Shocked to find smart thermostats raised remotely by “Smart Savers Texas” progrm(ksdk.com)
ksdk.com
Shocked to find smart thermostats raised remotely by “Smart Savers Texas” progrm
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/remote-thermostat-adjustment-texas-energy-shortage/285-5acf2bc5-54b7-4160-bffe-1f9a5ef4362a
110 comments
In fact, this is a wonderful program. If you adjust all the thermostats 1 or 2K above for a relatively short period of time you can have massive savings at scale while not fundamentally change the quality of life of the people[0]. 26°C for a short period of time is not something terrible either (if dry), this is what I have right now.
Basically, the inverse of the tragedy of the commons.
[0]: and they can even un-enroll... so the company is really doing it the right way.
Basically, the inverse of the tragedy of the commons.
[0]: and they can even un-enroll... so the company is really doing it the right way.
And you can avoid grid failures proactively for a comparatively very small inconvenience. The only thing I'd think must be changed is the incentive offered to the client. Only giving entries to sweepstakes is a pretty laughable reward considering how much money can be saved by using less at the very high peaks of usage. Especially in places where end user distribution is separate from transmission/ electricity generation/etc & electricity rates vary depending on real time demand. Plus, If they give good enough incentives I think a lot of people would be interested especially when the inconvenience amounts to making you use less electricity when it's at its most expensive (not a concern yet for most because of fixed rate tarification being a lot more common)
The equivalent program where I live (Los Angeles) gives you $120 for participating in your first summer, then $60 every following year. It's absolutely worth it in my book
All the fear mongering about the remote control is bizarre to me. You're warned in advance before the adjustment happens, and it's not like you're locked out of your thermostat. If you get uncomfortable just turn the temp back down. It's an easy way to reduce your fossil fuel consumption, especially since the thermostat will precool beforehand, which is typically a time when renewables are a higher proportional of the grid's supply
All the fear mongering about the remote control is bizarre to me. You're warned in advance before the adjustment happens, and it's not like you're locked out of your thermostat. If you get uncomfortable just turn the temp back down. It's an easy way to reduce your fossil fuel consumption, especially since the thermostat will precool beforehand, which is typically a time when renewables are a higher proportional of the grid's supply
> All the fear mongering about the remote control is bizarre to me.
That's because you're being paid a hundred times as much. No I will not let someone else screw up my heating for a coupon. $60 a year? I'll try it and I won't feel scammed.
That's because you're being paid a hundred times as much. No I will not let someone else screw up my heating for a coupon. $60 a year? I'll try it and I won't feel scammed.
I think it's important to note that this is a program these people voluntarily signed up for with those terms. I agree that I probably wouldn't sign up with those terms, but they did and are acting like this was unexpected.
I want to be positive and give the benefit of the doubt, but this seems like the kind of thing that gets buried in the details and overlooked. It was just one piece of a bigger system.
Our energy company offers $20/year plus a raffle entry for each time they do it. It's pretty low, but last year they adjusted my thermostat by 4 degrees for about 4 or 5 hours, and it happened twice. The article makes it sound like the utility company is doing this every day or something. It's really not the case. So I'm not sure how much money people expect they're entitled to.
Not even a coupon, a raffle ticket.
The participants also use less energy when costs are high and save on their bill, don’t they?
Maybe not. Texas hasn’t 100% caught on with time of day billing.
Here’s Austin’s utility: https://austinenergy.com/ae/rates/residential-rates/resident...
And even for customers that have time of day billing, peak times are correlated with high-cost energy production (peaking plants), but not necessarily grid instability events.
Here’s Austin’s utility: https://austinenergy.com/ae/rates/residential-rates/resident...
And even for customers that have time of day billing, peak times are correlated with high-cost energy production (peaking plants), but not necessarily grid instability events.
> if dry
Sounds like you are not familiar with Houston. If I had to sleep like that I’d move.
Sounds like you are not familiar with Houston. If I had to sleep like that I’d move.
I haven't been to Houston myself, but I've visited Dallas, Austin, Phoenix, Orlando and a bunch of Californian cities — one thing they had in common was that the ACs were turned way too low (in business conference centers) where I learned to bring a sweater when travelling to warm US state in the summer (not to mention the confusion when you ask for water without ice).
I keep my AC at 26C/80F when it's really hot outside (like these days when we are hitting 95F with 104F expected in a few days), and the difference when going out still bothers me. My metabolism adapts to outside conditions and I assume most people's does to (eg. towards the end of winter, 50F/10C feels nice and warm whereas at the beginning of winter, it's chilly).
But even if you are uncomfortable at 78F/25C as the article states, does one seriously worry about overheating and babies becoming dehydrated at those temps? Like really? (I've got an 8 month old and I avoid ACs but did turn them on the last few days because of the outside temps crossing 30C)
To top it off, most ACs dry out the air too (to the point that this also bothers me).
I keep my AC at 26C/80F when it's really hot outside (like these days when we are hitting 95F with 104F expected in a few days), and the difference when going out still bothers me. My metabolism adapts to outside conditions and I assume most people's does to (eg. towards the end of winter, 50F/10C feels nice and warm whereas at the beginning of winter, it's chilly).
But even if you are uncomfortable at 78F/25C as the article states, does one seriously worry about overheating and babies becoming dehydrated at those temps? Like really? (I've got an 8 month old and I avoid ACs but did turn them on the last few days because of the outside temps crossing 30C)
To top it off, most ACs dry out the air too (to the point that this also bothers me).
Yeah sure. Lets do the same with banks. Nobodies life changes when we withdraw 1 dollar from each person to raise 200m to fund whatever project.
Agreed. For all the problems with ERCOT, Texas does have an astoundingly high penetration of renewable sources that makes programs like this extremely useful. High renewable penetration causes grid stability issues, but not for the reasons you would think.
Electricity travels at the speed of light, so there's a huge dependency on spinning generator inertia to keep a stable supply. With renewables, this "grid inertia" is greatly reduced.
The reduction in grid inertia makes quick demand reduction important. It takes most generation sources several seconds to "spin up" and support load transients. Loads on the other hand can be cut within a few hundred milliseconds. HVAC is nearly ideal for load cuts because they use a ton of power and small variations in temperature can be absorbed by thermal inertia of buildings and product being cooled.
There's a great document on this and how it affects the Texas grid. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/73856.pdf
People that willingly sign up for these programs then complain about it is a classic "leapords ate my face" scenario. The same thing happened to users of Griddy during the huge grid failure earlier this year. Griddy exposed users to realtime spot energy pricing which pegs at $9000/mwh when there's more demand than available generation.
A side note, ironically the same document praising ERCOT's innovative handling of renewable sources says the US national east/west grids are unlikely to face the same problems until the 2040's. Basically, if Texas grid was connected to one of the national ones, these problems they're trying to solve with innovation would just go away for at least 20 years.
Electricity travels at the speed of light, so there's a huge dependency on spinning generator inertia to keep a stable supply. With renewables, this "grid inertia" is greatly reduced.
The reduction in grid inertia makes quick demand reduction important. It takes most generation sources several seconds to "spin up" and support load transients. Loads on the other hand can be cut within a few hundred milliseconds. HVAC is nearly ideal for load cuts because they use a ton of power and small variations in temperature can be absorbed by thermal inertia of buildings and product being cooled.
