3 ms·

> And the solution they propose, is to make the thermostats 'smarter' with regard to carbon intensity and predicted supply/demand which is the whole reason for

> And the solution they propose, is to make the thermostats 'smarter' with regard to carbon intensity and predicted supply/demand which is the whole reason for having a smart thermostat connected to the internet in the first place. My current "smart" thermostat does not take into account other people's energy usage. It's known when I'm not home and doesn't heat/cool as much then. They address this directly in the paper: > Fig. 2 shows that on average, smart thermostats tend to use setbacks at night and during the workday, likely in an attempt to save energy. [...] From a thermodynamics perspective, setbacks can only reduce energy consumption to the extent that they can reduce the average indoor temperature, and thus the building’s heat loss, assuming the heat pump efficiency remains constant. While setbacks can certainly reduce the instantaneous energy consumption in the short term, recovering to original indoor temperature requires an almost equivalent amount of additional energy consumption, with the only total energy savings being from the reduced heat loss from the temporary reduction in indoor temperature.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> From a thermodynamics perspective, setbacks can only reduce energy consumption to the extent that they can reduce the average indoor temperature, and thus the building’s heat loss, assuming the heat pump efficiency remains constant. While setbacks can certainly reduce the instantaneous energy consumption in the short term, recovering to original indoor temperature requires an almost equivalent amount of additional energy consumption, with the only total energy savings being from the reduced heat loss from the temporary reduction in indoor temperature. That is some very fancy bullshit. They're saying that lowering your thermostat only helps because less heat is lost to the environment. Yes, that is why it helps, it's not a perpetual motion machine or a magic trick, it's a slight efficiency improvement that can pay for itself in a year or so because you burn less fossil fuels as a result and then leaves you with a remote control thermostat that can talk to the grid for further benefits.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  > it's a slight efficiency improvement that can pay for itself in a year or so because you burn less fossil fuels as a result and then leaves you with a remote control thermostat that can talk to the grid for further benefits. Except they currently don't talk to the grid. And the question to ask is does that efficiency improvement outweigh the current increase in emissions by people's houses all heating/cooling themselves in the same time period resulting in increases in peak demand.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    I would be surprised if you could find one name brand smart thermostat that doesn't have deals with local grid providers to modulate loads during peaks. At its most basic it's just looking up the local Time of Use rates. They still have benefits (both eco and cash saving) if your local provider is stuck in the stone age, but this is one of the prime motivations for them existing in the first place. Here's the related page for the specific devices the paper's data source uses: https://www.ecobee.com/en-us/utilities/ https://www.ecobee.com/en-us/utilities/

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> From a thermodynamics perspective, setbacks can only reduce energy consumption to the extent that they can reduce the average indoor temperature, and thus the building’s heat loss, assuming the heat pump efficiency remains constant. While setbacks can certainly reduce the instantaneous energy consumption in the short term, recovering to original indoor temperature requires an almost equivalent amount of additional energy consumption, with the only total energy savings being from the reduced heat loss from the temporary reduction in indoor temperature. That is some very fancy bullshit. They're saying that lowering your thermostat only helps because less heat is lost to the environment. Yes, that is why it helps, it's not a perpetual motion machine or a magic trick, it's a slight efficiency improvement that can pay for itself in a year or so because you burn less fossil fuels as a result and then leaves you with a remote control thermostat that can talk to the grid for further benefits.

_aavaa_ 4y ago
> it's a slight efficiency improvement that can pay for itself in a year or so because you burn less fossil fuels as a result and then leaves you with a remote control thermostat that can talk to the grid for further benefits. Except they currently don't talk to the grid. And the question to ask is does that efficiency improvement outweigh the current increase in emissions by people's houses all heating/cooling themselves in the same time period resulting in increases in peak demand.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  I would be surprised if you could find one name brand smart thermostat that doesn't have deals with local grid providers to modulate loads during peaks. At its most basic it's just looking up the local Time of Use rates. They still have benefits (both eco and cash saving) if your local provider is stuck in the stone age, but this is one of the prime motivations for them existing in the first place. Here's the related page for the specific devices the paper's data source uses: https://www.ecobee.com/en-us/utilities/ https://www.ecobee.com/en-us/utilities/