Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Power Earth

Daylight Savings Time Increases Energy Use In Indiana 388

Posted by timothy
from the all-change-has-friction dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Daylight Savings Time Increases Energy Use In Indiana

Comments Filter:
  • Same over here (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hasney (980180) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:00PM (#25696023) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ACDChook (665413) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @08:33PM (#25698657)
      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.
      • Re:Same over here (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mabhatter654 (561290) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @08:57PM (#25698873)

        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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Techman83 (949264)
        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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by caluml (551744)
      Don't forget though - in the UK, we're way up in latitude terms than almost all of the US, I think. That Gulf Stream keeps us warm, and makes us forget that we're more northerly than a lot of "cold" places.
      London - 51 degrees north. Calgary - 51 degrees north. Irkutsk, Siberia - 52 degrees. Feel sorry for the Scots though - Edinburgh is almost 56 degrees north. That's further than Moscow at 55.
      Thank god for the Gulf Stream, and our nice warm blanket of cloud. :)
  • by Lord Byron II (671689) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:01PM (#25696035)
    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.
    • by rbarreira (836272) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:11PM (#25696107) Homepage

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

    • by Ironsides (739422) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:13PM (#25696125) Homepage Journal
      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?
      • by Hadlock (143607)

        Over a month (30 days of use)? Assuming the hot plate stays on all day, that's possible. Out coffee pot is used/percolates twice a day and the heater stays on the entire day.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by xaxa (988988)

          All day? When you use it twice a day? Just... why?!?

      • by kabloom (755503)

        I don't brew coffee, but this actually sounds reasonable, or close to reasonable. (It certainly makes up a large percentage of the difference)

      • by peragrin (659227)

        10 minutes a day, 30 days a month, 12 months a year or 60 hours or roughly 45 kwh every year. twice that for my work as we make on average two pots a day.

        all that said the only reason I like daylight saving time, is because in september it is still light out when i get home from work. without daylight savings time the sun would set by 5pm in October, instead of the November it does now. Those extra hours are very useful for fall evening projects.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by doktorjayd (469473)

      does this pattern change between daylight savings time and standard time?

      putting it on an hour earlier is still putting it on..

      back to TFA, wasnt there something similar out of illinois about a year ago? that study looked at the _cost_ whereas this 'study' at least appears to look at energy consumption.

      i actually read the linked article in TFA and it seemed pretty heavy on assumption. statisitcally, even with the sample size they had, 1% looked like it could easily fall within the margin of error.

      so the tit

  • not a blip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:02PM (#25696039)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FLEB (312391)

      Some places, like Indiana, have counties that don't observe DST, which can give a good indication. Also, I imagine you could look at similar communities across a time-zone line, since that would be a one-hour difference with little actual difference.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I still have a number of computers that are running older operating systems for which there is no patch. The best thing to do about this ridiculous time change stuff is just to put it back the way it was.

  • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:04PM (#25696047) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:05PM (#25696051)

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

    As you were.

    • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:14PM (#25696137)

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        (cough) A dash is not a hyphen.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by skeeto (1138903)

        When I was taking a writing class in college, the night before the assignments were due I would post them to Slashdot as anonymous coward, along with a flamebait post title. Sure, they were always off-topic and rightfully modded as such, but eventually some pedantic grammar nazi would come by and fix all my mistakes for me.

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

      Is that the same thing as "daylight savings time?"

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Dun Malg (230075)

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

      As you were.

      Also it's not a "safety deposit box". It is a box, where you deposit things, kept in a safe. It's a safe deposit box.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:06PM (#25696063)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by maeka (518272)

      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.)

      I've never lived in a city which turned off their streetlights for part of the night, so I'm not sure what consumption change would be possible there.
      Water pumps (I assume you mean the ones which lift water to the water towers) operate as a function of water demand, and I'm not sure how wate

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        "I've never lived in a city which turned off their streetlights for part of the night, so I'm not sure what consumption change would be possible there."

        Well, where I live all the street lights are automated to turn on when it gets dark out. If it's darker for longer in the winter, they'd run more. They don't care what time it is, if it's dark they're on.
  • Well I live there (Score:4, Informative)

    by neo8750 (566137) <zepskiNO@SPAMzepski.net> on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:08PM (#25696077) Homepage
    I live in indiana and i can see why. Since it starts getting dark here about 5:30-6 and is fully dark by 7-7:30.
  • by rm999 (775449) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:08PM (#25696083)

    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.

    • by Ironsides (739422) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:16PM (#25696155) Homepage Journal
      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.
    • by Timothy Brownawell (627747) <tbrownaw@prjek.net> on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:21PM (#25696193) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by calyxa (618266)

        I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      • by syousef (465911) on Monday November 10, 2008 @12:03AM (#25699935) Journal

        If you're going to (permanently) break the 12pm = sun overhead, 12am = midnight relation, why not just ignore timezones and use UTC instead?

        Because you'd have to look up business hours every time you travelled more than a few hours east or west. Local time zones do make sense. Daylight savings and changing the time at an agreed upon date twice a year doesn't.

    • "A year-round DST"

      I see what you did there...

