Off Grid Home Blog

Does “traveling” through time save energy? Is that lost hour of spring sleep really worth it? Where are the savings in Daylight Saving Time and would the Western world be better off dropping the whole thing and moving on with its life?

A (Very) Brief History of DST

In 1784, after noticing how many residents slept through sunny summer mornings, Benjamin Franklin published an anonymous, satirical letter to Parisians suggesting they get up two hours earlier to conserve candles. Franklin did not suggest they adopt Daylight Saving Time (DST), although often mistakenly credited as doing so, but he did foreshadow a primary controversy that has followed DST around since its 1895  conception by New Zealand entomologist George Vernon Hudson (who enjoyed the extra daylight to scour for insects) – does DST actually save energy?

Even after Hudson and then Brit William Willet fought for DST, it took until World War I for Europe and the United States to temporarily adopt the shift. Then it went in and out of favor – slowly gaining widespread usage in Europe and North America (most of Asia and Africa still do not observe it) – throughout the 20th Century, usually finding its way onto legislative arenas during wartime or energy crises.

Except for a handful of adjustments, DST as we know it in America has been around since the 1960s, when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act, which did not force all states to adopt DST, but merely said that if adopted it must be done uniformly. At that time, it was thought DST would save energy on incandescent lighting, then the primary use of electricity, although now things are more complicated due to widespread heating and cooling.

How DST Works

Daylight Saving Time makes summer days longer, as well as a portion of spring and fall days. As it stands right now, Standard Time “springs forward” at 2:00am on the second Sunday of March, creating darker mornings and brighter evenings until, on the first Sunday in November, it “falls back” into Standard Time. The idea is that people will be happier and more active thanks to more after-work daylight hours to spend outdoors. It’s also believed to conserve energy because the sun is out later and homes are naturally warmer and well-lit until closer to the average person’s bedtime. Obviously, darker, potentially colder mornings would increase the need for light and heat before work, but the belief is that lower energy usage at night outweighs increased usage in the morning. Thus, energy and money is saved.

Well, the thing about that is…who the hell knows? No one can seem to agree whether DST saves or costs both energy and money, or whether it is simply obsolete.

Most of the world’s population does not adhere to DST. According to the California Energy Commission, some 70 countries worldwide embrace it and, while that may seem like a lot, note that most of Africa and Asia do not. So DST is definitely in the minority in terms of global population. In the United States, most of Arizona and all of Hawaii do not oblige the time change. Much of Indiana did not until the latest DST adjustment by the Bush administration, but more on that in a moment.

The recreation, retail, sports and tourism industries have historically supported DST because more time for consumers to be out and about means more money for these sectors. Farmers and the entertainment industry tend to oppose it because a farmer’s schedule is dependent on sunlight, and longer days cut into prime-time revenues for entertainment outlets. But none of that is here or there in terms of energy.

The Energy Crisis

Since the 60s, many studies have been conducted to determine if DST actually saves energy. These studies are in a perpetual state of conflict. For example, during the energy crisis of the 1970s, a study by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which holds jurisdiction over DST, found in 1975 that longer evening daylight hours might reduce electricity consumption in the country by one percent in March and April. Yet a review of that study in 1976 by the National Bureau of Standards found no significant savings.

That trend repeats throughout recent history, all the way up to our most recent decade. In yet another effort to conserve energy, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 signed into law by George W. Bush included another extension of DST. It moved the time change to three weeks earlier in the spring  and one week later in the fall. The change went into effect in March of 2007.

It was then that the entire state of Indiana decided to adopt DST. Because several counties had already been observing DST, it gave Matthew Kotchen and Laura Grant of the University of Santa Barbara a unique opportunity to study firsthand the effects of DST on energy consumption. Their study, released in 2008, found that electricity usage actually increased in Indiana following the switch, a fact primarily contributed to an increased need for air conditioning on hot summer days and an increase in heating on darker mornings in the spring and fall.

