It’s commonly understood that the reason why we spring forward every year is to save us energy. By waking up closer to when the sun rises during the summer months we can utilize more natural light in the evening and we won’t have to use as much artificial lighting…
…Or so the logic goes. It may initially make sense to us, but given that the demands on our energy system differs dramatically from when Daylight Savings Time was initiated over 90 years ago, does it still save us power?
The argument that DST saves energy likely made a lot of sense back in 1916 when Germany started using Daylight Savings Time during World War I.
Coal was the main power source at the time. With the mass production of cars (and the subsequent demand in gasoline) still years away, coal was the only fuel source and the steam it produced was used for everything: the locomotion of boats and trains, the production of electricity, the heating of homes and running of factory machinery.
With few or no televisions, TVs, computers, or even home refrigerators drawing electricity, lighting was the main source of electricity demand from consumers. With coal a highly valuable commodity for the war, it’s European allies and foes all joined Germany in pushing the clock forward one hour during the longer months.
Since then a revolution in consumer appliances and electronics has occurred. Refrigerators, microwaves, televisions, computers, freezers all contribute to electricity demand… sometimes when they’re not even turned on. In an average house the refrigerator will use up more electricity than it would take to light every room.
So does Daylight Savings Time still make sense from an energy-saving perspective?
No Straight Answers
In a recent report done for the National Research Council of Canada and published in the June ‘08 issue of Energy Policy, the authors reviewed the existing literature on the subject and found there was no conclusive answer. Simple calculations expected that there was an overall reduction of energy use of 0.5% due to reduced residential lighting, but there were just as many other studies that the overall effect is negligible or that an overall increase in energy occurs if the non-electrical uses of fossil fuels such as gasoline were considered.
Many of the studies were specific in their criticism that decisions on expanding DST were too strongly based on energy savings, and that these expected savings were based on too simplistic a calculation.
It was found that, though there was indeed savings in lighting from residential buildings, most commercial and industrial buildings did not illuminate themselves based on outside conditions. Savings in lighting were not, therefore, universal among all buildings, since 65% of buildings are non-residential.
Meanwhile, by making people wake up earlier, the need for morning heating is greatly increased, particularly in the Spring and Autumn months. Similarly in the Summertime the need for Air Conditioning increases by pushing the end of the workday right at the time when Air Conditioning demand is the highest, prompting the need to pump up the AC in office buildings and residences simultaneously.
Daylight may also have an effect on recreational travel, with many of the studies suggesting that more daylight mean more energy was expended on evening transportation.
Ultimately there was no clear consensus as to whether or not we saved any money by expanding Daylight Savings Time. Sure it may make our evenings brighter, but it seems obvious that making the decision based on the desire to save energy would be foolhardy. Conventional energy saving techniques – more efficient light bulbs, for example – would have a far greater effect in reducing energy.
So Why Did we Expand DST?
It turns out that the economic effects of DST are significant. Whereas farmers are more negatively affected (as they’d have to wake up earlier), convenience stores and sporting goods manufacturers seem to benefit. In fact, part of the success of the 2005 proposal to extend DST in the United States was due to the lobbying of those very industries. This, despite significant opposition from software giants, utility companies, airlines… even organizations representing Catholics and Jews.
There may have been another political reason: the 2005 proposal to extend Daylight Savings Time was proposed and passed by a Congress and White House who had been rightly criticized for their lack of action on energy issues. Rather than ratify the Kyoto Protocol, take on hard emissions targets, regulate vehicle emissions standards, legislate consumer energy efficiency needs or initiating a cap-and-trade system, pushing the clock forward earlier seemed more politically digestible. After all, who doesn’t like more daylight?
Ironic, then, that the extension of DST may not have saved any energy at all.
