The more I think about it, the more I think the main argument that traditionally enabled DST (reduced overall energy use due to longer daylight hours so less time needed to run lights at night) no longer holds true given that both a) lighting is so much more efficient these days with LEDs, and b) most households now have at least one (often more) air conditioners, often running simultaneously.
I come across this research paper a short time ago, that seems to indicate that where temperatures are around or above 30C, DST actually increases energy consumption compared to standard time.
We examine a previously unexplored question: does the effect of DST on electricity consumption depend on weather conditions and cooling usage? We hypothesize that forward DST will increase the electricity consumption when the temperatures are quite high and cooling usage is quite prevalent, meaning that the increase in the demand for cooling will outweigh the decline in the demand for lighting.
I wonder if we’ll start to see an environmental argument against DST become more prevalent in the coming years, especially with summers becoming more hot and, in particular, more humid as well in large parts of the country.
A couple of things worth noting with this proposition, which doesn’t seem to be covered in the article.
There’s general confusion about whether the initiative would be to make DST permanent, or abolish it altogether. Previous proposals have been to shift the US to permanent Daylight Savings Time, and most people seem to be on board to a permanent shift across rather than back. We currently don’t have DST at the moment and the sun is low at around 3pm and then completely dark before 5pm in the northeast where I am.
One other point worth noting is that if DST becomes permanent, people will be sending their kids to school and going to work in the dark. I believe this has been tried in the past, and road fatalities in the morning skyrocketed because the morning rush hour was in complete darkness. If Standard Time becomes permanent, it means that long afternoons and evenings in the summer will be shortened.
General consensus is that there won’t be the momentum or numbers to get a shift over the line, so I’m doubtful of the likelihood of any meaningful change taking place.
I’m not actually against DST per se and agree it definitely does have its advantages at this time of year from a sociocultural perspective- just pointing out that one of the traditional arguments in its favour re: energy savings is not really applicable in this day and age (and in fact DST may actually use more energy with the need in most places to run air conditioning longer in the evening).
My personal preference would be to just pick a time zone and stick with it all year round, whether that’s standard time, daylight saving, or even half an hour in between (i.e UTC+10:30 in the eastern states).
It’s also not how the sun works. It doesn’t magically give you an extra hour of daylight… it summer here in Victoria the sun is going down until 8:40. So what if it goes down at 7:40? Makes not a lot of sense in my opinion.
Am I the only one who doesn’t get the anger about daylight savings? It’s only twice a year, and you lose one hours sleep (you gain an hour back when the clock’s go forward).
I’ve never liked it. Even as a child. I hate losing that hour throughout the year. I just never got the benefits. I guess I feel I can do as much in the dark as I can in the daylight.
