After all the grief that the early shift this year to DST caused folks, it doesn’t seem to have done diddly toward its ostensible end of saving energy. Though I’m sure it allowed various politicians to feel virtuous and effective and all leaderish.
The move to turn the clocks forward by an hour on March 11 rather than the usual early April date was mandated by the U.S. government as an energy-saving effort. But other than forcing millions of drowsy American workers and school children into the dark, wintry weather three weeks early, the move appears to have had little impact on power usage.
“We haven’t seen any measurable impact,” said Jason Cuevas, spokesman for Southern Co., one of the nation’s largest power companies, echoing comments from several large utilities.
That may come as no surprise to the Energy Department, which last year predicted only modest energy savings because the benefits of the later daylight hour would be offset.
That’s because lighting (the main thing affected) is a tiny part (10%) of household electricity usage, and any shifts there are offset by changing around heating for chilly, dark mornings.
I’m not a big fan of DST anyway, Short of either making it permanent or getting rid of it, my only question now is whether shifting back (as Congress said it would if there were no bennies) would be more trouble than simply leaving it alone.
(via Les)
Yours truly is all about the DST. The day–the *day* after the time changed, I felt better, because I had more sun.
From a total energy consumption standpoint DST actually increase energy use. When we get more light in the evening we hop in our car, spending energy, and go shopping. Not surprising – the biggest pushers are the retail industries. It has a big positive impact on them.