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.

Same over here

I've gotta say, I'm in England and as soon as the clocks change, my power consumption goes way up. I don't even use heaters where I live so I've never worked out where it's coming from....

Re:Same over here

I'm in Western Australia, where we've never had daylight saving. The eastern states of Australia have it (New South Wales and Victoria), and keep telling us how good it is. We're on the 3rd year of a 3-year trial now (the 4th such trial since the 70's). Nobody here likes it. It's just too hot in the afternoons in summer to be coming home from work earlier. The temperature in summer here usually peaks at 45-50C for a week or two. Power usage skyrockets here with DST due to increased aircon use. Can't wait to vote it down AGAIN with the referendum next year.

No joke, coffee makers do have an effect

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.

Re:No joke, coffee makers do have an effect

1200 watts is not surprising to me. A coffee maker has to boil water after all.

Re:No joke, coffee makers do have an effect

However, the coffee maker is not on for a very long time. In order for the coffee maker to use $3.29 of electricity at 10Â/kwh (fairly high) it would have to use 32.9kwh, or be on for a cumulative 27 hours. How long does it take to brew coffee?

not a blip

I believe that other parts of the world have observed the same result too.

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.

its because they are increasing the day

Of COURSE daylight savings stuff changes how much electricity you use.

Afterall, if they give us an extra hour of daytime then your appliances are running for a full 25 hours a day.

you have to run all your appliances for that extra hour every single day all winter.

Re:its because they are increasing the day

Sigh...

Must we correct such silly ideas?!?

The extra hour is given to you in the Summer! Not the winter. In the US, the winter is during Standard Time.

It's that extra hour of A/C, not simple appliances.

PedanticMan to the rescue!

Daylight Saving Time. Saving, singular, not Savings, plural.

As you were.

Re:PedanticMan to the rescue!

Whoops, sorry, that was supposed to be 'Pedantic-Man', with a dash. How embarrassing.

How'd they make the estimate?

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!

Residential

I think the key phrase is "D.S.T. increases residential electricity demand."

The company or what/whoever you work for will see a positive effect, at the expense of the consumer. That is exactly what I've always believed DST was meant to do (by those who invented it), in the first place.

Re:Residential

Benjamin Franklin invented Daylight Saving Time. It was never enacted until long after he was dead, but in theory it might have saved candle wax and lantern oil back then. Of course, he was only recommending it as an experiment, and he would not have recommended continuing it after it had been proven to be such a waste.

Be wary of fake science

This a situation where a peer reviewed methodology would be of much more interest than a finding. Even if the finding is accurate, I cannot see how it is valid. First, a one percent increase may or may not be significant.

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.

Not only energy inefficient.

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.

DST Is Insane

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.

This energy saving plan brought to you by

The Bush administration, with
its fine misunderestimated mathematical minds,
who also calculated that if Osama Bin Laden
was hiding on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border,
we should go defeat him in Baghdad.

Oh and the same minds who calculated that
even though co2 lets in visible-light and ultraviolet
energy from the Sun and reflects and traps in infra-red
energy that radiates back off the Earth, it won't cause
global warming, because that would reduce oil
sale revenues.

It's honestly quite a shocker that this cunningly
devised plan didn't work.

Oh come on now...

A government mandate that produces results contrary to the policy's intent?

That just can't be.

DST comes from the stone age

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.

Re:DST is Still Worth It

You might want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder [wikipedia.org]

It's been known about for years, particularly near the Arctic Circle.

Re:DST is Still Worth It

If you're going to (permanently) break the 12pm = sun overhead, 12am = midnight relation, why not just ignore timezones and use UTC instead? The problem is how the time you start and stop work relates to the time that the sun rises and sets... what name you give those times doesn't matter.

Non-standard meaning of "standard"

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?

Re:DST is Still Worth It

How about just getting up earlier all the year round. Move core work time to 8-4PM. That way it is nicely centred around mid-day. And mid-day can then mean exactly what it says on the tin (except for those weird time zones that jut out and extend in odd directions).

Re:DST is Still Worth It

When we fall back from DST to standard time, I notice a lot of people seem more visibly depressed, or "blah."

Well, not everyone has the same reaction. What bothers me a lot more is having to get up and drive to work in the dark. I work in a cubicle in a room with no windows, so I don't see daylight until I go for lunch. I used to only have to drive to work in the dark for a few weeks in December and January, but after daylight saving time was extended a few years ago, there seems to be many more such days.

There are also safety issues. Parents don't want their kids walking to school in the dark, and year-round DST would have that effect. I know the "think of the children" argument is not popular on Slashdot, but in this case, I think it is a valid point.

What do you mean "you like" ?

What do you mean by you like? Didn't you hear? We're all supposed to conserve energy for The Earth. It's not about what anyone likes, it's about sacrificing our comfort, our prosperity, and our way of life to benefit The Earth. The Earth demands sacrifice!

Now, start listening to your Leaders. They know what choices you should make. They say you should conserve energy. For The Earth. Any choice that uses more energy is Bad. Any choice that uses less is Good. There are no exceptions for productivity and no consideration for humanity. Just use less. Obey.

(The Leaders are exempt and may use all the energy they wish.)