There's a great document on this and how it affects the Texas grid. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/73856.pdf
People that willingly sign up for these programs then complain about it is a classic "leapords ate my face" scenario. The same thing happened to users of Griddy during the huge grid failure earlier this year. Griddy exposed users to realtime spot energy pricing which pegs at $9000/mwh when there's more demand than available generation.
A side note, ironically the same document praising ERCOT's innovative handling of renewable sources says the US national east/west grids are unlikely to face the same problems until the 2040's. Basically, if Texas grid was connected to one of the national ones, these problems they're trying to solve with innovation would just go away for at least 20 years.
>> trying to solve with innovation would just go away for at least 20 years.
Interesting! But wait... wouldn't that mean everyone would save effort and potentially money by hooking up to the national grid? One that has way more people working on innovation + a 20 year time line for it?
Honestly that sounds way more simple, straightforward, and literally more innovative than "let's just all turn our temps down when peaking" lol.
Then again Texas politics... :-|
Interesting! But wait... wouldn't that mean everyone would save effort and potentially money by hooking up to the national grid? One that has way more people working on innovation + a 20 year time line for it?
Honestly that sounds way more simple, straightforward, and literally more innovative than "let's just all turn our temps down when peaking" lol.
Then again Texas politics... :-|
Most people aren't reading terms and conditions. There is an expectation that when you buy a thermostat and install it, you will get to control it without outside interference. People shouldn't have to read fine print in order for the things they buy to meet the most basic of expectations. I wouldn't call it nefarious, but I would say this kind of thing is a dark pattern, meant to take advantage of end users' ignorance.
Maybe if this kind of thing happens a few more times people will start to realize there are some major downsides to smart devices, including losing control of your own belongings.
Maybe if this kind of thing happens a few more times people will start to realize there are some major downsides to smart devices, including losing control of your own belongings.
Here are the terms and conditions.[1]
Nest resells this program, without saying up front that it's about adjusting your thermostat for their advantage.[2]
The site will not work in private browsing mode - you get "Cookies are blocked. To continue, change your browser settings to allow third-party cookies and try again." Why it needs third party cookies is not clear. It's so Google.
What Nest tells users is this:
A Nest thermostat can help you use less energy by cooling your home in summer or heating your home in winter ahead of time and tweaking the temperature up to four degrees during the rush hour. You’re in control. If you’re home, Nest won’t let the temperature become uncomfortable. You can change the temperature at any time.
The Nest site does show terms under Legal. No mention of "Nest won't let the temperature become uncomfortable" there, of course. [3]
"Under the program, your Utility notifies Google of the existence of a Rush Hour Rewards event, causing Google’s servers to remotely inform your Google Nest thermostat (“Nest Thermostat”) to automatically change the temperature setpoint in your home on that day, without any manual intervention by you."
[1] https://my.radiothermostat.com/rtcoa/terms/ercot/rtcoa-ercot...
[2] https://nest.com/energy-partners/texas/
[3] https://nest.com/legal/energy-partner/texas/
Nest resells this program, without saying up front that it's about adjusting your thermostat for their advantage.[2]
The site will not work in private browsing mode - you get "Cookies are blocked. To continue, change your browser settings to allow third-party cookies and try again." Why it needs third party cookies is not clear. It's so Google.
What Nest tells users is this:
A Nest thermostat can help you use less energy by cooling your home in summer or heating your home in winter ahead of time and tweaking the temperature up to four degrees during the rush hour. You’re in control. If you’re home, Nest won’t let the temperature become uncomfortable. You can change the temperature at any time.
The Nest site does show terms under Legal. No mention of "Nest won't let the temperature become uncomfortable" there, of course. [3]
"Under the program, your Utility notifies Google of the existence of a Rush Hour Rewards event, causing Google’s servers to remotely inform your Google Nest thermostat (“Nest Thermostat”) to automatically change the temperature setpoint in your home on that day, without any manual intervention by you."
[1] https://my.radiothermostat.com/rtcoa/terms/ercot/rtcoa-ercot...
[2] https://nest.com/energy-partners/texas/
[3] https://nest.com/legal/energy-partner/texas/
They had it installed as part of a home security package and guessing from their thermostat(which appears to be a GoControl Z-Wave thermostat), it was with Vivint. That dark patterns ship has sailed long ago.
They probably weren't aware of what they signed up for -- someone hid the details in the terms and conditions, which no one read. Because no one ever does.
If that was the case, it's on the article / journalist to actually uncover and present that information.
Beyond that, the article says they got an alert when it happened and later decided to un-enroll from the program, so I really don't see any grounds to assume bad-faith on the part of the people running it.
Beyond that, the article says they got an alert when it happened and later decided to un-enroll from the program, so I really don't see any grounds to assume bad-faith on the part of the people running it.
This isn't true, the email they send is very clear that it's a sweepstakes based on enrolling in a program to raise your temperature during high heat momemts to help your fellow Texans to avoid brownouts.
In fact, the email begins by explaining how many heat deaths there are, how power outages affect vulnerable populations, and how if everyone could raise their temperatures 3 degrees during critical events we could avoid all of that.
And then a clear call to action to participate.
In fact, the email begins by explaining how many heat deaths there are, how power outages affect vulnerable populations, and how if everyone could raise their temperatures 3 degrees during critical events we could avoid all of that.
And then a clear call to action to participate.
The problem is that they were sent an SMS. Without it, few would have noticed.
The SMS should be reserved for turning the system off completely, not for minor changes.
The SMS should be reserved for turning the system off completely, not for minor changes.
Having your thermostat monitored by some random tech company does feel a tad sinister to me. Are they selling the data to ad companies?
It's a Nest thermostat. Google is already doing something with that data. Sounds like this is just a second entity having your usage data. Actually since Google already has it, this company is probably the 200th entity having your usage data.
Wasn't that the point of those thermostats in the first place? To help utilities manage demand? I'd have thought they'd get a lot more than just "a sweepstakes entry" for installing a utility controlled theromstat though.
Also, is 78°F really that hot? I live in Canada, but summers can get really hot. Yet I don't even turn on AC below 80° though maybe humidity is way higher there.
Otherwise nothing seems particularly unreasonable here: a utility used a tool (designed to let it better manage peak demand) to do exactly that while only raising the temperatures pretty mildly. I wouldn't personally opt in into a remote controlled thermostat but if I willingly installed it or bought a house that already had it, I wouldn't be surprised when it does exactly what it is supposed to do
Also, is 78°F really that hot? I live in Canada, but summers can get really hot. Yet I don't even turn on AC below 80° though maybe humidity is way higher there.
Otherwise nothing seems particularly unreasonable here: a utility used a tool (designed to let it better manage peak demand) to do exactly that while only raising the temperatures pretty mildly. I wouldn't personally opt in into a remote controlled thermostat but if I willingly installed it or bought a house that already had it, I wouldn't be surprised when it does exactly what it is supposed to do
78 at my thermostat can easily mean 85+ on the upper floor. (No it's not a very efficient house)
It is really humid in Houston so 78F without some form of cooling is pretty uncomfortable. Plus, I bet they're used to keeping it at 70...
Humidity is definitely a huge factor. A/C acts as a dehumidifier. Another factor is the amount of IR being emitted by interior surfaces. If it's really hot outside (and the building isn't insulated to the latest top-tier building standards), the ceiling and walls can be radiating enough IR heat that a 78F air temperature feels quite uncomfortable.
