Clocks going 2 hours forward?

[ewenm]

davethebunny said:

Did you read what i wrote earlier?

If you rise at 7am to leave for work at 8am and it's dark you have the light on for 1 hour.
Then it gets dark at 4pm and you're kids get home and turn the lights on, you come home and have the lights on until 11pm. That's 8hrs of using electric lamps.

If you move it all an hour forward, you still have the light on for the hour in the morning but you don't have to turn the light on until 5pm. You've saved an hour of electric light use. You don't get up at 6am and turn the light on then go back to bed for an hour do you???

So you have the lights on at work for an extra hour in the morning, yes?

Or, get up at 7am (what was 6am GMT) lights on for an hour, go to work in the dark, lights on at work until it gets light at 9-9:30am, plus lights still on at home because the OH is there, getting the kids up and ready for school.

I don't really care, but it isn't simple.

[Oakey]

Throughout June and July it doesn't get dark till nearly 11pm here. Another hour would mean it wouldn't get dark until gone midnight.

[davethebunny]

thinfourth2 said:

davethebunny said:

Strangely Brown said:

Twaddle. You will have the light on between 4pm and 6pm in the winter whether you are eating an evening meal or not. The reason for increased demand for the evening meal is to cook it and that will be required regardless of timezone.

Oh ok then, you're right and the University of Cambridge, who actually did a study, are wrong.

http://www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=...

Who say it would make a 2% difference

In other words

Feck all


Where as you said it would be 34%

davethebunny said:

Peak electric usage is between 4pm & 6pm when we traditionally have an evening meal. If this was done in the light, then usage would drop. This current use means the grid has to bring on extra stations to deal with this peak in demand. This pushes up our CO2 emissions.
The UK has signed up to the Climate Change Act which will see a 34% reduction (against 1990 levels) in the emissions of CO2 by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
Changing the time zone, on it's own, meets the first target, and costs £0.

No i didn't.

You're confusing CO2 emissions with a reduction in electricity consumption.

In order to meet peak usage, you have to bring online gas turbines and the like. These are not as efficient as the main stations. Think of it as a shot of nitrous for the car.

[davethebunny]

This is quite interesting:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/...

From this, The Grid say there are three peaks in use.
1)Morning Peak
2)Teatime peak
3)Darkness peak.

The 1st 2 are relatively static, the 3rd moves back 15mins a week in the winter. Then you end up with peaks 2 & 3 on top of each other, i.e. it's dark on the way home and you stick all the lights on and cook.

Whereas in the summer, you normally cook, and not turn the lights on until later in the evening. This keeps the peaks apart for longer in the year and the cumulative effect of that is huge in the reduction of generating capacity needed.

[AJI]

Oakey said:

Throughout June and July it doesn't get dark till nearly 11pm here. Another hour would mean it wouldn't get dark until gone midnight.

The terror!

But think af the amount of days during summer when it is dark by around 8pm, which would then become around 9pm.
Makes a good difference for more of the year. But singling out middle of winter and middle of summer for arguments against clock change is missing the overall 'picture'. In my view you have to look at the amount of times during the whole year where it would make a positive difference.

[JM]

AJI said:

Nothing worse than waking up in the middle of summer and knowing that much of the daylight has passed during sleeping hours.

So if you wake at 7.00, there has been what 3 or so hours of daylight, but there is still another 15+ hours of daylight to use. Don't see the problem, or can you get by on only 4 hours sleep, every night for several months?

AJI said:

And also in the middle of winter going to work in the dark AND coming home in the dark is a depressive thing.

Which do you preffer going to work in the dark or coming home from work in the dark?

What if your hours change or you have to work late, do we alter the 'clocks' again for you then?

AJI said:

Bring UK time in to alignment with Mainland European time is also a good thing.

Is that Central European time or Eastern European time? Because there isn't a Mainland European time.

I'd have thought that since we are in the West of Europe we would (continue) to use Western European Time more commonly known as GMT, than a time zone for a different geographical area.

[limpsfield]

Oakey said:

Throughout June and July it doesn't get dark till nearly 11pm here. Another hour would mean it wouldn't get dark until gone midnight.

nice maths skills

[stuttgartmetal]

limpsfield said:

Oakey said:

Throughout June and July it doesn't get dark till nearly 11pm here. Another hour would mean it wouldn't get dark until gone midnight.

nice maths skills

LOOL

[AJI]

JM said:

So if you wake at 7.00, there has been what 3 or so hours of daylight, but there is still another 15+ hours of daylight to use. Don't see the problem, or can you get by on only 4 hours sleep, every night for several months?

No problem for you, but for myself I would like to have more daylight in the evening. It would mean I could do many more things before it got dark. And I would be comfortable that I had not 'wasted' too much daylight by sleeping through it.

JM said:

Which do you preffer going to work in the dark or coming home from work in the dark?

I prefer neither. But with the clocks going forward then the chances of me coming home in the daylight have increased many times over.

JM said:

What if your hours change or you have to work late, do we alter the 'clocks' again for you then?

Going in to specific 'random' or 'sigled-out' events/occurances is not a usual way to try and counter-argument this. Not sure what you are getting at here.
I mean I could say that one day in the year I could work until 3am, and then this would be an excuse to force the UK to move clocks forward by 5hours or so for the entier year, this is not the point in question nor the point I have made.

JM said:

Is that Central European time or Eastern European time? Because there isn't a Mainland European time.

closest neighbours.
Traveling over to Europe most summer holidays would become easier if there wasn't a time difference. I know its not a taxing thing to do just to add and take an hour here and there, but why have the difference in the first place?
Tradition? Or just because we like to be different?
I'm sure the business reasons have been explained already (haven't read throught the entire thread to be honest).

