US Daylight Savings and the new Energy Bill.

[GostHacked]

I just don't understand this at all.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ight050808.html

This new bill (which looks like it is LAW now) will really be a pain in the ass to Canadians and other countries affected by this move.

The shift has been promoted as a way to save energy by cutting the need for artificial light in the evenings.

Are you kidding me? This will not affect that at all. The evenings will still be a set amount of hours weather you push it back or forward an hour. Retarded.

And this is all to help out those energy firms

The daylight time provision is part of a bill that will send billions of dollars in tax subsidies to energy companies to come up with cleaner, alternative sources of energy.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/08/bush.ap/index.html

And with this bill comes new tax cuts and gives energy firms less restrictions. Mainly in how they look for new resources. For one, when drilling for new oil/gas ect, the companies are no longer required to have a clean area on site. This can devestate the local environment. This can greatly affect the ANWR reserve in Alaska. So they don't need to clean up or have a clean working area when exploring for resources. Bad bad bad. There was an article on this but I cannot seem to locate it now.

What chaos this will cause. It is not a big OMG in your face type thing, but alot of little things that wil be affected and causing issues. So what can be done to stop this insanity? Look like nothing now.

Other items of interest that are affected by this.

International air travel

Electronic devices that use standard daylight savings.

Cross border communications and business transactions.

What do you people think of all this?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear GostHacked,

Are you kidding me? This will not affect that at all. The evenings will still be a set amount of hours weather you push it back or forward an hour. Retarded.

Moving Daylight saving time to include an extra month is odd, but isn't really a major problem. We would still "Spring ahead and Fall back", just at different times. If it isn't effective, why have it at all? I am not too worried, but perhaps it should not have been done in this exact fashion.

And this is all to help out those energy firms

QUOTE

The daylight time provision is part of a bill that will send billions of dollars in tax subsidies to energy companies to come up with cleaner, alternative sources of energy.

Moving away from fossil fuels is a good thing, and tax incentives are, in my view, the best way to do it in a market system. However, as you say...

And with this bill comes new tax cuts and gives energy firms less restrictions. Mainly in how they look for new resources. For one, when drilling for new oil/gas ect, the companies are no longer required to have a clean area on site. This can devestate the local environment. This can greatly affect the ANWR reserve in Alaska. So they don't need to clean up or have a clean working area when exploring for resources. Bad bad bad.

this smacks of cronyism. The tax breaks should only be for the development of said alternative sources, not as subsidies to the status quo. I haven't read the bill (and doubt if I will) so I cannot say if it will actually help, or is it just another tax break for Bush & Co.'s family & freinds?

[kimmy]

The shift has been promoted as a way to save energy by cutting the need for artificial light in the evenings.

Are you kidding me? This will not affect that at all. The evenings will still be a set amount of hours weather you push it back or forward an hour. Retarded.

The idea is not to change the length of evenings. The idea is to move an hour of daylight from morning to evening to make better use of it.

Adjusting clocks so that an extra hour of daylight falls in the evening instead of in the morning will save energy. An extra hour of daylight in the evening = one hour less a day that people will be using electric lighting.

Supposing that there's an average of one 60 Watt bulb on in the evening for every American (and that is probably very conservative), that's around 18 Gigawatts of power used on artificial lighting at at any given moment during the evening. So replace that with natural lighting for one hour a day on 60 days, and that's 1.08 billion Kilowatt-hours of energy that could be saved.

You might reply that the energy saved in the evening will be paid for by using more artificial light in the morning. Maybe, but only a little. Think about where people are during the morning during that hour of daylight. For most, they are:

-in buses, trains, or cars on the way to work or school

-already at work or school (ie, they're inside large buildings that use artificial light all day anyway)

-or still in bed.

In other words, that hour of daylight in the morning is not being used nearly as efficiently as it would be in the evening.

It is a simple fact: people do not schedule their lives around daylight. They schedule their lives around time. Does your class or your work-shift start at "1 hour after Sunrise," or does it start at "8:00am"? We schedule ourselves around our timekeeping system... so adjusting our time-keeping system to better fit the natural light that the sun provides us is an obvious way of saving energy.

What do you people think of all this?

Obviously Dick Cheney is hiding behind every tree.

ANDHESGONNAJUMPOUTANDGRABYOU!!!RUNRUNRUNAHAHAHAHA!!!

-k

{my cousin's kids love that one.}

[August1991]

Supposing that there's an average of one 60 Watt bulb on in the evening for every American (and that is probably very conservative), that's around 18 Gigawatts of power used on artificial lighting at at any given moment during the evening. So replace that with natural lighting for one hour a day on 60 days, and that's 1.08 billion Kilowatt-hours of energy that could be saved.

That ignores the possibility there will not be one 60 watt bulb on in the morning.

The policy will move an hour of sunlight from the morning to the afternoon. Oure mornings will be darker but our afternoons brighter. Who might be against that? Mothers fearful of their kids going to school in the dark.

