Would changing the UK to Central European Time (plus one hour all year round) reduce our energy consumption enough to help us pay our bills?

[nw1]

Think the only time the UK has ever had GMT+2 was during the second world war (?), and 1947 (?) but I stand to be corrected. Any reason why we had GMT+2 in winter during the war?

That is indeed the case, in the war it was +1 in the winter and +2 in the summer.

In 1947 there was a three tier system, GMT in the winter, BST in the autumn and a short period in the spring, and GMT+2 otherwise. It's also of note that 1947 is perhaps the only year in the past 100 to have a notably cold winter and notably hot summer. With the change in timezones as well, the difference between winter and summer that year must have been truly stark.

See: https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zone/uk/london?year=1940

1948 and 1949 were much as the present day, in fact in 1948 we had BST in mid March. However in 1950, for some unknown reason, we switched to mid-April for the start of BST. Then, in 1953 the start of GMT was brought forward to early Oct, as it had been pre-war. Anyone know the reason for the decision to drastically shorten the length of BST during the 1950s?

For a BST person the best period was 1964-80, with clocks going forward mid-March.

 

[Yew]

Between 27 October 1968 and 31 October 1971 we had GMT+1 which meant British Summer Time all year.

I remember going to school in the dark in deepest winter, but as 9am passed the brigtness appeared and we went home in light at 4pm. With GMT football matches need floodlights after 4pm, but with GMT+1 that isn't/wasn't necessary.

So for a North England pupil, it was either a case of going to school in the dark in the morning and being light getting home (GMT+1), or vice-versa (GMT). The further north you go then both would be in the dark.

Think the only time the UK has ever had GMT+2 was during the second world war (?), and 1947 (?) but I stand to be corrected. Any reason why we had GMT+2 in winter during the war?

The post I was replying to said GMT plus 2

 

[duncanp]

Imagine how depressing it would be, in mid-September and not even at the equinox yet, if it started going dark at 6.30pm. It would feel like winter is already arriving.

It is just as depressing for it to be in mid September and for it to not start getting light until well after 7am, which would happen if we moved to Central European Time.

By the end of September, sunrise in much of Northern Europe will be not far off 8am.

Changing to Central European Time would mean exchanging an extra hour of daylight in the evening, for one less hour of daylight in the morning.

Any reduction in accidents in the evening would be offset by an increase in accidents in the morning.

As I have said before, the amount of energy used to heat a home depends on how cold it is, and the weather is not affected by a change in time zones.

 

[nw1]

It is just as depressing for it to be in mid September and for it to not start getting light until well after 7am, which would happen if we moved to Central European Time.

To be fair I was arguing against GMT in summer, rather than for switching to GMT+2 in the summer. I'm quite happy with BST in the summer months; I was pointing out that if we had GMT in summer, it would now be going dark from 6.30pm.

As I've said, all-year BST would be my preference, though I can understand the need for a short, three-month period of GMT at the very darkest time of year.

 

[AM9]

It is just as depressing for it to be in mid September and for it to not start getting light until well after 7am, which would happen if we moved to Central European Time.

By the end of September, sunrise in much of Northern Europe will be not far off 8am.

Changing to Central European Time would mean exchanging an extra hour of daylight in the evening, for one less hour of daylight in the morning.

Any reduction in accidents in the evening would be offset by an increase in accidents in the morning.

I think your preference for light in the morning is not necessarily he majority view. There's a lot more that can be done in the evenings for many. As for the same number of incidents on the road balancing out, - that wasn't the experience from the 1970 experiment of continuous BST. There were more people about in the evenings and more traffic on the roads which resulted in higher number of incidents.

As I have said before, the amount of energy used to heat a home depends on how cold it is, and the weather is not affected by a change in time zones.

Only if the same activities are being undertaken. With a shorted period between school/work start time, the need to completely heat the house after the coldest part of the 24hour day would often be reduced. In the late afternoon, the external temperature is far higher to do those things that need more light.

