We can do a lot better than Daylight Savings Time to save energy

As we were all changing time last week-end, I was wondering whether the Daylight Savings Time (DST) actually did save energy at all and was good for the environment. Earth2tech had a good blog article on the subject earlier this week. The answer: we don’t know for sure and there are arguments and supporting data on both sides of the aisle. The good news is that some people are looking at it and Congress will decide to review their decision to extend DST once the Department of Energy has had time to audit its impact.

I actually did not have to do anything to update my watch last week-end. I use my cellular phone as my clock, as some of you may too, and it is automatically updated. I don’t have to change it either when I change time zones. Same for my personal computer. This is because they are connected to a broadband network. This leads me to think that we can do a lot better today to save energy by using modern technologies.

We use an old centralized concept to extend day-light for potential energy savings: the Government tells us to change time twice a year without having detailed information about our daily energy consumption. Let’s go back to the origin of DST for one minute. William Willet invented DST in England in 1907 to increase opportunities for outdoor leisure activities during afternoon sunlight hours. An early goal of DST implementation was to reduce electricity consumption from incandescent lighting in the evening. The world has changed since: we use electricity for many other energy services like air conditioning.

I am not proposing that we update time more frequently and locally like ancient civilizations – there are too many advantages to have a coordinated time system in our modern world – but there are many other opportunities to save energy with modern communications. A recent article published by the Telecommunications Journal of Australia in a special issue on Broadband and Environment, articulates that broadband communication enables sustainable energy services. The authors note that:

"The energy services in modern households are rather disconnected from our needs and our desire for sustainable outcomes. Our lights don't come on when we need them and turn off when we don't. We don't know how much hot water we have left in the hot water tank. Our air conditioners don't understand that the transmission network is highly stressed on hot days. Presently, the only feedback paths on household energy consumption are the electricity meter and the electricity bill.”

The authors also distinguish energy services (what we actually need) from electricity services (what form we think it should take). As a matter of fact studies show that:

“Around 70% of our household energy service needs are for household thermal processes such as water heating, space heating and cooling while only around 30% of household services such as appliances require electricity.”

The article takes the case of Australia but the proposal to move from a centralized energy service based on the electricity network to a more distributed energy service paradigm by using broadband communications and local renewable energy generation can be generalized to other developed countries. This not only has benefits for the environment and the householder but also for the electricity retail provider due to the pricing system. A lot is at stakes environmentally and also economically: in Australia only, the electricity infrastructure requires investments exceeding $100 billion over the next 25 years to maintain quality of service to households.

The authors conclude their work by walking through one example. Their case study on solar water heaters shows that control via broadband can realize 20% greenhouse gas savings for a conventional solar water heater and 75% savings for an electrical one. Several companies installing solar water heaters or solar panels like SolarCity are just starting to deploy a monitoring system using the Internet. Moving from a centralized to a distributed architecture is not unusual and quiet natural. The computer and telecommunications industry have gone through this change in the last twenty years with the personal computers and the Internet.

This evolution can come with drawbacks too, increase in electronic materials or security issues for example, and more studies are needed. I remember that one of the arguments for digital editing and distribution tools was to save paper. Well, some argue it actually increased the amount of content printed because we can exchange more content and we still feel more comfortable reading on a sheet of paper. I noticed recently that some of the emails I receive end with a tree icon and a message reminding me to think about the environment before to print it.

It is interesting to note that the article publication I mentioned above was motivated by a $10,000 prize to help understand how modern broadband communications can help the environment. It is a new field, and concerns for our environment will require innovation accross many industry sectors. This is only the beginning and more can be done to save energy, certainly a lot better than simply extending or stopping DST.