I don't know much about how A/C works, whether the dehumidifier mechanism can be decoupled from the cooling mechanism. If it can't, then shouldn't the thermostat be coupled to a hygrostat so that that A/C runs when it is humid enough despite being cool in terms of temperature?
On the other hand, today I learned that there's something called heat index and humidex.
On the other hand, today I learned that there's something called heat index and humidex.
> I don't know much about how A/C works, whether the dehumidifier mechanism can be decoupled from the cooling mechanism.
It can't. When you cool air down to 50 degrees F (10 degrees C) or so (which is a typical outlet air temperature for a home A/C unit), it simply can't hold much water vapor, and the excess condenses out. That effectively dehumidifies the air--it lowers the dew point to whatever the outlet air temperature is.
> shouldn't the thermostat be coupled to a hygrostat so that that A/C runs when it is humid enough despite being cool in terms of temperature?
In principle it probably should, but in practice there is a close enough correlation between the two that it's not considered necessary.
If energy savings is the goal, the real fix would be to use variable compressors in home A/C systems: that way, instead of the A/C running full on for a while, lowering the temperature (and dehumidifying), then shutting completely off for a while (so humidity can build up again), the A/C could just be running all the time, and changing the thermostat setting would simply change how much cooling and dehumidifying the A/C was doing--what the actual outlet air temperature/dewpoint was. "Full on" would still be, say, 50 degrees F outlet air/dewpoint, but most of the time you wouldn't need that; "energy saving mode" could be, say, 68 degrees F outlet air/dewpoint, which would still be reasonable in terms of comfort but would use a lot less energy, so it could be kept on continuously. (There are already systems like this in cars.)
It can't. When you cool air down to 50 degrees F (10 degrees C) or so (which is a typical outlet air temperature for a home A/C unit), it simply can't hold much water vapor, and the excess condenses out. That effectively dehumidifies the air--it lowers the dew point to whatever the outlet air temperature is.
> shouldn't the thermostat be coupled to a hygrostat so that that A/C runs when it is humid enough despite being cool in terms of temperature?
In principle it probably should, but in practice there is a close enough correlation between the two that it's not considered necessary.
If energy savings is the goal, the real fix would be to use variable compressors in home A/C systems: that way, instead of the A/C running full on for a while, lowering the temperature (and dehumidifying), then shutting completely off for a while (so humidity can build up again), the A/C could just be running all the time, and changing the thermostat setting would simply change how much cooling and dehumidifying the A/C was doing--what the actual outlet air temperature/dewpoint was. "Full on" would still be, say, 50 degrees F outlet air/dewpoint, but most of the time you wouldn't need that; "energy saving mode" could be, say, 68 degrees F outlet air/dewpoint, which would still be reasonable in terms of comfort but would use a lot less energy, so it could be kept on continuously. (There are already systems like this in cars.)
There are variable refrigerant flow heat pumps and variable speed blowers out there. And standalone dehumidifiers, where the hot and cold side of the heat pump are in the same air stream. The dehumidifier might have its own separate vents, or it can tie into the central vent system, or be part of an external vent system with an energy recovery ventilator.
This channel has some interesting videos about the subject:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDYh81z-RhxjQKC9CsJiJQHhy...
https://youtu.be/ud5oAmTHcM4
This channel has some interesting videos about the subject:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDYh81z-RhxjQKC9CsJiJQHhy...
https://youtu.be/ud5oAmTHcM4
> "Full on" would still be, say, 50 degrees F outlet air/dewpoint, but most of the time you wouldn't need that; "energy saving mode" could be, say, 68 degrees F outlet air/dewpoint
If you do that, then the outlet air will have twice as much water.
If you started with hot, humid air, that means you're still going to have quite a bit of humidity even as you drop the temperature through the 70s.
So you're going to need to cool the air more to reach the same level of comfort.
Are you sure the savings outweigh the costs?
If you do that, then the outlet air will have twice as much water.
If you started with hot, humid air, that means you're still going to have quite a bit of humidity even as you drop the temperature through the 70s.
So you're going to need to cool the air more to reach the same level of comfort.
Are you sure the savings outweigh the costs?
> If you do that, then the outlet air will have twice as much water.
As long as that dewpoint is reasonably comfortable, that's not necessarily an issue.
> If you started with hot, humid air, that means you're still going to have quite a bit of humidity even as you drop the temperature through the 70s.
So you're going to need to cool the air more to reach the same level of comfort.
You can't cool the air further without also further dehumidifying it. If you cool the air to, say, 60 F, the dewpoint can't be any higher than 60 F. There's no way to cool the air to 60 F but have a dewpoint of 68 F. That's physically impossible.
> Are you sure the savings outweigh the costs?
There is no such tradeoff: lower air temperature and more dehumidification always go together; they have to, as explained above.
The savings comes from running continuously at a lower level of both cooling and dehumidification, one that is just sufficient to maintain comfort, instead of switching between full on (which cools more than needed to maintain comfort--it has to, to compensate for the period when the system is going to be off again) and full off (which doesn't cool or dehumidify at all, so the air warms up and gets more humid again until it reaches the point where the system has to switch back to full on). The switching on and off is less efficient for a given level of comfort.
As long as that dewpoint is reasonably comfortable, that's not necessarily an issue.
> If you started with hot, humid air, that means you're still going to have quite a bit of humidity even as you drop the temperature through the 70s.
So you're going to need to cool the air more to reach the same level of comfort.
You can't cool the air further without also further dehumidifying it. If you cool the air to, say, 60 F, the dewpoint can't be any higher than 60 F. There's no way to cool the air to 60 F but have a dewpoint of 68 F. That's physically impossible.
> Are you sure the savings outweigh the costs?
There is no such tradeoff: lower air temperature and more dehumidification always go together; they have to, as explained above.
The savings comes from running continuously at a lower level of both cooling and dehumidification, one that is just sufficient to maintain comfort, instead of switching between full on (which cools more than needed to maintain comfort--it has to, to compensate for the period when the system is going to be off again) and full off (which doesn't cool or dehumidify at all, so the air warms up and gets more humid again until it reaches the point where the system has to switch back to full on). The switching on and off is less efficient for a given level of comfort.
> You can't cool the air further without also further dehumidifying it. If you cool the air to, say, 60 F, the dewpoint can't be any higher than 60 F. There's no way to cool the air to 60 F but have a dewpoint of 68 F. That's physically impossible.
The other way around. It's not that the dew point will be above the temperature, it's that it could go below the temperature.
So as you suggested, let's have one AC that outputs air at 68F, and compare it to another that outputs at 50F.
So clearly we have to be cooling the room to a temperature no lower than 68F.
If we look at the initial cooling of hot wet air, there's not much difference. The 50F unit will cool a smaller volume of air and cool it to a lower temperature, and the resulting dew point is about the same for either unit.
But as heat keeps leaking in through the walls and windows, the 68F unit will never get the dew point below 68F. While the 50F unit will keep outputting air with a dew point of 50F.
If you had an airtight room with heat constantly leaking in, eventually the 50F unit would cycle all the air through it, and the dew point of the room would reach 50F, even though the temperature of the room might never go below 70.
All rooms leak some air, so you'll never get quite that far, but the 50F unit will get the dew point a lot lower than the 68F unit.
