Lighter Later (change the clocks)

lilnell

Hi, this is a campaign to move the clocks forward 1 hour in winter and 2 hours in summer so we get more light in the evenings. I'm mentioning this here, because if it is adopted, we'll need to use our lighting less so saving energy AND money.
There is a Bill to introduce this measure on the 3rd of December in the House of Commons so if you think this is a good idea (or a bad one) let your MP know now. If you are interested; google lighterlater (sorry I'm too new to make this a proper link) for more info and links to get your views heard

zeupater

lilnell wrote: »

Hi, this is a campaign to move the clocks forward 1 hour in winter and 2 hours in summer so we get more light in the evenings. I'm mentioning this here, because if it is adopted, we'll need to use our lighting less so saving energy AND money.
There is a Bill to introduce this measure on the 3rd of December in the House of Commons so if you think this is a good idea (or a bad one) let your MP know now. If you are interested; google lighterlater (sorry I'm too new to make this a proper link) for more info and links to get your views heard

Hi

I don't know who cooked up this idea, but considering globalisation issues, unless the whole world does this it'll probably have a very large impact on a number of economies, or would that be the UK's economy only ? .......

I've got a better idea, let's all set our clocks & watches by the sun at noon and run local microtimezones as was the case before railway timetables, a retrograde step which sounds rediculous, but is it any more rediculous than having a national timezone well out of step with the rest of the world ?

I for one remember the late sixty's/early seventies 'experiment' .... wonder if anyone's actually considered the experiences from that ..... I'll take some considerable convincing on this one ..... :rotfl:

Ken68

http://www.lighterlater.org/

I think it is a move to synchronise with the EU.
We should start a campaign similar to Save our British Sausage.
We could call it SOCKS.

camaj

No ones suggesting that we move because we'd be in the same timezone as western europe. That would be a ridiculous argument to make since we'd gain no advantage. It's the same reason that people living in New York wouldn't want to be in the same timezone as Chicago even though they're in the same country.

Ultimately it's just plain common sense to do this. We'd all benefit from an extra hour of light in the evening. We'd save a ton of money on power bills and we'd make a lot more from increased business. Not to mention a chance to be healthier, happier and save more lives

zeupater wrote: »

I don't know who cooked up this idea, but considering globalisation issues, unless the whole world does this it'll probably have a very large impact on a number of economies, or would that be the UK's economy only ? .......

It'd mainly benefit us. Maybe a small benefit to businesses in other European countries but I'd say it's negligible

Of course people have considered the evidence from the previous trial. Given how successful that was it's a pity they stopped it before they had a proper assessment

If you think a national timezone that's out of step with the rest of the world is ridiculous even more reason to move it ahead. Having it in step or not isn't the issue, it doesn't matter what other countries do with their timezones.

zeupater

camaj wrote: »

No ones suggesting that we move because we'd be in the same timezone as western europe. That would be a ridiculous argument to make since we'd gain no advantage. It's the same reason that people living in New York wouldn't want to be in the same timezone as Chicago even though they're in the same country.

Ultimately it's just plain common sense to do this. We'd all benefit from an extra hour of light in the evening. We'd save a ton of money on power bills and we'd make a lot more from increased business. Not to mention a chance to be healthier, happier and save more lives



It'd mainly benefit us. Maybe a small benefit to businesses in other European countries but I'd say it's negligible

Of course people have considered the evidence from the previous trial. Given how successful that was it's a pity they stopped it before they had a proper assessment

If you think a national timezone that's out of step with the rest of the world is ridiculous even more reason to move it ahead. Having it in step or not isn't the issue, it doesn't matter what other countries do with their timezones.

Hi

I don't know if you remember the previous trials, but I do. I seem to remember walking to school with a torch, no real problem there, however, I do remember someone at the school died in an accident walking to school at the time, possibly as a direct result of the light conditions (lack of that is), possibly not, I don't know, but obviously it's included in the statistics ... or is it ?, I don't know, perhaps the time of the accident wasn't included in the stats ....

I've just spent some time reading a couple of papers on the subject and it looks like the best that anyone can come up with is a lowering of peak demand by around 1% in some months mainly due to shifting the need for domestic lighting away from peak requirements. So far I've not seen any related investigation into future market penetration of newer technology lighting solutions such as LED ... but then again, when your basing research on historical data, why skew the conclusion with yet another variable ?

Let's look at my case as an example .....

All background electrical consumption would not change (Fridge/Freezer etc) ...
The TV will be on for the same number of hours ...
The house will still leak heat at the same rate and the replacement requirement will not change, solar thermal gain will be the same as there are still the same number of daylight hours ...
The same food will be cooked, and if I have solar pv I'll be optimising the use of own generated electricity through the use of a slow cooker etc anyway, so there will be no effect on peak demand from that ...

In effect everything comes down to the light bulb above me ... a whole 18W of energy which wouldn't be needed in the evening for an extra hour at peak demand time ... doesn't make much difference to my overall CO2 footprint either as the light will just be on for more time in the morning ..... Thinking about it my electricity usage, and therefore household CO2 footprint, would actually increase due to more lights being turned on around the house whilst getting ready in the morning .......

Within what is considered to be close to normal working hours the UK is well positioned to be able to call Hong Kong & Shanghai in the morning (Tokyo, Seoul & Taipei too at a push), Washington, New York & Detroit through the afternoon, then Seattle, San Francisco & LA before going home .... I know I've done it ...... I just wonder how much this advantage over CET is worth to the UK ecomomy as a whole, I'd guess that it would be far more per household than the cost to install generating capacity to cover my 18W lightbulb ....

