to turn on a fluorescent lamp than to operate the lamp for long periods. Modern fluorescent lamps, however, use little starting energy. Turning them off actually helps them last longer and lowers lighting energy costs. Researchers at the U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory have found that a fluorescent lamp's initial "start surge" lasts only 1/120 of a second. The entire starting current for two-tube rapid-start luminaries lasts less than one second before it stabilizes. Consequently, Navy engineers assert that turning the lamps off for only one second saves the energy required to turn them back on. A standard fluorescent lamp can run for 34,000 hours if left on 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. This equals 3.9 years of round-the-clock use. However, by turning the lamp off for 12 hours a day, it increases the overall longevity of the lamp to 6.8 years. Not only does turning off fluorescent lights reduce lamp replacement costs, it also reduces electric bills. For example turning off a single one-tube light for only one-half hour a day can save about $3 in energy over the life of the lamp. In fact, the money saved by this routine is typically more than the price of a new lamp. In short, you should turn off lights in your office or a room in your home when you leave, even if you leave for only a few minutes. For more detailed information and additional data about fluorescent light use, visit the Kansas City Power and Light website at http://lighting.bki.com/pubs/bull4.asp?link=kcpl Article posted for the week of May 14, 2001."

  5. Re:Creating a Boom? by LordPixie · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wish I had a link,

    I sense a need for my Mad Googling Skills. LordPixie, to the rescue !!

    After wasting the last 15 minutes of my life. (OK. Fine. My employer's time/money.) I have determined that this little story is not apocryphal bullshit !

    For example, see this little site. It not only covers the anecdote you mentioned, but also includes a link to a (now defunct) CNN article. Further references can be found by simply googling for Koskinen "three computers".

    I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that LordPixie usually charges for the services of his Madcap Googling Skills. This time was free. =)


    --LordPixie