> The savings comes from running continuously at a lower level of both cooling and dehumidification, one that is just sufficient to maintain comfort, instead of switching between full on (which cools more than needed to maintain comfort--it has to, to compensate for the period when the system is going to be off again) and full off (which doesn't cool or dehumidify at all, so the air warms up and gets more humid again until it reaches the point where the system has to switch back to full on). The switching on and off is less efficient for a given level of comfort.
There's an efficiency penalty to letting the temperature wander. But if it only wanders a couple degrees, it's not a huge penalty.
On the other side, there's a penalty for keeping the fans and compressor going all the time, even if they're running at a lower power.
Neither one of those factors is enormous.
But if you could leave the room at 73 with a low dew point, instead of 70 with a high dew point, that could eventually save you a lot of energy.
So that's why I'd want to see real-life efficiency numbers and comfort ratings. It could go either way on base principles.
The other way around. It's not that the dew point will be above the temperature, it's that it could go below the temperature.
So as you suggested, let's have one AC that outputs air at 68F, and compare it to another that outputs at 50F.
So clearly we have to be cooling the room to a temperature no lower than 68F.
If we look at the initial cooling of hot wet air, there's not much difference. The 50F unit will cool a smaller volume of air and cool it to a lower temperature, and the resulting dew point is about the same for either unit.
But as heat keeps leaking in through the walls and windows, the 68F unit will never get the dew point below 68F. While the 50F unit will keep outputting air with a dew point of 50F.
If you had an airtight room with heat constantly leaking in, eventually the 50F unit would cycle all the air through it, and the dew point of the room would reach 50F, even though the temperature of the room might never go below 70.
All rooms leak some air, so you'll never get quite that far, but the 50F unit will get the dew point a lot lower than the 68F unit.
> The savings comes from running continuously at a lower level of both cooling and dehumidification, one that is just sufficient to maintain comfort, instead of switching between full on (which cools more than needed to maintain comfort--it has to, to compensate for the period when the system is going to be off again) and full off (which doesn't cool or dehumidify at all, so the air warms up and gets more humid again until it reaches the point where the system has to switch back to full on). The switching on and off is less efficient for a given level of comfort.
There's an efficiency penalty to letting the temperature wander. But if it only wanders a couple degrees, it's not a huge penalty.
On the other side, there's a penalty for keeping the fans and compressor going all the time, even if they're running at a lower power.
Neither one of those factors is enormous.
But if you could leave the room at 73 with a low dew point, instead of 70 with a high dew point, that could eventually save you a lot of energy.
So that's why I'd want to see real-life efficiency numbers and comfort ratings. It could go either way on base principles.
> The 50F unit will cool a smaller volume of air
Your home's A/C unit can't just pick a particular volume of air and cool it. It takes in air from your entire house, cools it, and puts it back out into your house.
Moreover, your whole comparison is irrelevant to what I am saying. The objective is not to get the dewpoint (or temperature) as low as possible. The objective is to get the dewpoint (and temperature) just low enough for comfort (note that the target dewpoint might indeed be lower than the target temperature--see further comments below), and then keep it there by running the A/C continuously at a lower output, instead of running the A/C at full on for a while, which outputs air with a dewpoint (and temperature) lower than required, and then shutting off the A/C for a while, which lets the air's dewpoint (and temperature) rise to a level higher than desired. In other words, target the A/C's output to just where it needs to be, instead of cycling it on and off.
> There's an efficiency penalty to letting the temperature wander. But if it only wanders a couple degrees, it's not a huge penalty.
The main efficiency penalty is not from letting the temperature wander. It's from letting the dewpoint wander. Most of the work the A/C does is actually condensing extra water vapor out of the air, not cooling the air itself. If your room temperature rises from, say, 74 F to 76 F, that's not much more work for the A/C to do; but if the dewpoint of the air in the room rises from 50 F to 76 F (which it might well do on a hot, humid day during the off cycle of your A/C unit), that's a lot more work for the A/C to do to condense out all that extra water vapor.
> there's a penalty for keeping the fans and compressor going all the time, even if they're running at a lower power.
There's also a penalty for starting them up every time from off. For many such devices, given the number of times they cycle on and off during a hot, humid day, that penalty can easily average out to be larger than the cost of running the unit at lower power continuously.
> if you could leave the room at 73 with a low dew point
Which you can't if the system is off. The only way to control the dewpoint is to run the A/C continuously. As soon as you shut the A/C off, on a humid day, the dewpoint will start rising. And then your A/C will have to work harder during its next on cycle to lower it again.
If you run the A/C continously at lower power, then yes, you can adjust things so the heat coming into the house raises the temperature (from the A/C outlet temperature, which is basically the dew point) just enough to have the combination of temperature and dew point that you want. That's basically what I've been describing. The dewpoint of 68 F that I first threw out might be higher than optimal; the point was not to pick a specific optimal number but just to illustrate the concept.
Your home's A/C unit can't just pick a particular volume of air and cool it. It takes in air from your entire house, cools it, and puts it back out into your house.
Moreover, your whole comparison is irrelevant to what I am saying. The objective is not to get the dewpoint (or temperature) as low as possible. The objective is to get the dewpoint (and temperature) just low enough for comfort (note that the target dewpoint might indeed be lower than the target temperature--see further comments below), and then keep it there by running the A/C continuously at a lower output, instead of running the A/C at full on for a while, which outputs air with a dewpoint (and temperature) lower than required, and then shutting off the A/C for a while, which lets the air's dewpoint (and temperature) rise to a level higher than desired. In other words, target the A/C's output to just where it needs to be, instead of cycling it on and off.
> There's an efficiency penalty to letting the temperature wander. But if it only wanders a couple degrees, it's not a huge penalty.
The main efficiency penalty is not from letting the temperature wander. It's from letting the dewpoint wander. Most of the work the A/C does is actually condensing extra water vapor out of the air, not cooling the air itself. If your room temperature rises from, say, 74 F to 76 F, that's not much more work for the A/C to do; but if the dewpoint of the air in the room rises from 50 F to 76 F (which it might well do on a hot, humid day during the off cycle of your A/C unit), that's a lot more work for the A/C to do to condense out all that extra water vapor.
> there's a penalty for keeping the fans and compressor going all the time, even if they're running at a lower power.
There's also a penalty for starting them up every time from off. For many such devices, given the number of times they cycle on and off during a hot, humid day, that penalty can easily average out to be larger than the cost of running the unit at lower power continuously.
> if you could leave the room at 73 with a low dew point
Which you can't if the system is off. The only way to control the dewpoint is to run the A/C continuously. As soon as you shut the A/C off, on a humid day, the dewpoint will start rising. And then your A/C will have to work harder during its next on cycle to lower it again.
If you run the A/C continously at lower power, then yes, you can adjust things so the heat coming into the house raises the temperature (from the A/C outlet temperature, which is basically the dew point) just enough to have the combination of temperature and dew point that you want. That's basically what I've been describing. The dewpoint of 68 F that I first threw out might be higher than optimal; the point was not to pick a specific optimal number but just to illustrate the concept.
> Your home's A/C unit can't just pick a particular volume of air and cool it. It takes in air from your entire house, cools it, and puts it back out into your house.
I'm talking about how much air goes through the unit. By the time it's done, it will have emitted fewer cubic feet of air.
