3 ms·
Yeah, but is that sort of discomfort worth the energy usage of heating the entire room? An alternative is also, as it is mentioned in the article, to warm cert
by jerojero 5y ago
Yeah, but is that sort of discomfort worth the energy usage of heating the entire room?
An alternative is also, as it is mentioned in the article, to warm certain spots in a room instead of the whole of it.
- gruez 5y ago> Yeah, but is that sort of discomfort worth the energy usage of heating the entire room? For the average HN reader in north america? Probably not. For the median person in europe right now? Maybe not (thanks to what's happening in ukraine affecting gas prices).
- warner25 5y agoI tend to be cheap, not even just frugal, but it's worth it to me. During my first winter in my own place, I set the thermostat to the low 60s F to save money. After about two weeks I concluded that feeling perpetually uncomfortable in my own place wasn't worth whatever money I was saving. It felt like trying not to drink water when thirsty to save money. Warmth is just such a basic human need. Better to save in a number of other ways. I definitely wouldn't do this to my wife and kids now.
- wolverine876 5y agoOK, try 65. IME, most people can turn down the thermostat and still be perfectly comfortable; just find the approximate minimum you need for comfort.
- refurb 5y agoAt peak I was using about $2 per day of gas to keep my place at 70F versus 60F. I could skip buying a coffee and more than make up for it.