 

[duncanp]

To be fair I was arguing against GMT in summer, rather than for switching to GMT+2 in the summer. I'm quite happy with BST in the summer months; I was pointing out that if we had GMT in summer, it would now be going dark from 6.30pm.

As I've said, all-year BST would be my preference, though I can understand the need for a short, three-month period of GMT at the very darkest time of year.

If the period of GMT was for only three months, say starting at the end of November, it wouldn't be light until after 8am in the weeks before the clock change.

That is just in London and the Midlands, daybreak would be later in the North of England and Scotland.

So I think the length of GMT should be kept roughly the same as at present, but there is a case for shifting the time at which the clocks are put back to the middle of October, and putting them forward in the middle of March.

Indeed, in the early days of Eurostar, there had to be a special timetable for October, because most of Europe put their clocks back on the last Sunday in September, whereas in the UK it was the last Sunday in October.

 

[nw1]

If the period of GMT was for only three months, say starting at the end of November, it wouldn't be light until after 8am in the weeks before the clock change.

But the move to GMT in October means more weeks with it getting dark before 5pm, which many would argue is worse than sunrise after 8am. Given we're already used to sunrises around, or shortly after 8am in December, would it be such a big deal if we got them in early November too, if the reward was more post-5pm daylight and (if the weather was reasonable) another three weekends for being able to do outdoor activities after lunch without rushing?

So I think the length of GMT should be kept roughly the same as at present, but there is a case for shifting the time at which the clocks are put back to the middle of October, and putting them forward in the middle of March.

I'd strongly disagree with two more weeks of dark evenings in October, and prolonging the period in which outdoor activities on weekend afternoons are difficult. Changing to mid-March (or earlier, I think late Feb would work) I do agree with though!

Indeed, in the early days of Eurostar, there had to be a special timetable for October, because most of Europe put their clocks back on the last Sunday in September, whereas in the UK it was the last Sunday in October.

I'm glad we didn't follow suit on that, last Sunday in September is way too early! More westerly continental locations such as France and Spain could get away with it though as they would just be moving back to GMT+1.

 

[Annetts key]

So given that we’ve now reached a consensus… that there is so much disagreement, no government will dare to even think about changing the status quo, we are stuck with it…

Oh, and by the way, for me, as a shift worker, there is NO daylight saving whatsoever. I get to see both dawn and dusk. Or sometimes neither, depending on the time of year and what shift I am on.

With many, many more employees that don’t do office jobs now working shifts, I’m no longer in the same minority compared to twenty years ago.

So I say again, what is the so called advantage of daylight saving? Again, for me, the answer is NOTHING.
Instead I get the “benefit” of getting an hour off work/getting one hour overtime/getting one hour less time between shifts/always depending on what shift I am on when the clocks change. And having to alter all the clocks and other devices that have an internal clock that don’t automatically switch from/to GMT/BST.

So my argument is, why should everybody suffer the clocks changing if it’s only office types who get the so called benefits? Why don’t the office hours get charged instead? Why don’t people make use of flexible working if they don’t like dark mornings/dark afternoons (select as appropriate)?

 

[DelayRepay]

I think that sounds anything but simple... It would make simple things like planning a rail journey between London and Plymouth more complicated. I think any benefits in terms of daylight saving would be far outweighed by all the problems this would cause.

And exactly what are the benefits of daylight saving?

I was using 'daylight saving' as shorthand for setting the clocks in a way that maximises daylight during the period when most people are up and about, which I think is the subject of this thread.

I was pointing out that your suggestion of having different time zones in Plymouth and London would cause more problems than it would solve. I said 'any' benefits - I am not convinced there are any, but I am convinced there are many disadvantages to your proposal.

 

[Annetts key]

I was pointing out that your suggestion of having different time zones in Plymouth and London would cause more problems than it would solve. I said 'any' benefits - I am not convinced there are any, but I am convinced there are many disadvantages to your proposal.

