Mar 14th 2012, 23:14:10
the recent studies have indicated the energy savings are negligible. you save on lighting but spend more on heating/cooling.
"Under Section 110 of the Act, the U.S. Department of Energy was required to study the impact of the 2007 DST extension no later than nine months after the change took effect. The report, released in October 2008, reported a nationwide electricity savings of 0.03% for the year of 2007.[6]
An October 2008 study conducted by the University of California at Santa Barbara for the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the 2006 DST adoption in Indiana increased energy consumption in Indiana by an average of 1%. Although energy consumption for lighting dropped as a result of the DST adoption, consumption for heating and cooling increased by 2 to 4%."
(Wikipedia, Daylight saving time in the United States)
there was another study in Japan also reported an negligible to increased energy consumption.
a real benifit is DST makes $$$$$. people spend more when they gain that extra hour of light in the evening. i believe that is the bigger reason DST got extended in 2007.
if not repealed, i would be okay with permanent DST like Iceland, Russia, and Belarus
@Klown people can also fit more into the day if they wake up an hour earlier. DST accommodates the greater majority that sleep in later past dawn. d'ya mean that u start your day at 16:45.
