Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:06PM EST
See Comments (2000)
It's official: Daylight Saving Time is a bust. Designed (and recently extended) as a measure to save energy in a period of inflated electricity prices, an in-depth University of California study has now shown that DST doesn't save anyone any money at all. In fact, it's costing consumers extra, to the tune of $3.19 in extra utility bills per year.
The study was made possible because of the peculiarities of the state of Indiana, which was only partially on DST until 2006. When the whole state finally went DST (to sync with the national business day), some comparisons vs. the prior method were made apparent. The study calculated that the shift costs Indiana residents an extra $8.6 million in electricity bills in total.
Why? Shouldn't they be, well, saving daylight -- and burning fewer light bulbs?
They are, said the study. But while lighting bills were reduced, air-conditioning units had to run more often, because people were home on hot afternoons when they'd otherwise be still at the office. Heaters had to be run on cool mornings, too, when people got up and it was still dark outside.
Professor Matthew Kotchen, who pioneered the study, noted, "I've never had a paper with such a clear and unambiguous finding as this."
This isn't the first time the energy-saving rationale of Daylight Saving Time has been attacked. The first was in 1976, when the National Bureau of Standards found that there was no significant energy savings after the switch. The recent expansion of DST to a few extra weeks was also revealed to have saved no energy during its run. And yet here we are...
In related news, it was also revealed that Daylight Saving Time actually creates no additional daylight.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
Has anyone seen my car keys?
I like DST.
I think it's about time that the politicians made a mistake and let's get back to when daylight savings used to be. I don't think any parent likes to see their child waiting for the school bus when it's pitch black outside. honeybunny
Give me a break - $3.19 additional per year? Spare me. I'll pay the $3.19 for the 5 extra hours SUNLIGHT. I love when it doesn't get dark until 8:45pm all summer. I get so much more done, and feel so much better.
Honest politician? Isnt' that an oximoron?
Day light savings has always been another one of our goverments mistakes by fooling with mother nature. Just like Algores global warming.
Doesn't save money, doesn't give us any extra daylight, NO wonder we are still doing DST!!! Who runs this country? It sure doesn't appear to be the people!!!
Well whatever the cost in dollars, the personal cost in time management and sleep issues with the kids votes it right off my list of "Must Do" items. There are other parents out there who despise the intrusion on their kids' daily schedule also. I really dislike having to awaken tired children an hour earlier for the sake of some misguided politicians. If they want to rise earlier, more power to 'em! Just leave the rest of us out of it.
So lets get rid of it! What good does it do us except mess up our sleep patterns twice per year...
Daylight savings was conceived and implemented to give farmers extra daylight during the growing season, before we had electric lights and tractors with headlights, etc. It is now an absolute waste and accomplishes nothing other than to srew everybody up twice a year. I know people in New Mexico and Arizona who are completely happy not having to switch their clocks twice a year.
I couldn't have said it better than keith_adams!!
I'v been reading and listining to everyone saying how energy is not being saved, lets do something different: lets do something about it.
They should make DST year round.
So then let's just stop it already. I've always thought it was a stupid idea. And mongy99 ... you're not getting an extra hour of daylight. Still only 24 hours in a day, still the same amount that are with sun and without. Only difference is where you are at the time of each. Doh!
kupriaa1, where is the evidence to support your statement?
In my way of thinking the extra hour of daylight gives me enough time after work to play a round of golf at twilight prices. I think thats not too bad.
We love DST and wi----- was all year. When my husband comes home from work there is daylight to work outdoors which he loves. I don't need a flashlight to walk the dog, etc. Of course it doesn't change the hours of light and dark but it does shift them to evening from morning. I don't care if I drive to work in the dark if it's still light when I get home. Different strokes for different folks...that's what makes life interesting.
YES, the extra long evening is so worth the $3.19 per year in extra costs.
I was against it when it began and against it now. Useless.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
26 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse
The purpose of DST is to save energy all around not just for consumers. This study fails to address this aspect which mean the study is a failure. This study should not be brought as evidence in a case against DST because the article is flawed. People commenting on this article are in essence bashing DST for its inconvenience and not for its validity. In essence every comment regarding this story is worthless. And Chris Null should not writing this article as a responsible journalist. A responsible journalist would examine the facts presented by the study and after reading the facts carefully weigh the validity of the study. He should then choose to comment on the study based on whether he feels the study is valid or not. If he agrees with the facts presented by the study then he needs a clue. Otherwise this article by Chris Null represents the problem with Bloggers- all they care about is page hits and not what they say. They will say anything to increase page hits.