BTW, daylight savings time was made year round in the US in 1973 to save energy. The policy lasted one year. Soccer moms always win, eventually.

[GostHacked]

Kimmy.

That analogy may work when every single one of us is 9-5.

And by reducing it in the evening will mean a rise of consumption in the morning. And to say that most people in the mornings are on trains/buses cars ect is the same group of people using the trains/buses ect in the evening. Most 9-5ers spend 2 hours (or more) a day in commute on public/private transportation. Now with that in mind, getting off at 5 and home by 6. Even with daylight savings, you will still be comming home in the dark.

I don't see this as a valid solution.

[kimmy]

Kimmy.

That analogy may work when every single one of us is 9-5.

Not every single one of us. This is just a matter of playing the percentages.

And by reducing it in the evening will mean a rise of consumption in the morning. And to say that most people in the mornings are on trains/buses cars ect is the same group of people using the trains/buses ect in the evening.

Again, it's the percentages. Consumption of power for artificial lighting might rise in the morning, but not to nearly the extent that it will be reduced in the evening.

Do you imagine that a bunch of hacks at the Department of Energy got shitfaced after work one night and hatched this idea? And decided to impliment it, without even stopping to crunch a few numbers, or doing some study of peoples' power-consumption habits?

Use your head.

Most 9-5ers spend 2 hours (or more) a day in commute on public/private transportation.  Now with that in mind, getting off at 5 and home by 6. Even with daylight savings, you will still be comming home in the dark.

Where do you live that you have such strange sunrises and sunsets? Tuktuyuktuk?

I concede that at extreme latitudes, this will not produce nearly the benefits that it would for our neighbors south of the 49th parallel. However, by far the majority of Canadians live within a couple of hundred miles of the 49th parallel, and will realize significant power savings as well.

Let us spend a few moments with some star charts, and let's use Toronto as an example, because it's Canada's biggest city.

This year Daylight Savings kicked in on April 3.

Date Sunrise Sunset

Apr 1, 2005 5:59 AM 6:44 PM

Apr 2, 2005 5:57 AM 6:45 PM

Apr 3, 2005 6:56 AM 7:47 PM

Apr 4, 2005 6:54 AM 7:48 PM

It appears to be planned to ensure a 7am sunrise. And keep in mind that the sky becomes light well before sunrise. It's essentially broad daylight by sunrise.

So, how many people are actually making use of daylight at 7am? I submit that it's actually a very small percentage. The paper-boy, obsessive joggers, and shift-workers who keep odd hours.

How many people could use an extra hour of daylight at 6:45pm? Just about everybody, except shift-workers who keep odd hours.

Here are Toronto's sunrises and sunsets for mid-March:

Mar 11, 2005 6:37 AM 6:19 PM

Mar 12, 2005 6:35 AM 6:20 PM

Mar 13, 2005 6:33 AM 6:21 PM

Mar 14, 2005 6:32 AM 6:22 PM

Mar 15, 2005 6:30 AM 6:24 PM

Suppose we kicked in Daylight Savings Time on March 13? That would give:

Mar 11, 2005 6:37 AM 6:19 PM

Mar 12, 2005 6:35 AM 6:20 PM

Mar 13, 2005 7:33 AM 7:21 PM

Mar 14, 2005 7:32 AM 7:22 PM

Mar 15, 2005 7:30 AM 7:24 PM

First off, this refutes your claim that our typical 9-5 worker is going to be coming home in the dark. He's got time to come home, eat, and still go for an evening walk or something before it gets dark out.

And in the morning... what's wrong with a 7:30am sunrise? Sounds fine to me. Torontonians already have sunrises 7:30am and later between December 1 and February 4, so I don't see why having a 7:33am sunrise on the first day of Daylight Savings would be such a hardship.

I suggest that moving Daylight Savings up by 4 weeks in spring yields a very workable schedule. My sense of symmetry leads me to suspect that extending DST by 4 weeks in the fall should yield similar results. I don't know what the US plan calls for, as far as exact dates, but I've just shown you how Daylight Savings could be extended by 8 weeks in a painless manner.

And supposing there's 5 million 60 watt bulbs on in the Toronto area between sunset and bedtime, that's 300 million watts of power that could be saved. Even if you still think that people will use exactly as much power in the morning as they save in the evening, consider the load on Ontario's overworked power-grid. That's 300 million watts of power that wouldn't be competing with electric stoves and televisions during the peak power consumption hours. Before 7:30 in the morning, the power-grid is at a low load; shifting the 300 million extra watts from evening to early morning would make life a lot easier for the power-generating stations. If you talk in terms of saving energy or reducing pollution, maybe people won't care, but maybe they'll listen to the possibility of reducing brown-outs.

I don't see this as a valid solution.

Of course you don't. That's exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction I've come to expect from most people.

-k

[GostHacked]

Thanks I never thought of using my head before.

[PocketRocket]

Implementing this would have little or no effect on people's lives, but it would save some energy.

