Daylight Savings Time Increases Energy Use In Indiana
enbody writes "The Freakonomics Blog at NYTimes.com reports on a study of Indiana energy use for daylight savings time showing an increase in energy use of 1%. '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 — D.S.T. increases residential electricity demand.'" Maybe that's just from millions of coffee makers being pressed into extra duty.
I can say, living in Eastern Illinois (Chicago), that when Daylight savings rolls around, we do engage our coffee maker to make the transition a little easier. If enough households do this, I wouldn't be surprised if the "coffeemaker" effect is significant enough to cause serious change in energy usage. For example, our coffee maker draws 1200 watts(!) while brewing.
Of course it is very difficult to make an apples to apples comparison since energy demands are changing year to year anyway. Observed changes cannot be only attributed to the DST changes.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
In order to really determine the effect though, they need to look at all power usage not just households. What about municipalities (street lights, water pumps, etc.), businesses, office space, Government offices, etc.). If you don't calculate it all - and you come out with a 1% difference - you may just have found nothing of any relevance since the intent is to save power overall.
When we fall back from DST to standard time, I notice a lot of people seem more visibly depressed, or "blah." I think there is something about the day ending at 4:30 pm that feels unnatural. Not only are the days getting shorter in the Fall, but then people have to deal with the sun setting an hour earlier.
This indicates to me that people actually enjoy DST. If anything, I would support a year-round DST.
I don't care if it uses more energy, I like it when it gets dark later. I like getting out of work while it's still light outside.
The article doesn't describe how the produced the estimate of 1%. If they just looked at the year-over-year change, the number could be meaningless as that might be within the normal variation/trend of energy consumption.
The method economists use in this situation is to look at the group that your changing (Indiana) and compare the change in energy consumption to a nearby control group (Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky). You can then look at the RELATIVE changes to get a valid answer.
***
Ok, I just followed the link to the actual paper, and it looks like they used several Indiana counties that were on DST prior to the policy change as their control. So, yeah, their results look pretty valid. In conclusion: Down with DST!
Why didn't they test this in a few states before doing it nation-wide? They fuck with our clocks, operating systems, and minds with no rational plan.
Table-ized A.I.
Second, what is the one percent based on? Previous months use? Historical and adjusted values for same month use?
Third, do the increases adjust for changes in fall activities. For instance, were the kids all going to school at the same time? Does the start of school effect the figures?Do the number of holidays effect the figures?
All I really know at this point is that some people stuck some number in spreadsheet and saw a spike. Next thing you will telling me is that the only reason the days start getting longer is that, fortunately, some traditionalist still hold a ceremony on the 21st to make it do so, rather than the much too late 25th.
I really don't know if DST helps, or if this paper is valid. However, it appears that the only variable this paper controls for is weather, and rather For instance, their data shows an increase over the month of September, exactly when parents are getting up earlier to get the kids ready for school, while July through september, months when parents do not get get kids ready for school, is not increased, even though children may be home during the day using electricity. I do see how any question is answered. Some nice data analysis, so nice inferences, but who knows if anything else.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The whole idea of having to develop an entire infrastructure and spend so much effort (e.g. writing software, following changes in policies, synchronizing between different DST zones, even manually correcting clocks) just to supposedly save a little energy thanks to "using more sunlight" is beyond idiotic. I won't even touch the fact that to me it is kind of obvious that the DST could never work as intended. But even if we were certain it would work, the CHANGE twice a year add such an overhead that would wipe out any potential gain.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Anybody else out there think it's a little odd to be using the term "Standard Time" for a period that covers only 4 months of the year now?
How long must we continue this DST insanity? It doesn't accomplish anything beneficial. Nothing, nada, zip. If you like getting out of work in the light, then lobby to switch your state to a different time zone year round, but please please not DST.
On the other hand DST costs us plenty in confusion and lost work hours, and in maintaining software that deals with 24x7 matters. All such software must deal with one 23 hour day an one 25 hour day each year. Especially when said software integrates with external software and people it is next to impossible to assure error free transition to or from DST. Someone in the chain always drops the ball. One of these days, we're going to have an accidental missile launch or a nuclear meltdown or some really bad accident directly linked to DST.
One of the real lessons we should have learned from Y2K was that dealing with our insanely complex conventions for time and date are vastly expensive and the cause of chronic errors. New errors are still being created every day because the author deals incorrectly with time. DST just heaps on even more crap and returns no benefit.