As mentioned in my previous post .... 'I'll take some considerable convincing on this one' .....

jrob_3

I'm not in favour of this either. The problem as I see it is the time at which we get up in the morning to go about our daily business. By noon in an 'ordinary' 9 til 5 job, you've spent 3 hours ante-meridian and 5 hours post-meridian at work, losing more daylight in the afternoon before going home. If we take noon to be the point in time when the sun is directly above us, and the time when an equal amount of daylight has passed as is yet to come that day, then starting work at 8 and finishing at 4 sounds like the perfect balance to me.

If this goes ahead, I think that the energy consumed by those who start work early in the morning will cancel out any perceived energy not used at the end of the working day by those who start later. In my case, I start work at 7:30am. If clocks go forward by 2 hours, this means I'll be starting work under the old time of 5:30am. For the few who are in the office at that time, this means a whole office has to be lit/heated to benefit only a few. Also bear in mind during the lighter mornings that the sun won't have had time to warm the buildings up naturally so extra heat will probably be required at the start of the day which would ordinarily not be required at the end of the day.

wobblegobble

I must say I'm surprised by some of the responses on here. Ignoring the energy impact the single one thing that would make it worthwhile is the extra hour of light in the afternoon.

I'm not originally from the UK and the people in my native country always ask how I can live in a country where it gets dark at 4:00pm. No-one mentions what time it gets light in the morning as that's not really important to the majority of people - its the extra hour in the afternoon when everyone is awake that makes a difference.

Is it just because people in the UK don't like change?

When I first arrived here pubs closed at 11.00pm, smoking was allowed in restaurants etc etc. How long before common sense prevails on this one?

(And before anyone says I'm another moaning foreigner, I have a Britsh passport and love living here, just think it would be SO much better if it got darker a bit later in winter)

zeupater

wobblegobble wrote: »

I must say I'm surprised by some of the responses on here. Ignoring the energy impact the single one thing that would make it worthwhile is the extra hour of light in the afternoon.

I'm not originally from the UK and the people in my native country always ask how I can live in a country where it gets dark at 4:00pm. No-one mentions what time it gets light in the morning as that's not really important to the majority of people - its the extra hour in the afternoon when everyone is awake that makes a difference.

Is it just because people in the UK don't like change?

When I first arrived here pubs closed at 11.00pm, smoking was allowed in restaurants etc etc. How long before common sense prevails on this one?

(And before anyone says I'm another moaning foreigner, I have a Britsh passport and love living here, just think it would be SO much better if it got darker a bit later in winter)

Hi

I think that a lot of people would agree ... until you consider that for every hour of daylight you would gain in the afternoon, you would lose the same in the morning .... children making their way to school in the dark and going home in the light, where at the moment they travel both ways whilst it's light, which becomes an important point for discussion, and as mentioned previously, I knew someone who died the last time we played with this as a nation, and yes, it was dark when the accident happened ...

wobblegobble

Point taken about kids going to school in the dark, but times have changed. Most kids are driven to school in the morning and people are more alert in the morning anyway which will result in proportionately fewer accidents.

Any increase in accidents in the morning would be more than compensated by the reduction in accidents in the afternoon.

That's not my opinion by the way, it's what studies have shown.

I appreciate your anecdotal evidence (and as always you only hear the negative anecdotal evidence) but I think one needs to look beyond that at what the bodies that know about these things are saying. After all they are the experts.

zeupater

wobblegobble wrote: »

Point taken about kids going to school in the dark, but times have changed. Most kids are driven to school in the morning and people are more alert in the morning anyway which will result in proportionately fewer accidents.

Any increase in accidents in the morning would be more than compensated by the reduction in accidents in the afternoon.

That's not my opinion by the way, it's what studies have shown.

I appreciate your anecdotal evidence (and as always you only hear the negative anecdotal evidence) but I think one needs to look beyond that at what the bodies that know about these things are saying. After all they are the experts.

Hi

I don't really know where this idea is really going .... I seem to remember that last time there was mention of farmers & the time of day that they need to milk the cows, this time it's energy efficiency .... both being driven by the so called 'experts' .... cows don't really mind what time they're actually milked as long as it's regular, the strange thing is it seems that the experts didn't consider that last time, I don't know why they didn't, perhaps their expertise wasn't in farming, just meddling ...... if this time the change is being driven as another 'great experiment' by another generation I wonder which variables they have failed to consider ?

How about pushing a little accountability the way of the, 'so called', experts proposing this ?. If it's such a good idea and it works, pay them handsomely (only after successful audit of the benefits achieved) ... if it doesn't work, name them, shame them, sack them, recover all of their assets as recompense & then sentence them to something useful, such as 'hands on' research into growing outdoor tomatoes in Antartica between May & October .....

There you go, actually linking 'responsibility' with 'accountability' for the academic experts .... if they're right they 'win', if they're wrong they 'lose', much better than allowing them to 'win' financially whatever the outcome .....

wobblegobble

Hurray! The daylight savings bill passed it's second reading today by 92 votes to 10. Pretty comprehensive in my books.

Looks like common sense has prevailed in the end. Long way to go yet, but I think one of the most difficult hurdles has now been cleared.....

In a few years time we might be looking back on this and asking why we didn't do it ages ago........

Waiting for the vociferous opposition to start. Funny how the minority always speaks louder than the majority, but then that's what makes life interesting