Study: Daylight saving time a waste of energy

March 16, 2010 by Lin Edwards

(PhysOrg.com) -- Daylight saving time is supposed to reduce energy use, but data gathered from a state in the US suggests it actually does the opposite.

The US state of Indiana has 92 counties, but until 2006 only 15 of them adjusted their clocks for daylight saving time, with the remainder keeping standard time all year, at least partly to appease farmers who did not want the change. Then in 2006 the Indiana Legislature decided the entire state should adopt daylight saving time, beginning that spring.

This unique situation enabled professor of economics Matthew Kotchen and his PhD student Laura E. Grant, both from the University of California at Santa Barbara, to study how the adoption of daylight saving affected energy use. They studied over seven million electricity meter readings in southern Indiana every month for three years, and compared the energy consumption before and after the change. The 15 counties that had adopted daylight saving time much earlier were the control group, which allowed them to adjust for the effects of weather extremes over the period.

The result of the study showed that electricity use went up in the counties adopting daylight saving time in 2006, costing $8.6 million more in household electricity bills. The conclusion reached by Kotchen and Grant was that while the lighting costs were reduced in the afternoons by daylight saving, the greater heating costs in the mornings, and more use of air-conditioners on hot afternoons more than offset these savings. Kotchen said the results were more “clear and unambiguous” than results in any other paper he had presented.

Kotchen and Grant's work reinforces the findings of an Australian study in 2007 by economists Ryan Kellogg and Hendrik Wolff, who studied the extension of daylight saving time for two months in New South Wales and Victoria for the 2000 Summer Olympics. They also found an increase in energy use.

Daylight saving was initially introduced, and has been extended, because it was believed to save energy, but the studies upon which this idea was based were conducted in the 1970s. A big difference between then and the present is the massive increase in the take-up of air conditioning. In hot periods daylight saving time means air conditioners tend to be run more when people arrive home from work, while in cooler periods more heating is used.

Professor Kotchen presented the paper at the March National Bureau of Economic Research conference.

More information: via WSJ

© 2010 PhysOrg.com

Daylight Savings Time Explained (INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC)

ksat.com — Why do we move our clocks forward in March? Learn about the origins and why we change the time.

Hedge Fund Investor

I'm Here To Open A Savings Account [Pic]

hedge fund investor

60% living paycheck to paycheck

by Karen Datko

This post comes from James Limbach at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

Counting down the hours until payday? You're not alone.

As the economic downturn trudges on, many workers are struggling with household budgets. About six in 10 workers -- 61% -- report they always or usually live paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet, compared with 49% last year and 43% in 2007, according to a new nationwide survey of more than 4,400 workers by CareerBuilder.

Thirty percent of workers with salaries of $100,000 or more report that they too live paycheck to paycheck, versus 21% in 2008.

Some workers are making ends meet by dipping into their long-term savings. More than one in five workers say they have reduced their 401(k) contributions or personal savings in the last six months to get by. Among workers earning six figures or more, a nearly equal number -- 23% -- report that they have also reduced their 401(k) contributions or savings.

While some workers are tapping into their long-term accounts, others are having a hard time saving anything at all. More than one-third -- 36% -- say they do not participate in any programs such as a 401(k), IRA or retirement plan, compared with 31% in 2008. In addition, one-third report that they don't put any money aside into their savings each month, while 30% set aside $100 or less per month for savings and 16% save less than $50.

"Workers are employing a variety of tactics to help make ends meet in this economy," said Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources for CareerBuilder. "Whether it's by keeping a tighter budget, finding ways to bring in additional income or adjusting their savings strategies, workers are doing their best to weather the current storm. These good financial habits will not only help workers in the short term, but better position them for the future."