There are of course disadvantages to having different time zones within any country. Just as there are what some would say are advantages. And to be clear, it’s not something that I prefer.

The point that I was trying to make, is that while the idea of a U.K. wide time zone is acceptable, it’s not the only possibility. And as there will naturally be different opinions across the country, partly depending on what the local sun rise and sun set times are, it is worthwhile having a discussion about it.

My preference is to have one single world wide time zone. But that is a radical change, and is very unlikely to happen in my lifetime. And yes, there are disadvantages to that as well.

 

[Bantamzen]

So I say again, what is the so called advantage of daylight saving? Again, for me, the answer is NOTHING.

Is the correct answer. No matter how much tinkering with daylight savings is done, when you have less than 8 hours daylight in winter you have less than 8 hours of daylight regardless of what time it shows on a clock.

My preference is to have one single world wide time zone. But that is a radical change, and is very unlikely to happen in my lifetime. And yes, there are disadvantages to that as well.

Well it seems to work on Star Trek, so it must be logical...

 

[Noddy]

I find this talk of multiple times zones slightly odd, given that the UK is a very small country which measures less than 10 degrees in width and its most northerly extremity lies due north of the midlands (if the entire country was rotated 90 degrees in might understand). If you live live in the far north (I lived in Inverness for a year) you expect to have dark mornings and dark afternoons in mid-winter.

Personally I’m a morning person (normally up by 6.30 and at work by 8) but would much rather have darker mornings and light in the late afternoon/early evening in autumn/winter/spring as it would mean I could do stuff in my garden or go for a recreational walk or bike ride after work.

Going back to the threads question I suspect that at a population level lighter afternoons/evenings in winter save a marginal (but not insignificant) amount of energy over the course of a year although post-covid and the rise in working from this will be reduced further. Obviously I appreciate everyone’s personal circumstances are different and for many individuals this might be more expensive.

 

[Annetts key]

To be frank, I suspect the higher cost of power/energy will have more of an effect in saving power/energy than any tinkering with GMT/BST/time zones would ever have.

 

[Starmill]

I doubt, however, with almost all lighting now being LED, it would make much difference to power consumption. My whole lighting circuit draws 0.5A with everything on, that's tiny.

I think one thing our 'slap dash' approach to local government is missing is things like this - some local authorities have completed a transition to 100% LED street lighting some years back. Others are dragging poorly. A nationwide grant to finally make the changeover England-wide is probably in order (and devolved authorities could choose to follow). Lights which go into power saving mode for five hours overnight would also probably be wise.

 

[nw1]

Lights which go into power saving mode for five hours overnight would also probably be wise.

I remember in the very early 80s the lights on our road used to go off completely at around midnight. In the summer they would then remain off, in the winter they came on again perhaps around 6am for a short period until it got light.

 

[DelW]

I remember in the very early 80s the lights on our road used to go off completely at around midnight. In the summer they would then remain off, in the winter they came on again perhaps around 6am for a short period until it got light.

On the minor roads round my way (including mine), the streetlights go off at 01:00 and come back on (in winter) at around 05:00 (ish - I'm not awake to check).

When this scheme was introduced about a decade ago, they switched off at midnight, which I thought was too early as late trains were still arriving between midnight and 00:35 and passengers needed to have lighting to walk home safely. Quite a few people expressed that view, and the off time was subsequently changed to 01:00, on the basis that the switch to LEDs meant they were cheaper to run.

 

[Yew]

So my argument is, why should everybody suffer the clocks changing if it’s only office types who get the so called benefits? Why don’t the office hours get charged instead? Why don’t people make use of flexible working if they don’t like dark mornings/dark afternoons (select as appropriate)?

Flexible working does not allow flexibility in other events.

 

[nw1]

Flexible working does not allow flexibility in other events.

That's a good point.