> Moreover, your whole comparison is irrelevant to what I am saying. The objective is not to get the dewpoint (or temperature) as low as possible. The objective is to get the dewpoint (and temperature) just low enough for comfort (note that the target dewpoint might indeed be lower than the target temperature--see further comments below)
It's not irrelevant if overshooting one target lets you undershoot the other target.
> The main efficiency penalty is not from letting the temperature wander. It's from letting the dewpoint wander. Most of the work the A/C does is actually condensing extra water vapor out of the air, not cooling the air itself.
Same difference. If you cycle the AC on and off every few minutes, neither one will wander much.
> There's also a penalty for starting them up every time from off. For many such devices, given the number of times they cycle on and off during a hot, humid day, that penalty can easily average out to be larger than the cost of running the unit at lower power continuously.
It only takes a few seconds of power to spin up. If that is the dominating inefficiency in the system, then it barely matters what you do.
> Which you can't if the system is off. The only way to control the dewpoint is to run the A/C continuously. As soon as you shut the A/C off, on a humid day, the dewpoint will start rising. And then your A/C will have to work harder during its next on cycle to lower it again.
If you run it a little bit every ten minutes it will do almost as good a job at preventing drifting. It will work "harder" but for less time, so averaged over the entire 10 minutes it's probably about the same. Might be more, might be less. Depends on how efficient the fans and compressor are at different speeds. And how efficient the evaporator is at different flow rates.
> If you run the A/C continously at lower power, then yes, you can adjust things so the heat coming into the house raises the temperature (from the A/C outlet temperature, which is basically the dew point) just enough to have the combination of temperature and dew point that you want. That's basically what I've been describing. The dewpoint of 68 F that I first threw out might be higher than optimal; the point was not to pick a specific optimal number but just to illustrate the concept.
The different modes having different dew points was a core part of your original suggestion.
If you're changing that, and now we're talking about a system where "full on" is an optimal dew point but high air flow, and "energy saving mode" is the same dew point but with low air flow, then that sounds great. And if you had suggested that originally, I wouldn't have posted to question it.
I'm talking about how much air goes through the unit. By the time it's done, it will have emitted fewer cubic feet of air.
> Moreover, your whole comparison is irrelevant to what I am saying. The objective is not to get the dewpoint (or temperature) as low as possible. The objective is to get the dewpoint (and temperature) just low enough for comfort (note that the target dewpoint might indeed be lower than the target temperature--see further comments below)
It's not irrelevant if overshooting one target lets you undershoot the other target.
> The main efficiency penalty is not from letting the temperature wander. It's from letting the dewpoint wander. Most of the work the A/C does is actually condensing extra water vapor out of the air, not cooling the air itself.
Same difference. If you cycle the AC on and off every few minutes, neither one will wander much.
> There's also a penalty for starting them up every time from off. For many such devices, given the number of times they cycle on and off during a hot, humid day, that penalty can easily average out to be larger than the cost of running the unit at lower power continuously.
It only takes a few seconds of power to spin up. If that is the dominating inefficiency in the system, then it barely matters what you do.
> Which you can't if the system is off. The only way to control the dewpoint is to run the A/C continuously. As soon as you shut the A/C off, on a humid day, the dewpoint will start rising. And then your A/C will have to work harder during its next on cycle to lower it again.
If you run it a little bit every ten minutes it will do almost as good a job at preventing drifting. It will work "harder" but for less time, so averaged over the entire 10 minutes it's probably about the same. Might be more, might be less. Depends on how efficient the fans and compressor are at different speeds. And how efficient the evaporator is at different flow rates.
> If you run the A/C continously at lower power, then yes, you can adjust things so the heat coming into the house raises the temperature (from the A/C outlet temperature, which is basically the dew point) just enough to have the combination of temperature and dew point that you want. That's basically what I've been describing. The dewpoint of 68 F that I first threw out might be higher than optimal; the point was not to pick a specific optimal number but just to illustrate the concept.
The different modes having different dew points was a core part of your original suggestion.
If you're changing that, and now we're talking about a system where "full on" is an optimal dew point but high air flow, and "energy saving mode" is the same dew point but with low air flow, then that sounds great. And if you had suggested that originally, I wouldn't have posted to question it.
> If you cycle the AC on and off every few minutes, neither one will wander much.
The dewpoint will, yes. There's a lot more room for dewpoint to rise than for temperature to rise.
> It will work "harder" but for less time, so averaged over the entire 10 minutes it's probably about the same.
I don't think so.
> The different modes having different dew points was a core part of your original suggestion.
> If you're changing that, and now we're talking about a system where "full on" is an optimal dew point but high air flow, and "energy saving mode" is the same dew point but with low air flow
Neither of those is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a system whose only mode (unless you want to have an "initial cooldown" mode as well, see below) is what you called "energy saving mode": the dewpoint is set higher than a current A/C unit's "full on" mode, so that it's just low enough for comfort, ahd the A/C runs at much lower power (lower compressor power and lower airflow) continuously to maintain that dewpoint, instead of running "full on" (high compressor power, high airflow) for a while at a lower dewpoint, then cycling completely off for a while and letting the dewpoint get higher than the comfort level.
The point of running in the above "energy saving" mode is that you do it all the time; you never shut the system off. But there might be cases where the system turns off for a while unavoidably (say a power outage) and the house gets well above the temperature and dewpoint target. For that case, the system would have an "initial cooldown" mode, where it does run "full on" for a while (high compressor power, high airflow, dewpoint below optimal) until it senses that it's back to its usual setpoint, then it goes back into "energy saving" mode described above.
Running at the same (low) dewpoint but lower airflow would save some energy (less fan power), but much less than running at a higher dewpoint, since that reduces the amount of dehumidification, and dehumidification is most of the work that the A/C system does.
The dewpoint will, yes. There's a lot more room for dewpoint to rise than for temperature to rise.
> It will work "harder" but for less time, so averaged over the entire 10 minutes it's probably about the same.
I don't think so.
> The different modes having different dew points was a core part of your original suggestion.
> If you're changing that, and now we're talking about a system where "full on" is an optimal dew point but high air flow, and "energy saving mode" is the same dew point but with low air flow
Neither of those is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a system whose only mode (unless you want to have an "initial cooldown" mode as well, see below) is what you called "energy saving mode": the dewpoint is set higher than a current A/C unit's "full on" mode, so that it's just low enough for comfort, ahd the A/C runs at much lower power (lower compressor power and lower airflow) continuously to maintain that dewpoint, instead of running "full on" (high compressor power, high airflow) for a while at a lower dewpoint, then cycling completely off for a while and letting the dewpoint get higher than the comfort level.
The point of running in the above "energy saving" mode is that you do it all the time; you never shut the system off. But there might be cases where the system turns off for a while unavoidably (say a power outage) and the house gets well above the temperature and dewpoint target. For that case, the system would have an "initial cooldown" mode, where it does run "full on" for a while (high compressor power, high airflow, dewpoint below optimal) until it senses that it's back to its usual setpoint, then it goes back into "energy saving" mode described above.
Running at the same (low) dewpoint but lower airflow would save some energy (less fan power), but much less than running at a higher dewpoint, since that reduces the amount of dehumidification, and dehumidification is most of the work that the A/C system does.
Both Ecobee and Nest can do this:
- Ecobee "AC Overcool / Dehumidify Using AC": https://support.ecobee.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000268887-Ho...