JM said:

I'd have thought that since we are in the West of Europe we would (continue) to use Western European Time more commonly known as GMT, than a time zone for a different geographical area.

Well maybe in modern times GMT is not good enough for our lifestyles thesedays. Maybe good enough for old timers in the days where it was maybe common to finish work then have a spot of tea then go to bed. But these days many of us like to get out and about after work and make use of the daylight.

All just my own views by the way. Not trying to state anything as fact.

[JM]

AJI said:

But these days many of us like to get out and about after work and make use of the daylight.

Are you/we still talking about changing by 1 hour?

How much more and what will you get done in that 1 hour for a few weeks in late winter/early spring and late autumn.





Sorry, I'm not picking on you

[Oakey]

AJI said:

The terror!

But think af the amount of days during summer when it is dark by around 8pm, which would then become around 9pm.
Makes a good difference for more of the year. But singling out middle of winter and middle of summer for arguments against clock change is missing the overall 'picture'. In my view you have to look at the amount of times during the whole year where it would make a positive difference to Londoners.

Let's not bullst anybody here.

limpsfield said:

nice maths skills

Midnight is still 00:00am is it not? Obviously it wouldn't be mid night if it was still light but there you go

AJI said:

I know its not a taxing thing to do just to add and take an hour here and there, but why have the difference in the first place?
Tradition? Or just because we like to be different?

Really, you need to ask this? You can't work it out for yourself why it might be a different time here than somewhere on the continent? You understand how the sun works, right? Does it even matter if you get another hour in the evening, surely your parents want you back in by 9pm anyway?

Edited by Oakey on Tuesday 22 February 13:19

[thinfourth2]

davethebunny said:

thinfourth2 said:

davethebunny said:

Strangely Brown said:

Twaddle. You will have the light on between 4pm and 6pm in the winter whether you are eating an evening meal or not. The reason for increased demand for the evening meal is to cook it and that will be required regardless of timezone.

Oh ok then, you're right and the University of Cambridge, who actually did a study, are wrong.

http://www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=...

Who say it would make a 2% difference

In other words

Feck all


Where as you said it would be 34%

davethebunny said:

Peak electric usage is between 4pm & 6pm when we traditionally have an evening meal. If this was done in the light, then usage would drop. This current use means the grid has to bring on extra stations to deal with this peak in demand. This pushes up our CO2 emissions.
The UK has signed up to the Climate Change Act which will see a 34% reduction (against 1990 levels) in the emissions of CO2 by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
Changing the time zone, on it's own, meets the first target, and costs £0.

No i didn't.

You're confusing CO2 emissions with a reduction in electricity consumption.

In order to meet peak usage, you have to bring online gas turbines and the like. These are not as efficient as the main stations. Think of it as a shot of nitrous for the car.

So gas turbine generators running for 2 hours a day covering the 2% extra needed for lighting creates 34% of the UKs co2 emissions.

Who designed and built these gas turbines someone with a degree in media studies using some lego and a brick?

[AJS-]

Just tried this one



I think I found an extra 3 seconds of daylight on December 13th in a leap year but it's still within the margin of error.

[Sonic]

I look forward to the clocks going forward in the spring, the "extra hour" of light in the evenings is nice.

I say we should be +1GMT all year.

[AJI]

JM said:

Are you/we still talking about changing by 1 hour?

How much more and what will you get done in that 1 hour for a few weeks in late winter/early spring and late autumn.



Sorry, I'm not picking on you

Well for me, I am contracted to the usual 7.5hours per day. Often I work longer hours, and usually means I finish at around 5pm. Now between the months of November to mid-February it is dark at 5pm. With the clock change this would mean that (roughly) it would bring only the month of december in to play where it is dark by 5pm. So I have gained at least 1.5months of evening time whereby it is light at 5pm.
Me and the Missus like to go out for a quick bike rides or a walk when weather conditions are ok, but on the country roads where I live it is only really safe to do this when its light. This is just one area where I can see myself being more active after work.
Another would be where I do miscellaneous jobs on my cars. Even just a half hour of extra light can enable me to check over things, maintain things etc.

So for me it would be a benefit in winter months.
Similarly for the summer months when we get more light in the evenings. Barbeques, longer bike rides, evening drives in the country whereby we could go for a meal out and then afterwards still have light to do other things. All just examples, which of course could/would be different for everyone else depending on their interests etc.


(no need to apologise, I see it all as pure discussion, not argument as others would like to lower the tone towards)

[colonel c]

JM said:

AJI said:

But these days many of us like to get out and about after work and make use of the daylight.

Are you/we still talking about changing by 1 hour?

How much more and what will you get done in that 1 hour for a few weeks in late winter/early spring and late autumn.





Sorry, I'm not picking on you

So what would will we lose that is so important if we were to change from the current system?

[AJS-]

Neil H said:

Strangely Brown said:

The "arbitrary scale" we use that noon is when the sun is directly overhead at the Greenwich Meridian. Adjust your life to fit the day, not the day to fit your life.

Note Spain and France.

Never mind that, have a go on this



Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, you peasant

Edited by AJS- on Tuesday 22 February 13:51

[Neil H]

That's at least the third time you've failed miserably at being humorous in this thread.

[Johnnytheboy]

...and made this page very sluggish, on my PC at least

[oyster]

maniac0796 said:

Why doesn't scotland get a different timezone? Most of america and canda deal with being in different timezones, i'm sure the scottish could.

I like the idea

Have you actually bothered to read either the thread or the news stories on this?

Scotland has less hours of daylight than England in the winter and more in the summer - how on earth will the different timezone mitigate this?

The timezones you refer to in Canada and the US are based on longitude not latitude as you propose for Scotland.