    • by IcyHando'Death (239387) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:33PM (#25696289)

      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?

    • by Air-conditioned cowh (552882) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @04:08PM (#25696621)
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by caluml (551744)

        How about just getting up earlier all the year round. Move core work time to 8-4PM.

        How about not? I'd rather work later, say 11am-8pm, thankyou very much.

    • by BitterOak (537666) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @04:44PM (#25696931)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Matt Perry (793115)

        Parents don't want their kids walking to school in the dark, and year-round DST would have that effect.

        Then adjust the start time for school rather than have everyone else adjust clock time to accommodate a few children.

    • by zippthorne (748122) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @06:47PM (#25697913) Journal

      Ok, but why do you need a government enforced, "we're going to lie about the time" period?

      Why not just encourage businesses to start earlier? (which has an added benefit: some businesses won't, and others will peg either the start or end time to the variable cycle, which spreads out the traffic and reduces congestion during rush hour. Five minutes in an car is like running *all* the lights in a typical household for half an hour. Longer if they're CFLs.)

      Government mandated delusion is unnecessary. It's like that thing where you ask a question about something you think you need to do something you need to do, when you should've asked about the thing you're actually trying to accomplish because your workaround might be unnecessarily complicated.

  • by greggman (102198) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:10PM (#25696097) Homepage

    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.

    • by Kohath (38547) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:54PM (#25696489)

      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.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by lennier (44736)

        "The Earth demands sacrifice!"

        That's why my party will abolish both gravity and curvature within the first 30 days of our administration, as well as moving to increase solar output by 200% and crustal diameter by 50%. We will increase topsoil depth to 50 miles, mineable ore content to 100 kg per acre of gold, copper and iridium, and mandate that the Atlantic Ocean flow with light sweet crude.

        The exponential growth of our economy demands no less, and it's high time we stopped crippling it with arbitrary 'res

  • by mechsoph (716782) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:15PM (#25696145)

    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!

  • by Telecommando (513768) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:15PM (#25696147)

    Where I live, switching to DST means I'm getting up earlier, before sunrise and running lights I otherwise wouldn't need. Although it makes sundown later, it doesn't seem to save me much energy. I may run fewer lights, but I still have to run A/C, which is the major hit on my electric bill in the summer.

    Plus, I find the sudden shift back in the fall to be rather depressing. One Friday I'm coming home after work in the daylight and the following Monday I'm driving home in the dark. The gradual shift of the seasons would be less jarring for me at least.

    • by boot_img (610085)

      I may run fewer lights, but I still have to run A/C, which is the major hit on my electric bill in the summer.

      I think the A/C is the key to this puzzle. More A/C in the summer (clock says 5 PM when you get back from work, but temperature-wise its still 4 PM) morethan cancels out the electricity savings due to lighting.

    • by zarthrag (650912)
      But haven't most households switched to CFLs and other energy-efficient lighting? (My house uses nothing but those) Back when everyone was running multiple 100W+ bulbs all over the house, especially at night, I'm sure the savings could have been considerable. But at night, we now turn on the entertainment center, which seems to be the new light bulb (x10) as far as energy use is concerned. I'm starting to think that society has changed enough that simply playing with the clock won't solve much, as overall
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        "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.
  • by sam0737 (648914) <samNO@SPAMchowchi.com> on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:16PM (#25696157)

    I thought the change of DST rule was to create IT jobs in adopting the old system, and troubleshooting the mess introduced by the old rules, etc....No?

    Anyway, every time operation should be done in UTC in the core especially when it has to deal with cross timezone operations and globalization.

    On the other hand, It's stupid to see Windows can only handle 2 active rules before Vista at any given time, on the other hand *nix and Vista can have define unlimited rules given a period of the time. I couldn't imagine how one would devise a local time using the DST rule of time in Windows XP, probably revert to reinvent-the-wheel?...luckily I don't have to deal with anything like that yet.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zippthorne (748122)

      Ah yes, the old "Take the wrong lesson from the parable of the broken window" approach to economics. Fantastic.

  • Nothing new here (Score:2, Informative)

    DST has been studied many times over the years and the informed consensus is that it just doesn't work. Here's a good link about it: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/03/11/think-daylight-saving-time-saves-energy-think-again-or-not/ [autobloggreen.com]

    The long and the short of the matter is this. It's good for business - it gets people out of the house and into the stores after work. So business lobbies government for the required legislation and pushes the energy saving myth to snow the public into going along with it (des

  • 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.

  • Residential (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gorgonzolanoid (1394311) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:22PM (#25696203)

    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WK2 (1072560) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @04:39PM (#25696891) Homepage

      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.

  • by fermion (181285) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:24PM (#25696217) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      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?

      To answer questions about methodolgies, it seems fairly straightforward. Indiana had counties that observed and did not observe DST. In 2006, it mandated that all counties use DST

    • by nedlohs (1335013) on Monday November 10, 2008 @01:37AM (#25700387)

      Maybe you could read the damn paper.

      You know the one that answers those questions.

  • by flyingfsck (986395) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:26PM (#25696229)
    Every year, the energy utilities report that they observed no difference in energy use when daylight savings time is changed. It really is time to stop this annoyance.
  • by Ecuador (740021) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:32PM (#25696275) Homepage

    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.