- Nest "Cool to Dry": https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/9294957?hl=en
- Ecobee "AC Overcool / Dehumidify Using AC": https://support.ecobee.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000268887-Ho...
- Nest "Cool to Dry": https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/9294957?hl=en
The screenshot of the alert said it was adjusted up 4 degrees. Not much.
I start to sweat, become uncomfortable, and lose focus around 72. I have a hard time doing mental work or relaxing. By 75, all I'm good for is physical labor. I'm not overweight, either. I guess it's genetics.
you could perhaps benefit from adding a fan or a single room AC for extra cooling targetted where tou need it.
78F, at 80% humidity is above the reccommended safe range for young kids. It's a SIDS risk, and those in the article have a toddler.
The concern is more one of safety than one of comfort.
The concern is more one of safety than one of comfort.
And here I am, sitting in 98f, 80+ humidity, along Millions of others in my area. Somehow, I think that either human genetic variation is so large as to allow such drastic survival rate differences, or that the relationship between sids and temperature is being severly overstated here.
A/C is basically unheard off in western Europe. The temperature is above 78F all summer long with an average humidity of 72% and we don't have more SIDS than the USA.
78F is not even particularly warm. Just dress appropriately and you will be fine.
78F is not even particularly warm. Just dress appropriately and you will be fine.
72% < 80%, and indoor temperature is not the same as outdoor temperature.
Yeah 3mo is not a time to losing control of the inside environment
I agree (with a 6 month old of my own) but note that the tradeoff here is some random number of houses losing power _entirely_ through grid brownouts. I suspect overall the SIDs risk would be far elevated by cutting AC to 5% of houses entirely, spiking temperatures 20 degrees, than every house raising temperatures a couple degrees.
(you could try to structure the program so that only low-risk healthy adults were in the voluntary reduction camp, but it does seem like a bit of a logistical nightmare).
(you could try to structure the program so that only low-risk healthy adults were in the voluntary reduction camp, but it does seem like a bit of a logistical nightmare).
Congrats! I found it got easier and more fun after the 1y mark
I highly doubt an air-conditioned space would be above 80% RH.
It will if the air conditioning isn't running because someone remotely turned up the thermostat, and it's humid outside. Summer relative humidity in the Houston area routinely gets up around 90%.
I live in Houston RN. The thermostat is set to 78 not 86 or something. It definitely would run.
> The thermostat is set to 78 not 86 or something.
Evidently you are not enrolled in the "smart thermostat" program described in the article, which allows the utility company to remotely raise your thermostat setting regardless of what you set it to. They apparently did that without any regard to the impact it would have on comfort and health.
Evidently you are not enrolled in the "smart thermostat" program described in the article, which allows the utility company to remotely raise your thermostat setting regardless of what you set it to. They apparently did that without any regard to the impact it would have on comfort and health.
I'm talking about the article, not my home. It says "the house had already gotten to 78 degrees".
Aagin, the point is the AC is definitely running if the room is only 78F in Houston.
Also I think people really overestimate the humidity level indoor. Even if you leave your AC off for 2-3 days, it will not reach 90% RH unless you leave all your windows and doors wide open.
Aagin, the point is the AC is definitely running if the room is only 78F in Houston.
Also I think people really overestimate the humidity level indoor. Even if you leave your AC off for 2-3 days, it will not reach 90% RH unless you leave all your windows and doors wide open.
For the life of me I can't understand how people like it so cold. I have to imagine a lot of it comes down to overweight/obesity but a lot of places I go are colder in the summer than they are in the winter.
It’s fascinating how little innovation there’s been in cheap air conditioning. For one, modern hvac is way too lossy by design. You spend thousands a year heating up an entire zone, which generally is your whole house unless you’re lucky enough to have zoned ducts and multiple air handlers. Even then you’re wasting a lot of energy cooling and heating areas you’re not even occupying. Mini-Split are too expensive to have installed by professionals.
In the situation described in the article ideally the bed could be cooled somehow. Perhaps a device the size of a five gallon bucket filled with refrigerant circulating cool air around the bed somehow? Idk
Edit:
What I’d love to see is a window AC (Ptac maybe) that’s very large, say half a full sheet of plywood, so 4 x 4ft that’s 2in thin. Then you could actually fit this in like a window in between the walls. If it’s silent thru the use of an inverter it would be better than both a Mini-Split and a window ac due to the fact that it’s 16sqft footprint would afford it very large fans which could move the volume of air effectively silently.
In the situation described in the article ideally the bed could be cooled somehow. Perhaps a device the size of a five gallon bucket filled with refrigerant circulating cool air around the bed somehow? Idk
Edit:
What I’d love to see is a window AC (Ptac maybe) that’s very large, say half a full sheet of plywood, so 4 x 4ft that’s 2in thin. Then you could actually fit this in like a window in between the walls. If it’s silent thru the use of an inverter it would be better than both a Mini-Split and a window ac due to the fact that it’s 16sqft footprint would afford it very large fans which could move the volume of air effectively silently.
You would probably want to think about the design of the actual house more than thinking about gains in AC efficiency. There are unconventional home designs that passively make a home tend either cool or hot using the surrounding environment. Good luck dealing with the zoning board though.
They’re installing these [1] in the new buildings in Switzerland, it does keep the buildings comfortably cool.
[1] https://www.jansen.com/en/plastic-solutions/products/geother...
[1] https://www.jansen.com/en/plastic-solutions/products/geother...
Amazing how living in different parts of the world changes your perspective on everyday things, here (Italy) centralized AC is basically non-existent (and expensive), mini-splits are the norm but they're usually installed with a dedicated external motor for each room and very rarely with a single motor and a mini-split in each room.
Largely agree but was impressed to see the U shaped Midea https://www.midea.com/us/Air-Conditioners/Window-Air-Conditi...
only about $400 and slots under a sliding window, half inside the window and half outside with the window in-between. Virtually as good as a mini split but a fraction of the cost and trouble. Only for people with the right sort of window but still seemed an encouraging idea.
only about $400 and slots under a sliding window, half inside the window and half outside with the window in-between. Virtually as good as a mini split but a fraction of the cost and trouble. Only for people with the right sort of window but still seemed an encouraging idea.
[deleted]
> modern hvac is way too lossy by design
I'd go further and say modern housing is unsustainable. Check out passive houses.
I'd go further and say modern housing is unsustainable. Check out passive houses.
> “They’d been asleep long enough that the house had already gotten to 78 degrees,” English said. “So they woke up sweating.”
This is silly. 78 degrees is not that bad and it’s literally what the Department of Energy recommends setting your thermostat to in the summer.
This is silly. 78 degrees is not that bad and it’s literally what the Department of Energy recommends setting your thermostat to in the summer.
To be fair the humidity in Houston is often above 80 percent even at night. 78 and 80% humidity would cause you to sweat profusely while sleeping under covers
In that case is AC still needed or would a dehumidifier be better to "cool down" a very humid house? I'm actually curious about the energetic efficiency of running a dehumidifier vs just turning on AC. AC has the advantage of outright lowering temperature while also dumping some of the humidity, but id guess not nearly as much as a dehumidifier. And if you are sweating at 78° it is probably so humid inside that just lowering temperatures ends up gets you very diminishing returns
Most dehumidifiers generate heat. It would need to be a whole house dehumidifier which usually exhausts the hot air outside . A dehumidifier that keeps things cool is basically just air conditioning.