At that point, it seemed like the jury might be in on DST — that contrary to popular belief, it actually hurt energy efficiency and cost homeowners and the state more money than sticking to standard time year-round. But of course, the Indiana case study is not without criticism, which boils down to the assertion that Indiana cannot represent the entirety of the USA. A handful of studies in California have found either that DST saves a small amount of energy or has little or no effect on energy at all, but certainly doesn’t cost the state energy.

And that tends to be how the debate over DST goes. The US has so many different climates that the effect of changing time to suit schedules in summer time (what DST is called in Europe) varies. Up to this point, no comprehensive nationwide study is complete, although apparently the federal government is in the process of doing just that.

So is DST Worth it or Not?

My extremely strong opinion on the matter? It depends. The fact is that percentage-wise, there seems to be little effect, although a difference of one percent in any state, especially energy-hungry California, can equal a heck of a lot of saved GHG emissions and cost savings. Of course, nobody can say for sure if any energy is actually saved.

Here’s the conundrum. Yes, in a state like Indiana, DST might actually cost energy, but in another state or region it might have a significant impact. The problem is that we live in an interconnected world, so it does nobody any good to have everybody running on a different clock. Time zones alone present enough problems in that respect.

So energy-wise, I opine that DST is essentially pointless, an opinion I’ll stick to until I see the results of a broader study (which will no doubt have to be inordinately complex and probably befuddling to most of us). Most of the world’s population does not observe it in any way and we live in an ever more globalized society.

Now there are other effects of DST beyond energy — traffic accidents, crime, health, economy, et al. — each as contentious as the rest. Wikipedia has a good survey of information on those factors, their own respective controversies and plenty of links to other resources if you’re interested.

But for now, the only reason I can see to hold on to the DST model is convenience and luxury. Even in standard time, few of us actually rise with the sun in summertime. Most peoples’ routines have been structured around the nine-to-five workday, so even if the sun rose at 5 a.m., the majority would probably sleep until it’s time to get ready for work. So, just as Benjamin Franklin, George Vernon Hudson and William Willet suggested at least a century ago, having that extra hour of daylight to frolic, relax, take a walk or just get outside under the bright summer sun…well…who, if it’s not costing us valuable energy, is going to complain about that? Not me.

And hey, maybe someday over the rainbow, solar power and renewable energy will provide the majority of our electricity and all this will be a moot point. Unless you’re a farmer or a major media outlet.

Links:

Wikipedia: Daylight Saving Time

Wikipedia: Time in the United States

California Energy Commission

Wall Street Journal

More »

Whenever we think of solar energy, we assume that it is just simple sunlight, ignoring the fact that visible light is just part of the complete electromagnetic spectrum.

It is important to keep in mind that electromagnetic radiation is not monochromatic, it’s made up of a wide range of different wavelengths, and therefore different energy levels.

It is possible to separate light into different wavelengths, which can be seen in the form of a rainbow. And as the light that falls on our solar cell has multiple photons carrying different ranges of energies, some of these photons don’t have enough energy to alter an electron-hole pair.

This means that they’ll simply pass through the cell as if it were transparent. However, other photons may have too much energy. Only a specific amount of energy, which can be measured in electron volts (eV), and is about 1.1 eV for crystalline silicon, is needed to loosen up an electron. This is called the band gap energy of a material.

In case the photon has more energy than the required amount, then this extra energy is lost. Thus if the photon has less energy, or has too much energy, in both the cases energy will be lost. These losses can account for about 70 percent of the radiation energy incident on our cell.

Question arises that why can’t we use a material that has a really low band gap, so we can use more photons? But this is not possible as unfortunately, our band gap also decides the strength (voltage) of our electric field, and if it’s too low, then whatever we make up in extra current through absorbing more photons, we will loose by having a small voltage.

Balancing both these effects, the optimal band gap can be found around 1.4 eV for a cell made from a single material.