To those who have argued it would not, simply because those very early risers will be turning on the lights an hour earlier have missed one thing; most people do not run their stereo or computer or tv etc etc etc in the morning.

All of these things use considerably more power than a simple light bulb.

Additionally, having an extra hour of daylight woul make going outside after work a bit more friendly.

[kimmy]

Thanks I never thought of using my head before.

That's it? I went to all that effort and this is all I get? A whiny response to one line out of a logical and well-supported argument? pfff.

I take it from your lack of response to the rest of my message that you have been convinced and now see the wisdom of extending DST.

-k

[Shady]

I take it from your lack of response to the rest of my message that you have been convinced and now see the wisdom of extending DST

It sure seems that way. I guess, all you needed to do was inject a little logic into the discussion. Apparently it didn't sit well with his anti-American/anti-Bush rant.

[GostHacked]

Thanks I never thought of using my head before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's it? I went to all that effort and this is all I get? A whiny response to one line out of a logical and well-supported argument? pfff.

I take it from your lack of response to the rest of my message that you have been convinced and now see the wisdom of extending DST.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes that is all you get. And if you want to chalk it up and say you got a point, go for it. Obviously I was not using my head, and I sooo want to thank you for showing the errs of my ways.

-gh

[August1991]

Anyone remember the Energy Policy Act of 2005? Probably not.

Nevertheless, it will have a noticeable effect on our lives beginning March 11. Starting this year, much of the United States and Canada will observe Daylight Saving Time (DST) differently.

This year DST will start March 11 (the second Sunday in March) and run until Nov. 4 (the first Sunday in November). In most areas, the changeover takes place at 2 a.m. to cause as little disruption as possible.

In the past, DST ran from the first Sunday in April until the last Sunday in October.

Link

[margrace]

I don't know who this helps, school buses in our area start picking up children before 7AM so it will just be dark longer in the mornings for them.

[geoffrey]

I don't know who this helps, school buses in our area start picking up children before 7AM so it will just be dark longer in the mornings for them.

The small rural population is hardly the sample we need to base our energy policy on. I'd rather have darkness for farm kids than those in urban areas going to school purely based on safety.

Anyways, the needs of the vast majority in the urban centres and our energy supply is far more important than if rural kids have to walk in the dark for an extra few weeks of the year.

[August1991]

I don't know who this helps, school buses in our area start picking up children before 7AM so it will just be dark longer in the mornings for them.

The first grumble of the soccer moms.

This change is less ambitious than the 1973 change but I wouldn't be surprised if it met the same fate.

Anyways, the needs of the vast majority in the urban centres and our energy supply is far more important than if rural kids have to walk in the dark for an extra few weeks of the year.

That's not how we take collective decisions in North America.

[geoffrey]

Anyways, the needs of the vast majority in the urban centres and our energy supply is far more important than if rural kids have to walk in the dark for an extra few weeks of the year.

That's not how we take collective decisions in North America.

Oh I know, I'm just trying to throw a little rationality into the North American collective thinking, one little comment at a time.

[Wilber]

I wish they would make daylight saving the new standard time and keep it year round.

[Wilber]

This is a yuk. Everyone jumping on the global warming, anti polution band wagon but when you ask them to move up the date they change their clocks by a month, half of them get their knickers in a knot.

[blueblood]

I wish they would make daylight saving the new standard time and keep it year round.

Move to Saskatchewan.

[blueblood]

I remember I used to get on the bus as a kid back when it was dark, so? Don't most city people drive to work early when it's dark out? I don't see what the big deal is. That's what lights are for.

[Wilber]

I wish they would make daylight saving the new standard time and keep it year round.

Move to Saskatchewan.

Don't they have standard time all year round? I want daylight saving to be year round, in effect the new standard time.

[ft.niagara]

I want daylight saving to be year round, in effect the new standard time.

I agree. It is such a waste of good daylight not to sync the time when most people are awake with daylight. When people lived on farms, and there was no 11 PM news, that is what people did. The went to bed and awoke to the cycle of the sun. The problem is most people do not live on farms anymore. I would go for double daylight savings time in mid summer (four months), daylight savings (four months), and standard mid winter (four months). That would be too complicated though.

[guyser]

That would be too complicated though.

Especially when I had to , or have to, travel to Indiana...backwood corn state.

[leonardcohen]

The money and energy that would be saved on lights are more then a little

offset by the money i'm still spending on heat,it's still winter here,remember.

The extension proposed is not really worth it based on that alone.

Unless you can move summer to coincide with it ;}

[Wilber]

The money and energy that would be saved on lights are more then a little

offset by the money i'm still spending on heat,it's still winter here,remember.

The extension proposed is not really worth it based on that alone.

Unless you can move summer to coincide with it ;}

What does one have to do with the other? The idea is to make the most use of available daylight to reduce energy consumption. How will that make it more expensive to heat your house? If you want to spend less to heat your house, we should be trying to promote global warming.