Study: Daylight Saving Time actually raises utility bills
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.
Comments on Study: Daylight Saving Time actually raises utility bills
Post a Comment
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
-
2 Posted by paulecornett on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:02PM EDT Report Abuse
it actually costs more money. In March, it is still dark in the morning when the kids go to school. Give me a break!
-
3 Posted by rayvr@att.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:31PM EDT Report Abuse
It's not useless GOVERNMENT thinking. This stuff comees directly from the politicians who actually put this stuff into law. It isn't the fault of the government workers (bureaucrats), but the politicians like to blame them because they aren't able to defend themseelves. And guess who votes the politicians into office? We do. Smarter, honest politicians are the answer and if they don't produce, kick 'em out!
-
4 Posted by vixengal on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:36PM EDT Report Abuse
We could overcome the additional costs of DST by government mandated CFL lighting.
-
5 Posted by mongy99 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:25PM EDT Report Abuse
What a joke.... I'd gladly spent $3.19 extra per year for an extra hour of daylight every day!
-
6 Posted by dozent100 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:47PM EDT Report Abuse
The original rationale was to have an extra hour of daylight during the business day, primarily for agriculture workers. It was a good idea and was supposed to be from June to September. Individual States and in some case counties were able to opt out of the DST plan. It has only been since 1976, when President Carter, who knew more about everything than anyone else, decided that DST would reduce energy consumption. Along with a host of federally mandated restrictions on home and office temperatures, reduced lighting, etc. All of which increased energy use as lamps were installed on desks, Small heaters appeared under desks, and everybody cursed his name. So a known fallacy was expended by Congress to be seen as "doing something." After all, the public had accepted the thought for years, s increasing the amount could only be see as "doing something" without it visibly costing more. Once again the Liberals have successfully pulled the wool of their world "as they want it to be" expectations, over the eyes of an unthinking populace, including as the ultimate joke, the Republicans. In the modern world, with our ability to adapt the world to our desires and needs, DST is an anachronism! Liberals want to enforce their controls up on us by denying us the ability to live as we want, while they continually violate there own strictures. after all they are entitled and must not be inconvenienced, by the rules they expect the rest of us to live by. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions. The most difficult choice of all. Thinking about what you are being being fed by the liberal media. William Buckley is dead! Reason has lost its best Champion!
-
7 Posted by rustins on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:56PM EDT Report Abuse
What I've heard about DST and believe, is that it was found that giving people an extra hour of daylight in the evening caused them to go out more and spend more money. It has nothing to do with saving energy, it might have originally been intended to be that, but it isn't causing any real savings.
-
8 Posted by b_harris265 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:16PM EDT Report Abuse
THEN GET UP AN HOUR EARLIER
-
9 Posted by rogueist on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:49PM EDT Report Abuse
Sounds like someone needs to protest this waste of time and money and energy...
-
10 Posted by mommarock_2000 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:25PM EDT Report Abuse
I don't honestly care which way it goes (EST or DST), I for one would just like for them to pick one AND STAY WITH IT! Yes, yes.... I know uppercase is equal to yelling, but that is the way I feel. Twice a year my bio-sync is messed up for weeks adjusting to the new 'time' and I just wish they would choose one and leave it alone. If they keep extending DST, it may just run year round as it is. I haven't talked to one single person that prefers DST, but I have plenty of people that hate the twice yearly change. We need to get vocal and get rid of an idea that was well-intentioned, but erroneous from its inception.
1 Posted by keith_adams52 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:49PM EDT Report Abuse
More useless gov. thinking. Maybe Congress can check into this after the Roger Clemens issue.