However, these aren’t the only losses that we face. The electrons have to flow from one side of the cell to the other through an external circuit. The bottom can be made with a metal which allows good conduction, but if the top is completely covered, then photons can’t get through the opaque conductor and we lose all of our current.

Also, as silicon is a semiconductor, its internal resistance is fairly high, leading to high losses. To minimize these losses, cells are typically covered by a metallic contact grid that shortens the distance that electrons have to travel while covering only a small part of the cell surface. Even after this, some of the photons are blocked by the grid.

Technorati Tags: Energy,Solar,Cell,radiation,voltage,cells,electromagnetic,photons,electron,silicon,photon,electrons

People who liked this Post also read

• Anatomy of a Solar Cell
• Function of Photovoltaic Cells
• Advantages Of Installing Home Solar Power Panels
• How Silicon Makes A Solar Cell?
• Structure of A Solar Cell
• Some Considerations Before Going Solar
• Solar Towers- Get Power In the Dark
• What Are Solar Power Plants?
• Seeking The Consultant’s Services For Renewable Energy Projects
• The Photovoltaic Cell

The researchers of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have uncovered a new phenomenon of carbon nanotubes. They found that carbon nanotubes discharge powerful waves of electricity under certain circumstances. MIT team named it as thermopower waves. They are pinning their hope on thermopower waves to produce electricity to be utilized in small electrical [...]
Posted in: Batteries, Future Energy, Inventions

Although the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provides significant economic incentives for investing in renewable energy projects, GAAP earnings patterns may negatively impact investors should they choose to ignore liquidation provisions in tax equity partnership structures. We are proposing that investors negotiate Partnership Earnings Protection (PEP) to address potential issues with GAAP earnings patterns.

Last year around this time, clean tech research and publishing firm Clean Edge predicted we’d be talking about flat or even downward clean energy revenue trends in 2009. However, the report the firm issued today, Clean Energy Trends 2010, shows that combined global revenue for three major clean-energy sectors –- solar photovoltaics (PV), wind power and biofuels -– grew by 11.4 percent over 2008, reaching $139.1 billion.

Beacon Power Corporation has shipped, installed and connected a Smart Energy 25 (Gen 4) flywheel energy storage system at a wind farm in Tehachapi, California. The system is part of a wind power/flywheel demonstration project being carried out for the California Energy Commission.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver and Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri on Tuesday released Great Expectations: U.S. Wind Energy Development, the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition’s 2010 Recommendations. Governor Culver and Governor Carcieri are the chair and vice chair of the 29-state organization.

An innovative municipal solar incentive program is spreading like wildfire across America. Based on a program devised in Berkeley, California, Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) bonds are provided by the municipality and paid for over time through voluntary property tax increases tied to the home (rather than the individual). Several cities across the country have or are scrambling to adopt PACE incentives. Virtually all have met with immediate success.

However, one recently developed program in San Antonio, Texas is in dire straits due to a conflict with existing statewide real estate law. A number of solar-incentivizing bills failed in the Texas legislature last year, with only one slipping through. That bill, which allowed Texas cities the freedom to develop PACE programs, set the wheels motion in several towns, including San Antonio, which would also offer loans for solar hot water, geothermal heating and cooling, and several energy efficiency upgrades.

The problem is this: the San Antonio City Council wants to tie PACE loans to the front end of mortgages to guarantee that home solar power systems are paid off before the end of the mortgage (Terms for PACE loans are typically around 20 years). Unfortunately, the city council’s desires seem to conflict with Texas real estate laws and, local solar proponents fear, will make it nearly impossible for the city to secure bonds from insurers due to the added risk brought on by the struggling housing market.

According to Solar San Antonio, nearly 40 percent of residents are eager to go solar, but may not get the chance, at least not anytime soon. There are existing incentives offered for solar PV and solar hot water systems by city-owned utility CPS Energy, but despite the $3/watt rebate on PV systems, there are still thousands of dollars in up-front costs to be contended with in a city not known for extreme wealth. Such is the case in almost every city in the country, and a reason why PACE has been so successful.

