4 ms·

"it was just fine the way it was." I agree. Before the nonsense about turning the clock twice a year was "invented". "During World War I, in an effort to cons

by fsloth 8y ago

"it was just fine the way it was." I agree. Before the nonsense about turning the clock twice a year was "invented". "During World War I, in an effort to conserve fuel, Germany began observing DST on May 1, 1916." [0] See, there was shortage of fuel, and they thought DST would save energy. I don't think anyone has any credible data to support that it does. This has been an ongoing experiment for a century. Maybe we all can declare the experiment over. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_in_the_United_States#1966%E2%80%931972:_Federal_standard_established https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_in_the_Un...

bduerst 8y ago
A net energy loss/gain analysis of DST would be interesting, at least from the consumption side. That could impact carbon emissions which would be relevant today, right?
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  Many analyses have been performed and the only thing they have agreed on is that the difference, whether more savings or extra waste, is miniscule: less than 1%
  - avh02 8y ago
    > less than 1% On a global or national scale this can be a very large amount - calling it miniscuLe is a little disingenuous
    - fsloth 8y ago
      No, what is meant it's so small, that no one can tell how big the difference is and more importantly, does DST waste or save energy.
      - avh02 8y ago
        Eh fair, was a little early in the morning and I misread the +- part
  - nabeards 8y ago
    It's 1 to 4% energy cost based on https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/REST_a_00131 https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/REST_a_00131 Additionally, that study found increased pollution and associated costs.
andrepd 8y ago
I don't see how invoking the original (flawed) rationale has any relevance on whether or not it ended up being a good idea for other reasons.
- piyush_soni 8y ago
  It hasn't been a good idea for other reasons too. In fact, it has been a terrible idea for various. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br0NW9ufUUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br0NW9ufUUw

by fsloth 8y ago

bduerst 8y ago

A net energy loss/gain analysis of DST would be interesting, at least from the consumption side. That could impact carbon emissions which would be relevant today, right?

hannasanarion 8y ago
Many analyses have been performed and the only thing they have agreed on is that the difference, whether more savings or extra waste, is miniscule: less than 1%
- avh02 8y ago
  > less than 1% On a global or national scale this can be a very large amount - calling it miniscuLe is a little disingenuous
  - fsloth 8y ago
    No, what is meant it's so small, that no one can tell how big the difference is and more importantly, does DST waste or save energy.
    - avh02 8y ago
      Eh fair, was a little early in the morning and I misread the +- part
- nabeards 8y ago
  It's 1 to 4% energy cost based on https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/REST_a_00131 https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/REST_a_00131 Additionally, that study found increased pollution and associated costs.

andrepd 8y ago

I don't see how invoking the original (flawed) rationale has any relevance on whether or not it ended up being a good idea for other reasons.

piyush_soni 8y ago
It hasn't been a good idea for other reasons too. In fact, it has been a terrible idea for various. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br0NW9ufUUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br0NW9ufUUw