Indeed, I've thought about a control for air conditioning, that's based on a combination of temperature and humidity, rather than temperature alone.
I'm a northerner, and when I moved to Texas, I was prepared for the heat. What they didn't tell me about was the air conditioning. During the summer, people bring a sweater or jacket to restaurants because the AC is so cold.
Today we live in Wisconsin, so we rarely use AC, usually only if we have elderly guests, or maybe the 1 or 2 most oppressive days of the year. We just have to manage the hours in the early evening, when the outside temperature has fallen but there's no breeze. So we have some window fans for that condition.
But I've noticed, that I can turn on the AC and it will run for a long time without the temperature changing, because it's using all of its available power to remove water. But it gets more comfortable. But of course if you're going to cool the air in order to dehumidify it, you might as well enjoy the cooler air.
I'm a northerner, and when I moved to Texas, I was prepared for the heat. What they didn't tell me about was the air conditioning. During the summer, people bring a sweater or jacket to restaurants because the AC is so cold.
Today we live in Wisconsin, so we rarely use AC, usually only if we have elderly guests, or maybe the 1 or 2 most oppressive days of the year. We just have to manage the hours in the early evening, when the outside temperature has fallen but there's no breeze. So we have some window fans for that condition.
But I've noticed, that I can turn on the AC and it will run for a long time without the temperature changing, because it's using all of its available power to remove water. But it gets more comfortable. But of course if you're going to cool the air in order to dehumidify it, you might as well enjoy the cooler air.
> Indeed, I've thought about a control for air conditioning, that's based on a combination of temperature and humidity, rather than temperature alone.
Better existing residential HVAC controls already do that, combining settings and sensors for dehumidfying, heating, cooling, and, if a humidifier is included in the system, humidifying.
Better existing residential HVAC controls already do that, combining settings and sensors for dehumidfying, heating, cooling, and, if a humidifier is included in the system, humidifying.
Yeah I realized after typing my comment that I should've specified that I was thinking of whole house dehumidifiers but even then you are right, AC are basically dehumidifiers that also lower temperatures. But looking at the very high humidity levels in Houston, I'd think either people use normal sized AC units have no way to cope with so much humidity and lower it to a comfortable level or that Texans use very huge AC's which is not good for the grid. If it's option 1, I guess just adding more AC capacity would still be a better option than adding a whole house dehumidier?
I guess I just expect there to be a more efficient way to cool a 78°F house to a degree where it's comfortable without having to use AC 24/7 but I guess the thermodynamics behind cooling homes disagree with me :').
I guess I just expect there to be a more efficient way to cool a 78°F house to a degree where it's comfortable without having to use AC 24/7 but I guess the thermodynamics behind cooling homes disagree with me :').
An AC unit is a whole house dehumidifier. A stand-alone humidifier is just a small AC unit where the cold side and the hot side are in the same room while an air conditioner splits those. The part that really pulls the water out of the air is the cold side.
If you're wanting to pull moisture out of the air for a whole home, that unit is going to be an air conditioner unit.
If you're wanting to pull moisture out of the air for a whole home, that unit is going to be an air conditioner unit.
A dehumidifier is really just an air conditioner, cool the air so water condenses and collect that (and maybe pump it out), and then blow the hot air into the room, which also decreases relative humidity.
If you only need to reduce humidity, like in a cool and humid basement, that's fine; the waste heat doesn't matter or may be helpful. If it's hot and humid, you don't really want the extra hot air, it's a lot better to run the heated working fluid outside, so you can dump the heat outdoors instead of indoors. Of course, an AC unit is often a lot bigger than a dehumidifier, and so all the rest of the energy use is bigger too, but if you could get a similar wattage system, putting the condenser outside the conditioned space means you get dehumidifying and cooling inside vs just dehumidifying, so why do only one.
If you only need to reduce humidity, like in a cool and humid basement, that's fine; the waste heat doesn't matter or may be helpful. If it's hot and humid, you don't really want the extra hot air, it's a lot better to run the heated working fluid outside, so you can dump the heat outdoors instead of indoors. Of course, an AC unit is often a lot bigger than a dehumidifier, and so all the rest of the energy use is bigger too, but if you could get a similar wattage system, putting the condenser outside the conditioned space means you get dehumidifying and cooling inside vs just dehumidifying, so why do only one.
There are ACs which have a dehumidifier mode, which according to the manual had less energy consumption.
[deleted]
what if they used a fan and didn't sleep under the covers?
Sweat profusely with a warm breeze.
I grew up in the midwest where it's not as hot but just as humid and A/C was a luxury. I never slept with any covers as a kid and a fan in the room sure felt like it was doing nothing.
I grew up in the midwest where it's not as hot but just as humid and A/C was a luxury. I never slept with any covers as a kid and a fan in the room sure felt like it was doing nothing.
An amusing oddity is that due to the same childhood experience, the noise of a fan helps me go to sleep.
Grew up in Texas and this is so real. I need white noise to sleep and my go-to is a ceiling fan.
Even in the winter, it’s not uncommon for me to have the fan on high while it’s 65-68 inside. I compensate with an extra blanket.
Even in the winter, it’s not uncommon for me to have the fan on high while it’s 65-68 inside. I compensate with an extra blanket.
Living in the north, the two nights when I get the worst sleep are: The first night in the spring when we open the windows, and the first night in the fall when we close them. Likewise, my first night on any camping trip, and the first night back at home. It takes at least one night for my brain to settle on a new noise / silence pattern.
That could work but you’d probably feel too cold, haha. The eco solution would be to get a whole house dehumidifier and a ceiling fan. But for those who already have central air that seems superfluous
Does an air conditioner use that much more power than a dehumidifier?
I think they're actually similar technologies and wattages. So really I think people are comparing using a room unit (being a dehumidifier) versus a central AC systems cooling the entire house.
They can be a lot cheaper. We commonly use them in HK to stop our flats going mouldy when we are out the house and it's 35C (90-95F) at 80% humidity. It's a lot cheaper, possibly an order of magnitude, than running the air-conditioning 24/7.
78 warm if you're sleeping. This recommends 60-67:
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-is-the-ideal-sleepin...
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-is-the-ideal-sleepin...
What's all this nonsense then about 68-72 being "room temperature"?
I guess that explains why Texas is using so much electricity in the first place :)
Enroll into a program to allow energy companies to modify your set temperature in exchange for a free thermostats or credits and be shocked when the energy company make good on the agreement... It's nothing new and have existed for years in Texas, this man didn't read the fine print and was just happy to get free stuff.
This is called demand response programs and existed for years.
It's a way to shave the peak instead of building a new power station.
You usually get a notification in advance so you can opt out.
This is nothing new and existed in the past in some forms. There are also programs to remote control water heaters (to turn them on at night when demand is low) by having special circuitry in the electric box.
This will also be implemented more and extended as home EV charging stations pop up.
This is called demand response programs and existed for years.
It's a way to shave the peak instead of building a new power station.
You usually get a notification in advance so you can opt out.
This is nothing new and existed in the past in some forms. There are also programs to remote control water heaters (to turn them on at night when demand is low) by having special circuitry in the electric box.
This will also be implemented more and extended as home EV charging stations pop up.