Fully aware that PACE programs are the best thing residential solar power has going for it right now, local solar proponents and city officials are searching for a solution. According to the San Antonio Current, there are two options on the table right now. One is a return to the state legislature (which doesn’t meet again until 2011) to hammer out the conflict or get the federal government to guarantee loans. That, say those involved, is the only way that insurers will accept the risk and dole out bonds to San Antonio and other Texas cities. Apparently, the federal option is being pursued right now.

This is the first major obstacle I’ve heard of for burgeoning PACE programs kicking off around the nation. And it certainly puts a damper on the only government incentive option in place for cities in our second largest state, and one with a hefty dose of annual sunshine. In the absence of a national feed-in tariff or renewable portfolio standard, as well as any state level rebates, the success of solar power in Texas in the short term may really depend on how fast San Antonio can get their PACE on track.

Via San Antonio Current

Photo Credit: Solar San Antonio

More »

Each morning, as the sun casts its light down to San Gabriel Canyon, more than 100 kilowatts-worth of solar panels kick into action in Azusa, California, feeding clean and green energy into a very busy Los Angeles County electric grid. And that’s just the start. More and more of that bright southern sunlight is being harnessed and redistributed to provide light and warmth inside and out of Azusa homes and businesses.

Now, if Azusa is the local Camelot of solar power, then Cardinal Laboratories is its King Arthur. This local pet food producer and distributor is the epicenter of solar power in the city, currently on its own crusade to become a completely solar-powered company. Sure enough, just last fall, phase one of that crusade took effect when Cardinal Labs switched on a 367-panel, 71.4-kW solar photovoltaic system at its manufacturing and distribution center, making that facility 100-percent solar-powered. Phase two (already underway) involves the construction of a new solar-powered distribution center elsewhere in Azusa, followed by phase three: the energy efficient upgrade and solar transformation of its Cardinal Pet Care food distribution center. In Azusa, Cardinal Labs is a solar power symbol of Excalibur proportions, and a sure inspiration to the Round Table of solar knights to come.

When the California Solar Initiative went into effect in 2006, Azusa got right to it. Azusa Power and Light, local municipal utility, began offering rebates of $2.80 per watt, plus another $1.20 premium if the owner gave up their green energy credits. And, like a hungry answer to a dinner bell, solar power is moving in to the Canyon City, with at least three more solar projects to come this summer when a new round of government funding arrives.

As impressive as Azusa’s blossoming solar resume is, the city impresses in many other green ways as well. Most notable is Azusa Power and Light’s trendsetting LED TV rebates. Big, flat-screen HDTVs waste a lot of energy and heat. LED televisions, on the other hand, run much cooler and more efficiently, all while providing a better picture. In a land of entertainment, what could be better than a rebate for our number-one entertainment device?

Rebates are offered at 25% of the cost of the television, but Azusa residents can get a check for up to $750 in return for purchasing a more energy efficient TV. Not to mention $250 for an LED computer monitor. Excitement around these rebates is so high, it’s like a renaissance fair in King Arthur’s England — the real deal. Azusa was the FIRST city in California to adopt an LED TV rebate program and possibly the first in the entire country!

Now that’s Solar City leadership. And not without its crusades, either. We’ve already mentioned Cardinal Labs’ winning joust against fossil fuel energy. On the energy efficiency side of the round table, Paul Reid of Azusa Light and Water will be speaking at the 30th Annual Utility Energy Forum in Northern California to spread the good word about LED televisions and monitors, as well as the rebates that have Azusa and a growing number of other cities coming out of the dark ages ahead of the pack, enjoying a knightly mix of solar power, green building and energy efficient entertainment.

More »

We all are familiar with the effects of carbon dioxide on our environment. Carbon dioxide is responsible for causing the greenhouse effect. If scientists can breakdown this gas into other form it would lead us to reduce the concentration of this gas into environment substantially. It would mean dealing with the root cause of [...]
Posted in: Environment, Inventions