4 ms·
> 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
by _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 agoI 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/