"But haven't most households switched to CFLs and other energy-efficient lighting?"
No. Very few houses actually contain people who care. I don't mean to sound like a troll, but that's the facts.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Well, it is nice that in the afternoon I can take my kids to the park, work in the garden, or commute with some day light... All in all, I can actually live my life a lot more because there is daylight when the day is over, and I can enjoy 7 days a week, not 2... But, if we need to use 1% more energy, well let's panic. The energy savings of DST has obviously been silly since light became a small portion of energy usage, but if it's only 1% more, I'd say that's pretty cheap.
I think that I can 50% - more recreational time each week during DST, so if I can do that for 1% more energy, terrific. OTOH, I spent less time watching TV on on the computer because there is more useful daylight, another bonus. Daylight before I get up in the morning doesn't do me any good, but having daylight for my commute in and for my evenings with my family are precious.
I'm always saddened when DST comes to an end. Why the whiners on Slashdot complain about DST, I'll never understand. The transition week is annoying, and my two year old has been struggling with his rhythm being off, but as a trade off for all those summer afternoons in the park with him, it's a bargain.
I, for one, shit every time I want. It helps to get rid of shitty ideas.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
you know, back when farmers where around, then it made sense to change it. Now it just messes up everything. First of all, all of a sudden it gets light an hour early, I wake up with the sun so at what used to be 8, it's now 7 so I have to do something for that extra hour (use electricity to post on /. for example) then I come home at night and where I used to make dinner in the sunlight before plopping down in the couch or doing something, now I need electricity to light up my kitchen for the rest of winter until the sun (and my body) has caught up with the time. Next to that because my body clock is all screwed up for the rest of the month, I have one hour less sleep and one hour more activity whether it be computer, tv or something else, I live at night and I have to use electricity to light my house.
And then when summer comes around, the same thing goes the backward way. All of a sudden it's dark in the morning and I need lights in my home and office for the whole morning (because once it gets light enough, I don't notice them being on).
And there is no excuse for farmers anymore, one of my family members is an 'agricultural engineer'. These days farms are industrialized and literally work 24/7 to work their huge lands with as little (very expensive) machinery as possible (having 3-shifts of work on 1 machine). And the "biological" farmers (the smaller ones that sell their food at premium price to health stores) work at night now too since it's suppositively healthier for their crops and the environment to be cultivated (plowed etc.) at night. Even the 'classic' farmers have huge spotlights on their machines, I don't know any farmer that still has his horses pull a plow.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Ah yes, the old "Take the wrong lesson from the parable of the broken window" approach to economics. Fantastic.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I think that was the original point. First American business culture is heavily centered around "on time" by working to a clock, far more than the rest of the world. Instead of vary working hours to go home earlier in the summer and work later in winter to adapt themselves to the environment, they decided to have EVERYBODY move their clocks instead. This also worked when factories and offices needed to be cooled as it let them shut down a little sooner. It also let businessmen get an extra round of golf in due to the extra daylight. Now that everybody has air conditioning at home.. and TVs, computers, etc. The energy balance is probably way off.
Sorry but I'm calling BS. At Indiana's latitude, the time of sunrise varies by about 2h30m over the year without DST.
Are you serious? Modded informative? Funny, yes, there should be a sarcasm point, but informative? My stars, I weep for the scientists here.
I'm a WA Resident as well, and I love DST! Being an office worker and young, you do get to enjoy the extra evening light. But then again I'm in Perth and do get the ocean breeze most afternoons. But it's hot inland regardless of the time you get home. Friends of mine work in the mining industry and to make sure there rooms aren't unbearably hot to sleep in they have to run the air con all the time. The invariable DST time warp probably does not affect them as much though.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
It's extra light in the afternoon, not morning. But you are right, days get shorter, the sun doesn't just move up an hour in it's schedule. When it was introduced way back when in a very farm-rich America, it made sense. It was mainly to allow farmers in America to work during the daylight hours while keeping on the train schedule, if I recall from my American History class. It's an outdated system with the modernization of the world.
A grammar nazi is often a very confused person who believes that is 'one true grammar.'
A grammar nazi is often a very confused person who believes that there is 'one true grammar.'
There, fixed that for you.