No Nest is good Nest!

A few years ago, the business world was abuzz with the news that Google had swooped down and bought the next wonder startup called Nest, whose only claim to fame at the time was that it made what was referred to as a "smart thermostat" - an internet connected device that would revolutionize the way you consumed energy for heating and cooling your home. At a retail price of $ 249, it was roughly 4-5 times the price of the most intelligent thermostat around at the time, which a user could program to turn on and off as required. The USP of the Nest was that it could "learn" a user's preferences and would automatically turn on heating and cooling as needed. The sleek design and touch interface made it an instant darling of techno-geeks and soccer moms alike - after all, who wouldn't want something easy to use that could also save money on your energy bills? This was truly the win-win that both greens and die hard capitalists could embrace.

Of course, the reality is that the Nest has very little to do with energy management and everything to do with big companies trying to sell you more goods and services for your home. While I would agree that the Nest is definitely better looking, and clearly easier to use, than the next best alternative, it should not be the target when it comes to reducing energy consumption because of the way in which homes are heated/cooled. At the very least, it is not the place one should be looking for to achieve savings.

First, the average US home is a good 2000-2500 sq ft, and at around 20 ft tall, translates into (roughly) 40-50,000 cubic feet of air to be heated and cooled. This is usually achieved by a forced air system that exchanges heat with the surroundings, and additional cooling (from refrigerants) and heating (from electricity/natural gas/oil). The air is transferred to different parts of the house via a system of ducts that are typically the weakest link in the system. For a start, these ducts are made of simple sheet metal that is bent to fit which results in plenty of gaps for air to leak. They are also not insulated and so lose the heating/cooling power very easily. The cost of installing ducting is just a fraction of the entire house price - and yet no one bothers to ask for or make better quality ducting.

Secondly, the way in which air is heated or cooled around the house does not take into account any natural temperature differences that arise from location of the sun, trees, wind direction etc. Everyone has experienced the phenomenon of one part of the house being hot and other part cold - and yet the heating system does not seem to be able to handle this. That's because the thermostat is measuring temperature in only one location, typically in the main living room. If all rooms of the house are to be at the same temperature, then one should be able to move air around from one room to another to balance this out. The Nest can't do this as it requires hardware that is typically not provided in a house - such as louvers installed in the ducting system that are controlled by the thermostat to move air around.

So what we're left with is a simple on-off mechanism that just moves air into the house when the temperature drops below a certain threshold. And while Nest's white paper quotes 3 different studies that show at least a 10% savings on energy, and significant homeowner satisfaction even if they did not save any energy (which suggests that the sexy look of the thermostat is doing its job!), there are still enormous savings that can be gained. All while retaining your original programmable thermostat.

America's two addictions

Down the road from my house is a scene that is repeated thousands of times across the US - a corner gas station with a fast food joint right next to it (in this case, it happens to be an Exxon with a McDonald's, but it could well be any of the other usual suspects). The fast food establishment, as expected, has a drive through that enables people to avoid taking even the dozen steps in and out of the store (not that those steps would do a whole lot to improve their health).

The fact that these two types of businesses are in close proximity is not surprising given the prominent role they play in American life. Unless you happen to live in a city downtown that has excellent mass transit (Boston and NY), and have been a life long vegetarian, there is no way you would have been able to escape the experience of going into a gas station, or visiting a burger joint. Both of these are addictions as well - our desire to consume more fuel is matched only by our desire to eat fast food at every single opportunity. They are cheap, they provide high energy content and they are everywhere. And they both contribute to the growing problem of obesity that will seriously compromise the long term competitiveness of the US workforce.

Cheap fuel resulted in the growth of suburbs, which from the 1950s onwards drove the American dream of a large car and an even larger house that was naturally filled with all kinds of consumer products. The nature of the suburbs, and the zoning laws that went with it, essentially eliminated any kind of movement by foot or even bicycle which was so prevalent in Europe. The only time someone would be outside a car were if they were running or biking for leisure as opposed to being a primary mode of transport.

Similarly, fast food capitalized on the fact that most American families at this time were starting to focus more on leisure activities, such was watching television, which made the entire business of cooking food from scratch simply too tedious to even consider. The advent of the TV dinner, which could be heated in a few minutes, and was loaded with fats and sugar that appealed to us biologically, epitomized this shift. For baby boomers whose parents could still remember having stood in soup lines during the great depression, fast food went from an occasional indulgence to the basic meal - families no longer sat around the dinner table but went out to eat. Or, in the most perverse combination of these two addictions, you could simply drive through a fast food restaurant and bring your food back home. The ten steps from the car into the front door were also eliminated.

The oil shocks of the 1970s brought the oil addiction to the forefront, and efforts were made to look at other options for our energy. Fuel economy standards that had wallowed in the low double digits were raised significantly, to the extent that one could get a small fuel efficient car that gave about 25 mpg in the mid 1970s. But the shocks did not last long enough to undo the two decades of damage done by low energy prices and soon enough we were back to gas guzzlers - the Chrysler mini-van ironically being what brought the company out of bankruptcy!

The nation also started to pay attention to eating habits, with dietary guidelines in the form of the food pyramid first being issued in 1977. This got Americans talking about fruits and vegetables, whole grains and meat in a way that had been forgotten with the ubiquitous burger and fries. And while the food pyramid has continued to evolve over time, and more people are eating healthier than ever before, the stranglehold of the fast food industry remains as strong as ever. Combined with the power of the meat industry, that sees fast food as a ready outlet for its prime products, we continue to rely on others to provide us our meals. And this mania has been exported all over the world to the extent that McDonald's is one of the most globally recognized brands.

So where do we go from here? Is there any hope that these addictions will be overcome? After all, we point to the case of the tobacco industry and the realization that smoking was truly dangerous to health which resulted in a significant reduction in the number of smokers. But it never really put an end to smoking, and I suspect that even if we find a way to push oil and fast food into the same corner, they will find a way to take a temporary hit but come back in a slightly different form. For that is the very nature of addiction - you are never really cured, and the only way to get out is to never really get into it in the first place.