> >>>It does save energy, and it should be implemented all year.
> Imagine how wonderful it would be to have some daylight in the evenings
> after supper -- in January?
If it gets dark at 16:30, then having time 1 hour ahead would make it
dark at 17:30, so you still eat in the dark. And you're still cooking
with lights on.
Where there are energy savings is when you shift time so you wake-up
just as the sun rises, thus extending the number of hours during your
awake period where there is light. If you wake up 2 hours after sunrise,
those are 2 hours of daylight which are wasted, and it means that you'll
need 2 extra hours of artificial light at night.
But in the winter, when daylight is short enough that you both wake up
and come home in darkness, shifting hours doesn't make a difference in
total artificial lighting needs. What you won't use at night, you'll use
in morning.
One difference is that in north america, household energy needs tend to
have the peak during evening meal. Reducing lighting requirement during
this period reduces the peak demand. But it simply shifts that demand to
the morning.
In the summer, daylight savings makes sense because the days are long
enough and you can extend the daylight into evening without requiring
you wake up in the dark. But in the winter, the shifting of hours simply
shifts lighting demand the hour of lighting you save at night , you need
to spend in the morning.
And one can also argue the opposite in some cases:
Consider a time zone where you wake-uo with sunrise. No need for lights
in morning. And it gets dark at 16:30 when you are still at work. You
get home at 17:30, and your house has just spent 1 hour of darkness with
its lights OFF.
Shift the time one hour, and you need lights on in morning, and it gets
dark at 17:30, so you still need the exact same amount of lights at night.
> In the old days, farmers represented a large percentage of the population,
> and had the clout to "shift" (or, in this case, "hold") time into the
> morning, so that they could work in the daylight.
Farmers don't need time shifting to work in daylight. They get up at the
same time (relative to sun) no matter what time zone they are in.
Whether the clock says it ia 04:00 or 05:00 when they wake up doesn't
make a big difference.
The difference is with TV at night. The lack of DST allows them to
effectively go to bed an hour later in relation to TV schedules. If they
need 8 hours of sleep, getting up at 04:00 means that they go to bed at
20:00. If they get up at 05:00, it means they go to bed at 21:00 and can
thus watch 1 hour of prime time programming.
Note that Saskatchewan still has no DST in summer. So farmers still have
plenty of clout.
And I believe that Hawaii also does not have DST since they live south
enough that length of day doesn't vary much throughout the year.
> Now, with farmers
> representing far less than 1% of the population, to have darkness every
> afternoon is just silly, unsafe, and expensive.
When you shift evening rush hour darkness to morning rush hour darkness,
does it really change much ?
Extending DST to cover extra month at both ends may make sense. But
beyond that, it makes no diference. |