Haefner offers the following tips for riding out the economic downturn and preparing for the future:

• Keep track of spending. Create a spreadsheet to analyze what you spend each month, including the money spent on those inevitable invisible expenses, such as a morning coffee, cab ride or afternoon snack. Once you can see where your money goes, you can clearly see where you can cut back.
• Boost your income. One in 10 workers report taking on a second job in this economy to help make ends meet. Ask yourself if this is something you can handle on top of your current job and then pursue some viable options.
• Speak up. Talk to your HR department and see what is available to help you save on your monthly expenses. Even though times are tough, companies are still offering flexible spending accounts, wellness benefits, retail discounts, transit reimbursement and more.

Airline appears serious about pay toilets

by Karen Datko

Travelers on European budget carrier Ryanair will likely have to start paying for bathroom use, and may wish they had a wooden (think hollow) leg.

Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary told the Guardian newspaper in England that he's serious about charging for toilet access -- an idea he had earlier bandied about -- and also plans to reduce the number of bathrooms on his Boeing 737-800 jets from three to one.

Those bathrooms will be replaced with six more seats -- "which means more passengers will stand in line longer for the privilege of paying to potty. This can't be good for beverage cart sales," wrote Rob Manker at ChicagoTribune.com.

O'Leary said he's asked Boeing to look into placing credit card readers on bathroom locks in new Ryanair planes and making that seat adjustment. The price to potty would be £1, or about $1.60, when it takes effect within two years.

"We are flying aircraft on an average flight time of one hour around Europe," O'Leary said. "What the hell do we need three toilets for?"

Hmm. Perhaps because the 737-800 seats 162 to 189 passengers, depending on the seat configuration, not including O'Leary's extra seats.

Carl Unger at Smarter Travel commented, "To be fair, I can see his point. Ryanair essentially acts as a bus service in the sky .... Of course, your average 737 carries three times as many passengers as your average long-distance bus."

Seeing may be believing when it comes to O'Leary, who the Guardian says is known as "O'Really" because he doesn't always mean what he says. However, it's true that O'Leary has never met an airline fee he didn't like.

In fact, ChicagoTribune.com says, "There are reports O'Leary is also tossing around the idea of requiring passengers to load their own luggage onto jets, so that the airline can cut costs by not having baggage handlers."

Stateside travelers aren't immune from rising fees. Starting Wednesday, June 10, United Airlines customers who don't pay their checked-baggage fees online will start paying an extra $5 at the airport, ChicagoTribune.com says. That will amount to $20 for the first bag and $30 for the second. US Airways will follow suit in July.

Stop getting prerecorded telemarketing calls

by Karen Datko

We're on the Do Not Call list, but we still get prerecorded calls from the likes of "Heather" and her fellow drones. Why is this happening? It's terribly annoying.

Luckily we came across this post by Herb Weisbaum, aka ConsumerMan at MSNBC, while we were researching another topic. He says you can now opt out of these calls -- and can do it quite simply.

First of all, ConsumerMan says that if you're on the Do Not Call list, prerecorded telemarketing calls are legal only from companies with which you already have a business relationship. He defines that as: "If you bought or rented something from that company within the last 18 months, or simply inquired about a product or service within the last three months, you've established a business relationship."

(Some companies ignore this rule or stretch it to the breaking point. We don't know of any business relationship we've had with the companies that keep calling. Maybe it's time to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.)

How do you get them to stop? Simply hanging up won't do it.

• As of last month, the company must give you a way to opt out, like pushing 1. Listen to the instructions at the end of the pitch.
• EveryCall says a method to opt out must be provided whether the prerecorded call reaches a human ear or ends up as a message on your answering machine.
• Starting Sept. 1, a company you have a business relationship with will need your agreement in writing or electronically to send you robo-calls. They'll probably come up with some crafty ways to trick you into that.

Other things you should know:

• Informational prerecorded calls from a company you have a business relationship with are allowed. ConsumerMan says that would include calls from an airline letting you know your flight has been delayed.
• Political calls and calls from charities are exempt. However, if the charity hires an outfit that uses prerecorded calls, you can opt out from receiving them as well.
• You can sign up for the Do Not Call list online or by calling (888) 382-1222 from the phone number you want to put on the list. That includes cell phones. There's about a month delay before the registration takes effect.