Yesterday morning, we all sprang forward thanks to Daylight Savings Time, and commenced the spring rite of debating whether or not DST still makes any sense in a non-agrarian society. Lately, the arguments have centered on speculation that the practice causes us to burn more energy. Whether you turn on lights early to keep from fumbling around in the early morning darkness, or turn on lights earlier in the evening because the sun has set at 5pm, you are in some way compensating for the offset daylight schedules. So it's worth recalling a recent study that looked into the matter with unprecedented detail, and found that the anti-DST movement was probably right:
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...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.
A few months ago, the authors wrote an op-ed in The Timess arguing that DST should be abolished. I personally find it maddening.
[Via Matthew Yglesias; image via 416Style]
Related Stories: | Topics:Innovation, Technology, Ethonomics, Daylight Savings Time, energy efficiency, Abolish Daylight Savings Time, Indiana, United States, Matthew Yglesias |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 10 Total
March 9, 2009 at 2:07pm by Ivars Ulinskis
The only difference DST emerges is artificially implicated stress.
The question is whether it is enough a difference for you.
March 9, 2009 at 5:56pm by Darin Phillips
The major flaw in the study is an assumption that residential power usage is the only power usage being affected. The researchers should also include company power usage to see if there is any difference. Because the residential difference was a mere 1% I suspect that the commercial building power consumption will wipe out that paltry savings. Personally, I would prefer to leave daylight savings time on all year round because I would rather have light at the end of the day when I am driving home. I am far happier during this time of the year because I don't feel that I have lost my entire day trapped in a cube. I think it would be easier to legislate the retention of DST all year-round rather than changing the start and end hours of every school and business in the US...
March 9, 2009 at 6:15pm by Cliff Kuang
Hi Darin---Actually the study includes both commercial and residential effects. Read it here:
http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~kotchen/links/DSTpaper.pdf
March 9, 2009 at 6:24pm by Cliff Kuang
Scratch that last comment---Darin's right. But the authors do talk about commercial usage, and make a fairly reasonable point that it's less likely to respond to daylight savings time at all. The lights in your office are usually on no matter what the light is outside.
March 10, 2009 at 12:56pm by Monique White
I dont think its a waste of time.
March 10, 2009 at 12:56pm by Monique White
Nor a waste of energy.
March 12, 2009 at 12:23pm by Casey Baur
i don't think it's a waste of energy however,it does throw off my internal clock horribly. It takes me forever to adjust to the change. I can't get to bed at a decent time,and i eat dinner too late because it still feels earlier than it is. I really don't see the point in it and I think they need to do away with it. Is it really that necessary to have an extra hour of daylight? I don't think it's worth it to throw my body off it's natural schedule just for that extra hour!
March 14, 2009 at 12:51pm by Sara Markwith-padgett
I know that everyone hates changing their clocks. I have yet to hear anyone on the day of the change say anything positive about it.
Of course it is physically disruptive, and it never seems to work as it is intended to up here in the north. I prefer the gradual shift of darkness at a natural time rather than the sudden shock of waking in the pitch black or going home one day in the dark after going home in light the night before.
The physical and emotional reasons are not going to be enough to persuade the government and powers to change this practice. You have to show them the money.
After reading this article about a scientific study that PROVES that it is a waste of energy, people still say they don't think it IS a waste of energy?
I fail to see the logic.
It is a huge waste. Even 1% is an enormous energy increase for a country like the United States, because we use such a vast amount of energy. Additionally, what is the point of Daylight SAVINGS if it isn't saving at all, but is COSTING. That is the major point here. I believe this should be the deal breaker.
Now, the next step should be to determine how we go about changing this rule. It's entire reason for existing is null.