  • by FictionPimp (712802) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:35PM (#25696301) Homepage

    I live in Indiana in a county that had no daylight savings. I would get up and the sun would be just rising. I would shower and drive to work in the morning sun. I would work all day and come home and the sun would still be up. I would do my house work and eat dinner and the sun would be setting. During the winter I would get home just a hour or so before dusk and nothing else would much change.

    Now I get up and it is dark. I turn on lights, take a shower and because it is dark out I just feel more tired. This means I actually take longer to take my shower and get ready to go to work. On top of this I find myself drinking coffee to stay awake. I get home and it is still daylight, but it still feels like it gets dark just as quickly.

    Worse then that is the period leading up to the time change. It was dark when I woke up and dark when I got home. This was the previous month before we switched times again. Daylight savings is a stupid premise imho.

  • DST Is Insane (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anorlunda (311253) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:43PM (#25696373) Homepage

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HangingChad (677530)

      How long must we continue this DST insanity?

      I totally agree. Stop dicking with the time and just deal with it. There was some discussion about having more daylight when kids are waiting for the school bus but that argument is not really valid anymore. School bus loading is a lot safer now, in any lighting conditions. Most school parking lots are well lighted. There are enough laws and enforcement going on now that the message is sinking in.

      Farmers don't need the extra daylight, either. When it's

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by toddestan (632714)

        Farmers don't need the extra daylight, either. When it's harvest time they're running until midnight or later. With GPS and the lighting systems on tractors they can work anytime.

        Farmers have never reallfy cared about DST anyway. Generally, the start of their day is when the sun rises, regardless of what the clock says.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      >>One of these days, we're going to have an accidental missile launch

      I don't work with nukes, but the stuff I do work with uses zulu (UTC) time. This has its own problems, but DST is not one of them.

      -b

  • The thing is, the DST adjustment is performed when the average montly temperature drops rather fast. That drop reaches the double digits at my home town. So if someone notices an increase in energy consumption in the range of 1%, why do people jump to the conclusion that the increase was due to the DST and don't even stop to think that when the weather cools down people do enjoy staying warm?

    Correlation doesn't imply causality, not even when you are looking into your pet peeve.

  • by willworkforbeer (924558) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:54PM (#25696485)
    We need the extra hour of daylight for growing our Fall crops, so leave DST alone.
  • by presidenteloco (659168) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @03:57PM (#25696515)

    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 no, not 1% (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alexhmit01 (104757) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @04:08PM (#25696623)

    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 hate standard time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SpryGuy (206254) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @04:10PM (#25696643)

    I don't care what anyone says, what any statistics say, I wish we'd do away with standard time all together.

    It gets dark WAY too damn early, and it gets light in the morning WAY too damn early.

    I'd rather it be on "Daylight Savings Time" year round. Despense with the setting of the clocks twice a year, and all the headaches that result from it. Just let us go to Daylight Savings Time next year, and then STAY THERE. Forever.

    I can't imagine any valid reasonable reason not to.

  • by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @04:40PM (#25696895) Journal
    A government mandate that produces results contrary to the policy's intent?

    That just can't be.

  • by guruevi (827432) <<evi> <at> <smokingcube.be>> on Sunday November 09, 2008 @05:56PM (#25697513) Homepage

    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      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).

      Yes, clearly, my father that runs a small dairy farm is fully industrialized and works 3-shifts by himself daily at the age of 69. C'mon, get out and meet some real farmers in person, it's not what you described at all, at least not in my family or around here where I live now.

    • by ebuck (585470) on Monday November 10, 2008 @12:49PM (#25706013)

      I don't know where the "farmers like DST" meme can from, but it should go back there very quickly.

      Farmers don't benefit from DST, because farmers are like construction workers; they work outside. That means that they maximize their use of daylight, not that the daylight gets shifted around to suit their needs.

      When the sun rises, it rises the next day which is about 24 hours from the last time plus or minus some number of seconds depending on latitude. Setting your clocks to whatever time you wish won't alter this behaviour, and if you all agree that today you'll ignore an hour or some other day you'll duplicate an hour, then that's fine. However, it has nothing to do with the actual observations of the world you live in, which is the farmer's realm.

      Farmers typically hate DST because it means they have to alter their schedule because the banks honour DST while the farmers honour the setting and rising of the sun.

      Kill the farmer DST meme, it's misinformation at its finest.

  • by fireman sam (662213) on Sunday November 09, 2008 @06:40PM (#25697843) Homepage Journal

    Do you hate getting out of bed 1 hour earlier at the start of daylight savings. Try this:

    1 week before daylight savings starts, set your alarm 10 minutes earlier each day. That is it.

    Your body adjusts a lot better to the 10 minute differences than it does to one 1 hour difference.

    That is all.

  • Air Conditioning (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Culture20 (968837) on Monday November 10, 2008 @01:38AM (#25700391)
    It's all air-conditioning's fault. To get to sleep in the summer under EDT, people need to run the A/C more later in the evening than they would under EST. With a set-back thermostat, A/C runs fewer hours in the day under EST.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...