3 ms·

I'm reserving my interest in smart home tech for when it's a clear win in terms of energy efficiency. Very recently I compared my current home lighting costs wi

by napkin 3y ago

I'm reserving my interest in smart home tech for when it's a clear win in terms of energy efficiency. Very recently I compared my current home lighting costs with a fully smart-equipped setup, and it basically just balanced out. I was surprised, because I calculated a best case scenario where the lights could basically always be off when not in use, compared to my current patterns where honestly I'm pretty lazy and leave all them on almost all day. The industry/general consumer priorities are pretty frustrating.

ksplicer 3y ago
Replace the switches instead of the lights and you can keep your energy efficient bulbs.
- napkin 3y ago
  Yeah, that's what I was factoring. For my home, the 24/7 power consumption from a handful of switches + some kind of hub just balanced out the potential savings from having the same bulbs off more often.
Someone 3y ago
I guess you have plenty of lights that you don’t leave on “all the time” such as lights in toilets that typically run at low duty cycles (I guess the light in my toilet is on for less than ten minutes a day, and only in winter, for example) For such lights, the permanent power usage of the controller can be much larger than that of the light, even if you accidentally leave it on way longer than needed now and then. The EU limit allows each controller to use 0,5w. See https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign/energy-efficient-products/mode-standby-and-networked-standby-devices_en https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environme.... And they do use close to that. The Philips Hue bulb uses 0,4W when off. See https://www.anandtech.com/show/6805/philips-hue-automated-home-lighting-gets-colorful/6 https://www.anandtech.com/show/6805/philips-hue-automated-ho.... So, that’s about 10Wh a day. If you use that to control a 10W light, you’d have to decrease its ‘on’ time by a hour a day to come out positive in energy usage. I have many lights that aren’t even on that long each day. I think home automation of lighting fixtures as a way to conserve energy made way more sense before LEDs became common.

by napkin 3y ago

ksplicer 3y ago

Replace the switches instead of the lights and you can keep your energy efficient bulbs.

napkin 3y ago
Yeah, that's what I was factoring. For my home, the 24/7 power consumption from a handful of switches + some kind of hub just balanced out the potential savings from having the same bulbs off more often.

Someone 3y ago

I guess you have plenty of lights that you don’t leave on “all the time” such as lights in toilets that typically run at low duty cycles (I guess the light in my toilet is on for less than ten minutes a day, and only in winter, for example) For such lights, the permanent power usage of the controller can be much larger than that of the light, even if you accidentally leave it on way longer than needed now and then. The EU limit allows each controller to use 0,5w. See https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign/energy-efficient-products/mode-standby-and-networked-standby-devices_en https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environme.... And they do use close to that. The Philips Hue bulb uses 0,4W when off. See https://www.anandtech.com/show/6805/philips-hue-automated-home-lighting-gets-colorful/6 https://www.anandtech.com/show/6805/philips-hue-automated-ho.... So, that’s about 10Wh a day. If you use that to control a 10W light, you’d have to decrease its ‘on’ time by a hour a day to come out positive in energy usage. I have many lights that aren’t even on that long each day. I think home automation of lighting fixtures as a way to conserve energy made way more sense before LEDs became common.