DST Part II - The truth comes out.

After posting the last tirade about the lies of DST and how it will not save any energy, I've received a lot of comments (only 3 posted comments, however). Some were in complete agreement, and other were not. One person even told Nikkala that my posts were boring and that she fell asleep reading them. Well, I'm sorry that I put any of you to sleep. At least you don't read my posts while you are driving. That could be really dangerous.

But now to the point... and especially to those of you who think I got it wrong with DST. Read this and then post how sorry you were to ever doubt me!

This morning Ars Technica had a short article on the early results of the changed DST. Here is a quick quote from the article (although I hope you all read the whole thing):

As it turns out, the US Department of Energy was correct when they predicted that there would be little energy savings. This echoed concerns voiced after a similar experiment was attempted in Australia. Critics pointed out a basic fact: the gains in the morning will be offset by the losses at night. That appears to be exactly what happened. Reuters spoke with Jason Cuevas, spokesman for Southern Co. power, who said it plainly: "We haven't seen any measurable impact." New Jersey's Public Service Enterprise Group said the same thing: "no impact" on their business. So while the US government pats itself on the back for at least looking busy, know that the main goal—energy conservation—has not been met.

The Reuters article mentioned above is where the story broke. It mentions some of the same things that my last post mentions... including the fact that less than 10% of electricity is used for lighting. The story fails to mention the increased use of other energy sources because of the change. The Australian study mentioned in the earlier post (found here) mentions this about energy saving models and reality:

Moreover, the lessons from Australia may carry over to the U.S. and to California—Victoria’s latitude and climate are similar to those of central California. In 2007 DST will be observed in March—a month that is analogous to September in Australia, when our point estimates suggest that DST will increase rather than decrease electricity consumption. Further,when we re-estimate the simulation model that supported a DST extension in California, using Australian data, we find that it over-estimates energy savings. This casts suspicion on its previous policy applications in the U.S., and provides further evidence that current plans to extend DST may be misguided. It should be noted that our estimates of energy use likely represent a lower bound, as we account for electricity consumption only. Including gasoline demand in the analysis may increase the estimate of DST’s effect on energy consumption, as longer and warmer evening hours drive an increase in evening leisure travel.

This is the real problem, dependence on foreign oil. Saving electricity generated from hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, and other sources is not going to "save the world". What we need now is that 300 mpg carburetor...or this little gem!

Daylight Saving Time (DST) - The biggest lie passed by (the recent) congress

Every once in a while a law is passed that really upsets me. Usually these are laws that try and fix imaginary problems or laws that have the direct opposite effect than they were anticipated to have. Some examples in recent history would be anti-logging legislation that killed the one industry that kept forests from becoming engulfed in flames annually(of course some environmentalist seem to enjoy the smoke), the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that turned the recording industry mafia (RIAA) into its own police force, and then the recent Energy Bill that had a small section changing Daylight Saving Time (DST) to begin about a month earlier and end about a week or so later than previous years.

The purpose of that last bill was to save energy. Whatever arguments people have for it, the only one mentioned in the law was to save energy. That's it!

Without me getting too far off topic, read the history of DST from the California Energy Dept. In that piece there is a paragraph that states why DST saves energy. It states

"...the biggest reasons we change our clocks to Daylight Saving Time (DST) is that it saves energy. Energy use and the demand for electricity for lighting our homes is directly connected to when we go to bed and when we get up. Bedtime for most of us is late evening through the year. When we go to bed, we turn off the lights and TV.

In the average home, 25 percent of all the electricity we use is for lighting and small appliances, such as TVs, VCRs and stereos. A good percentage of energy consumed by lighting and appliances occurs in the evening when families are home. By moving the clock ahead one hour, we can cut the amount of electricity we consume each day."

Do you believe it?

How can you say that shifting time (not really a saving) will save energy when people watch TV, listen to stereos, watch movies, and run their appliances regardless of the position of the sun at the current time. And how is it that by shifting the time these appliances will no longer be used... or magically stop using as much power. They state that people will spend more time outside during the summer evenings because there is more sun time.... well, guess what, it's summer and people spend more time outside anyway, regardless of what the clock says.

Ben Franklin thought it was a good idea back when businesses used oil lamps to light their establishments when there was not enough sunlight to light everything. But now, lights are on ALL THE TIME in every place of business that I've been in. From McDonalds to High Schools, lights are on regardless of the sun. It's just normal to show up in the morning when it is dark, turn the lights on, and then turn them off when you go home.

Well, there was a study reported here that states that DST does not save energy at all.

The study compared electric demand in the state of Victoria, which extended DST, with its next-door neighbor, South Australia, which did not. "Our results show that the extension failed to conserve electricity. If it's dark enough in the morning that pretty much everyone has to turn on the lights. What that means is that that increase in morning electricity consumption is going to be so big that it offsets any benefits we get from the extra light in the evening. In fact shifting Australians' clocks led to a tiny increase in power use."

Well, I don't believe every study, even ones that I agree with. However, it is interesting that we are establishing a policy based on a DOE study that was done 30 years ago compared to recent studies that show it doesn't change anything.

What do I think would save more energy???? I'm glad you asked! How about educating people to not only turn off the television, stereo, DVD player, Satellite/Cable receiver, and computer... but also use a power strip and "unplug" them from the wall. On average, these appliances use 10% of their power rating just sitting there. That would save a lot. How about installing energy efficient light bulbs. I really feel like these things would save so much more energy than turning your clock forward, but they aren't fun to argue about in Congress. And it seems congress wants to do things to appear to save energy instead of telling people to take matters into their own hands and freak'n save energy themselves! No matter what conservation law passes through the halls of Capitol Hill, the only people that can save energy is you and I... but it makes us feel better when we can see daylight at 10:00pm instead of 5am.