For example, say you fancy a day out walking on Sunday by train or bus, where early-morning provision is well known to be sparse. It's all very well saying "walk from 9-4, or 10-5, rather than 11-6", but if there's no public transport to get you to your destination by 9 (or even 10, in some cases) and you don't drive, you're a bit screwed.

 

[PTR 444]

I’m not convinced that changing the clocks by 1 hour will help simply for the reason that others have mentioned - you simply cannot increase the amount of daylight in a single solar day.

Neither would adopting universal standard time worldwide for completely separate reasons: Solar days in Japan and Western parts of America would span two completely separate calendar days. Also without the time notifier, how would a British citizen know whether someone in Chicago would be awake at 2pm etc?

The real issue is that society has expected us to do so much more without factoring in the fact that there is simply not enough hours in the day to do all those things. A typical working day lasts for 8 hours 5 days a week, but people are now expected to do so much more than the bare minimum that they have to sacrifice other activities, leading to a decline in productivity and mental health. It’ll be almost impossible to achieve, but what needs to happen is a wholesale shift in the way we structure our days, weeks and months.

Back in the late 18th century, the French experimented with decimal time, whereby a day consisted of 10 hours (noon was at 5 o’clock), an hour consisted of 100 minutes and a minute consisted of 100 seconds. Unfortunately it never caught on due to the fact that so much was already invested in the standard time system, but imagine how different life would be if 6am was in fact 2:50, 8am was 3:33 and 4pm was 6:67?

Why hasn’t time been decimalised?

Decimal time was used in ancient China, and may one day be used on Mars. But we can thank the Babylonians and Egyptians for our base 12 and base 60 time-keeping

www.newscientist.com

If you go far enough back in human history, time was divided into only two components: day and night. The first attempts to measure time more accurately were concerned with measuring and dividing the hours of daylight, using a sundial and, later, sand and water clocks.​

The division of the day into 24 equal parts comes from the Egyptians. They broke the daylight hours into 10 sections, and added a “twilight” hour for the morning and evening. The Egyptians used a sexagesimal system, with a base of 60. This system, which was also used by the Babylonians, divided both the circle and the year into 360 segments. Our 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in a hour and 60 seconds in a minute all derive from this.
It is worth noting that, in addition to time, many things aren’t measured in units of 10. In the US, the foot, the mile and the 64th of an inch are very much alive.

 

[Annetts key]

Neither would adopting universal standard time worldwide for completely separate reasons: Solar days in Japan and Western parts of America would span two completely separate calendar days. Also without the time notifier, how would a British citizen know whether someone in Chicago would be awake at 2pm etc?

The problem of ‘a day’ spanning two separate calendar days already exists if you travel across time zones, or conduct business, or communicate with friends or family across time zones. As does an individuals working ‘day’ if that individual is working nights (as shift workers do). As I regularly work nights, this is something I have plenty of experience of.

And even with the existing time zone systems, friends or family can get it wrong and telephone you very early in what is your morning. Or at other strange (to you) times. I know, it’s happened to me multiple times.

I don’t think it would take very long for people to adapt and adjust. In place of time zones, instead there could be a list of sun rise and sunset, and ‘normal business hours’ published for all the countries around the world. With the power of the modern computing, this could be in the form of an easy to use app. just like you can get world time apps.

If the trend for more people travelling through times zones, and people travelling more often, and more people working shifts continues to increase, when will our existing antiquated clunky GMT/BST/time zone system be seen as not fit for the future?

 

[nw1]

And even with the existing time zone systems, friends or family can get it wrong and telephone you very early in what is your morning. Or at other strange (to you) times. I know, it’s happened to me multiple times.

In 2004 I had a colleague call me on my mobile at 2am when I was in Vancouver. To be fair he didn't know where I was, and at that time, the privacy concerns of giving your private number to colleagues you're not so close to were not so heavily emphasised.

To be fair he then quickly apologised and said he'd discuss the issue when I returned from holiday.