"Smart" has come to mean something sinister
“ Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
It's interesting; AFAICT "smart" in relation to consumer electronics has seemingly never been used for any other meaning than "is connected to the Internet, enabling some cloud service to manage it, and for you to interact with it through that cloud service."
Meanwhile, if you want to express the idea "a device that uses local sensors + local processing to attempt to optimize for property a human configured it to optimize for", you don't call the device smart — you call it intelligent.
Meanwhile, if you want to express the idea "a device that uses local sensors + local processing to attempt to optimize for property a human configured it to optimize for", you don't call the device smart — you call it intelligent.
Sure it has. Here's one brand that's used "smart" for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_%26_Paykel
That brand is seemingly trying to use "Smart[X]" or "[X]Smart" as trademarked jargon terms referring to specific features its products have.
This is different in kind from generic common-language use of the word "smart" by consumers as an adjective attached to product categories ("smart fridge", "smart home", etc.), which is what I was referring to.
Even in the 80s, the X10 "smart home" automation technology was all about networking the devices in your home together to put them under control of a central hub; not about any active "intelligence" per se.
A thermostat has always been an example of "device intelligence", but has never been called "smart" technology... until recently, as there are now "smart" thermostats (like Nest.) But these are another Internet-of-Shit product, and that — not any clever behavior — is what makes it a "smart" device.
This is different in kind from generic common-language use of the word "smart" by consumers as an adjective attached to product categories ("smart fridge", "smart home", etc.), which is what I was referring to.
Even in the 80s, the X10 "smart home" automation technology was all about networking the devices in your home together to put them under control of a central hub; not about any active "intelligence" per se.
A thermostat has always been an example of "device intelligence", but has never been called "smart" technology... until recently, as there are now "smart" thermostats (like Nest.) But these are another Internet-of-Shit product, and that — not any clever behavior — is what makes it a "smart" device.
Reminds me of "Smart" motorways in the UK - they're "Smart" in that you can drive on the hard shoulder when there are no accidents. When there are accidents, the hard shoulder is meant to close and the motorway returns to normal operation with a hard shoulder. What actually happens is you break down, there's no hard shoulder and a lorry slams into the back of you killing your entire family. The Highways agency has been referred to the crown prosecution service to consider charges of corporate manslaughter.
All these companies figured out that idiots will pay a subscription fee for things that they used to pay for just once
[deleted]
Yikes, though this is why I appreciate my own sensor dashboard for home temp, pressure and humidity monitored by my Pi + enviro+. It’s pretty good about alerting me to temp changes. I now feel pretty sensitive to degree changes over 70, especially as relative humidity goes up over 45%. Dry air up to 74 I can handle with a decent ceiling fan. Houston at 78 would be higher on my discomfort index.
> Access Denied
> You don't have permission to access "http://www.ksdk.com/article/news/remote-thermostat-adjustmen..." on this server.
seems inaccessible from outside the US.
it's archived here: https://archive.is/5Teif
it's archived here: https://archive.is/5Teif
> “Was my daughter at the point of overheating?” English said. “She’s 3 months old. They dehydrate very quickly.”
Yikes! Here I was thinking about jokes regarding smart fridges...
Thank you!
Yikes! Here I was thinking about jokes regarding smart fridges...
Thank you!
These Demand Response programs have been around at least since 2013.
I used to work for a company called Opower, since acq. by Oracle, that worked on setting these temperatures with options/configurations on the user end. OhmConnect, Tendril, Simple Energy, were/are all in this same DR space.
Now granted, residential thermostats usually doesn’t have humidity detection, but any company doing DR probably has other sources of data already to figure out an optimal temp/humidity setting to drive better DR adoption. At the time, Opower had housing and demographic data to predict and calculate how long to pre-cool/heat a home.
Glad Texas is catching up, but the marketing and user education part seems to be lacking. Need to change behavior & hearts and minds or this type of backfire happens. If no one participated in DR, outages and brown outs could kill more people than cause an inconvenience of being too warm.
I used to work for a company called Opower, since acq. by Oracle, that worked on setting these temperatures with options/configurations on the user end. OhmConnect, Tendril, Simple Energy, were/are all in this same DR space.
Now granted, residential thermostats usually doesn’t have humidity detection, but any company doing DR probably has other sources of data already to figure out an optimal temp/humidity setting to drive better DR adoption. At the time, Opower had housing and demographic data to predict and calculate how long to pre-cool/heat a home.
Glad Texas is catching up, but the marketing and user education part seems to be lacking. Need to change behavior & hearts and minds or this type of backfire happens. If no one participated in DR, outages and brown outs could kill more people than cause an inconvenience of being too warm.
Why is/should participation in a demand response program be the difference between killing people and inconvenience? Wouldn't fluctuations in grid supply and demand make much more of a difference as far as there being energy for folks' survival needs?
Shouldn't grids be ensuring they have sufficient supply so that no one dies? Why would we want to design a system where lack of participation in a demand response program means people could be at risk of death?
Shouldn't grids be ensuring they have sufficient supply so that no one dies? Why would we want to design a system where lack of participation in a demand response program means people could be at risk of death?
Those are good questions without simple answers.
I agree that grids should be built better, but they aren’t due to economics and catch-22s. Take the Texas power grid again as an example. It wasn’t winterized properly in Feb. 2021, freezing 100s to death. The cost of doing so is a ~$10/month bump for everyone there. The usual process for increases go through the PUC process and it’s hard to get large increases through, it’s usually $10/year increases and people complain that’s a lot. The gov., elected by the people, get to approve the price hikes.
DR is a much cheaper solution $-wise and politically as well. Not saying that’s how things ideally should be, but welcome to reality, where optimizing for the individual doesn’t align with taking care of the community/city.
I agree that grids should be built better, but they aren’t due to economics and catch-22s. Take the Texas power grid again as an example. It wasn’t winterized properly in Feb. 2021, freezing 100s to death. The cost of doing so is a ~$10/month bump for everyone there. The usual process for increases go through the PUC process and it’s hard to get large increases through, it’s usually $10/year increases and people complain that’s a lot. The gov., elected by the people, get to approve the price hikes.
DR is a much cheaper solution $-wise and politically as well. Not saying that’s how things ideally should be, but welcome to reality, where optimizing for the individual doesn’t align with taking care of the community/city.
Why should we allow people to live in places they will die without air conditioning?
Its not about dying. Its about quality of life. Most things are at this point in our civilization. What if your furnace fails and you live in Alaska? Some Houstonians would probably assume that is a death sentence. Someone in Alaska would probably be fine. Uncomfortable, yes. Dead? No.
More broadly, I find it incredibly contradictory that a technology board would approve of intentionally-shitty quality of service because the engineering "is just too hard".
More broadly, I find it incredibly contradictory that a technology board would approve of intentionally-shitty quality of service because the engineering "is just too hard".
"Drivers shocked to find that device monitoring their driving behavior increased their premiums."
The family’s smart thermostat was installed a few years ago as part of a new home security package. Many smart thermostats can be enrolled in a program called "Smart Savers Texas." It's operated by a company called EnergyHub.
The agreement states that in exchange for an entry into sweepstakes, electric customers allow them to control their thermostats during periods of high energy demand.
---
Calling this "Shock" seems like some serious FUD. They signed up for this program, they got an alert at the time, and they were able to un-enroll after realizing the deal wasn't a good fit for them.
There is absolutely nothing "sinister" about this. They literally enrolled in a program to allow exactly this behavior.