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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment