A small economy.

[aja8888]

AJA8888, the graphics were captured off the user's screen when I log on to my utility's Web account. They have smartmeters in my area that report hourly usage, and their Web site keeps that data going back 3 years.

This data is excellent, and I looked into it in detail just recently. The homeowner can study his usage pattern and learn a lot. For example, by comparing the 12-month costs before and after my pool pump change, I found out how much the variable-speed pump saves me a year ($260).

Thanks, I figured something like that. Entergy Texas has one bar graph per month of KW usage and that's it. I guess they don't want us knowing the good stuff.

 

[NW-Bound]

My utility company is SRP - Salt River Project. Their programmers beat Entergy's programmers. Perhaps you could send this info to them to shame them into doing better.

PS. I am waiting to see how much my expensive new windows are saving me a year, using this data.

 

[ERD50]

My utility company is SRP - Salt River Project. Their programmers beat Entergy's programmers. Perhaps you could send this info to them to shame them into doing better.

PS. I am waiting to see how much my expensive new windows are saving me a year, using this data.

We are supposed to get smart meters 'sometime soon', though probably in the next year or two. I'm pretty sure they allow hour-by-hour readings, I sure hope so. Heck, I'd like to be able to drill down to 1 minute intervals, to see things like the well pump and sump pumps kicking in. I mentioned we had a leak at the well, and even an hourly breakdown might have led me to wonder about the energy increase overnight (somewhat expected every third day when the water softner runs and the pump needs to feed it).

Yep, those humans keep messing up our well conceived experiments!

I hope you continue with the 1 or 2 degree delta though, it would be interesting to see the effect, and if you can go any further with it. I might need to cut my little experiment back - while it still seems pretty light at sunset, a full hour after is kind of long to wait, it is getting pretty dark. Change it to half an hour for a $1/year savings? If I can only find a few hundred more things like that, we are talking some real money!

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Looking at that TOD peak rate chart, I wonder if it would make sense for refrigerators to come with a set-back thermostat? Run it a few degrees below average for a few hours before peak rates to get a good thermal 'soak', then raise it a few degrees during peak. A well insulated fridge won't lose much in a few hours.

And the defrost cycle could be programmed around those times (I think they normally go every 8 hours to quickly remove a small amount of frost at a time?)


If you were really gung-ho, put the dinner food in a cooler ahead of time to avoid open/close the fridge during the peak.


Probably a very small savings, but it would cost near zero - the fridges already have controllers in them. Ahhh, but an added plus would be the fridge would not be dumping out heat at this time, which also has to be removed by the A/C!

-ERD50

 

[mpeirce]

Looking at that TOD peak rate chart, I wonder if it would make sense for refrigerators to come with a set-back thermostat? Run it a few degrees below average for a few hours before peak rates to get a good thermal 'soak', then raise it a few degrees during peak. A well insulated fridge won't lose much in a few hours.

How much of the country has peak use pricing for electricity?

 

[ERD50]

How much of the country has peak use pricing for electricity?

I don't know, probably not much %-wise. But this would cost near nothing in any fridge that already has a chip controller and some sort of display ( or a bluetooth link).

Mostly just theorizing, probably not much gain at all.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

... I wonder if it would make sense for refrigerators to come with a set-back thermostat? Run it a few degrees below average for a few hours before peak rates to get a good thermal 'soak', then raise it a few degrees during peak. A well insulated fridge won't lose much in a few hours.

And the defrost cycle could be programmed around those times (I think they normally go every 8 hours to quickly remove a small amount of frost at a time?)

...

Probably a very small savings, but it would cost near zero - the fridges already have controllers in them. Ahhh, but an added plus would be the fridge would not be dumping out heat at this time, which also has to be removed by the A/C!

Or delay making ice during peak hours. The software implementation to have a "smart" fridge is piece of cake as the fridges all have microcontrollers, but the saving is also small, compared to CFLs and LEDs, and consciously turning lights off when not in use, taking shorter showers, etc...

 

[samclem]

but the saving is also small, compared to CFLs and LEDs, and consciously turning lights off when not in use, taking shorter showers, etc...

Doesn't matter, right? It's all about the marketing and 4 color sticker you can put on the door of the floor demo fridge. "World's first Smart Fridge! Saves you money every day by automatically detecting your patterns of use and shifting high-energy use to periods of cheapest electricty in your area."

Or, a green approach: "Saves energy every day. High energy tasks automatically get moved to times of greatest Carbon-Free energy production."

 

[NW-Bound]

Souns like a good [-]business[/-] marketing plan to me. When do we go into business?

Darn, how did we reveal all this to the public before applying for a patent?

No, on 2nd thought, I am willing to bet someone has patented this long ago.

Well, perhaps so long ago that the patent has gone expired, so anybody can do this now.

 

[NW-Bound]

... I hope you continue with the 1 or 2 degree delta though, it would be interesting to see the effect, and if you can go any further with it...

We just descended back from the high country down into the oven, and I just looked up the power usage of yesterday. It was a hot day, with a high of 114F.

Here's the hourly energy usage. It peaked up a bit in the hour before the peak rate, and was 0.6 kWh higher than the preceding hour (5.1 vs 4.5). And as the thermostat was raised back 1 degF, the power was 0.9 kWh lower than the hour afterwards (4 vs 4.9 kWh).



In terms of dollar costs, here's the chart. I saved about $0.14 a day with this precooling. Note that I only lowered the temperature 1F, then returned it back to the normal setting. I would save more by raising it 1F in the hour after the peak rate (to keep the daily average temperature the same). But if I can be comfortable with 79F, then I can raise the average setting up and save even more. So, we have to make it a goal to not going over a certain desired temperature.

By lowering, but never raising it above a desired setting, I can save money while being cooler at the same time. How about that?

 

[samclem]

Pretty neat, NW-Bound.

By lowering, but never raising it above a desired setting, I can save money while being cooler at the same time. How about that?

80 deg F still seems darn hot to me. If you can save money while pre-cooling to 79 deg, I'd sure looking in to going to 78 or 77 to save even more and be a bit more comfortable for longer. And I wonder if the reductions in the peak energy use would be greater if the setback began an hour earlier (giving time for dense materials like drywall on the interior walls, etc) to achieve a lower temp during a longer "cold soak" period.

Despite your 14 cent savings, you're actually using more power (because the heat loss through the walls is higher for a higher temp difference). The power company's variable rate structure is encouraging higher energy consumption overall (though at a time they can better handle it, I guess). I'm not sure if that was the intent. . .

 

[NW-Bound]

No, as I said the normal setting is 78F around the clock. The precool temperature is 77F. It's quite comfortable here where it is dry.

Yes, the total power usage may be a bit higher despite the $0.14 savings due to the rate structure. Yes, that's not the utility's intent. However, individuals always operate to their economics advantage, oui? That's how we take advantage of tax breaks, deductions, etc...

 

[ERD50]

Pretty neat, NW-Bound.


80 deg F still seems darn hot to me. If you can save money while pre-cooling to 79 deg, I'd sure looking in to going to 78 or 77 to save even more and be a bit more comfortable for longer. And I wonder if the reductions in the peak energy use would be greater if the setback began an hour earlier (giving time for dense materials like drywall on the interior walls, etc) to achieve a lower temp during a longer "cold soak" period.

Despite your 14 cent savings, you're actually using more power (because the heat loss through the walls is higher for a higher temp difference). The power company's variable rate structure is encouraging higher energy consumption overall (though at a time they can better handle it, I guess). I'm not sure if that was the intent. . .

I think he is using 78 as 'normal', and dropping to 77 before peak to pre-cool. Going to 79 would be the warmer setting, that he feels if he could handle part of the day why not all day?

Even not wanting to go above 78F, I'd try pre-cooling a bit more/longer to get more 'soak'. Like maybe 1 hours at 77, one hour at 76, then hit peak? Maybe even a couple hours of peak at 77 before going back to 78 so the change is slower? Still looks like we talking small $s, until he gets that thermal mass installed. "Dear, why are you stacking 1,000 jugs of water in front of the A/C vents?"

Despite your 14 cent savings, you're actually using more power (because the heat loss through the walls is higher for a higher temp difference). The power company's variable rate structure is encouraging higher energy consumption overall (though at a time they can better handle it, I guess). I'm not sure if that was the intent. .

Utilities pay a premium for peak power, so while conservation would be 'better' than shifting, even an increase in total power might be desirable. The entire infrastructure needs to handle the peaks - marginal costs skyrocket if it means more capacity.


Hmmm, but this didn't change the peak capacity required, it only lowered it for an hour or two. I guess if those prices reflect the utilities costs, they don't care? But the real good thing for the grid would be lower peak usage throughout the peak, every day.

Our utility offers an option to have your AC compressor shut off for 15 minutes out of an hour ( limited number of times a day I think). No thanks, my AC is not over-sized, and we have occasionally had a large number of guests on the hottest day of the year, and our AC really doesn't keep up with people going in/out. I don't want it shut off just when I need it most! But I guess that little bit of flexibility can help the utility manage their peak (but if the average AC is not running more than 75% duty cycle, it wouldn't seem to do much - unless they really had a 15 minute peak?). A dual stage AC probably negates this effect anyhow - the larger stage will just kick in to make up the difference?

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

The reason I could save a bit of money while enjoying a cooler temperature briefly was a side effect of the binary rate structure. It has a cliff, not unlike the income cliff in the ACA subsidy schedule.

The rate change for peak hours should be more gradual, but that makes it too complicated for the home owners to deal with. Ideally, it should be in real-time, and fluctuates with the "market rate". OK, so you will have a real-time display of the costs, so that you can look at it before dinner time and say to yourself "Well, the rate is 50c right now, so today maybe I should be microwaving a frozen dinner instead of making that beef stew".

Anyway, anytime you have some non-linearities in the system like these cliffs, you tend to have all kinds of contradictory results. Control system engineers know that non-linearities are terrible to deal with, if one tries to optimize the system.

 

[Mulligan]

No, as I said the normal setting is 78F around the clock. The precool temperature is 77F. It's quite comfortable here where it is dry.

Yes, the total power usage may be a bit higher despite the $0.14 savings due to the rate structure. Yes, that's not the utility's intent. However, individuals always operate to their economics advantage, oui? That's how we take advantage of tax breaks, deductions, etc...

Not only is 80 to warm for me, so is 78! I will economize at night by hanging the meat only in my bedroom at night and shut the house unit off. But that is as far as I go. I need 74 degrees for perfect boxers and tshirt room temp. But my peak August bill will be $130 tops on a heat wave and that equates to less than $5 a day to be comfortable. If my bill was considerably higher I imagine I would convince myself I am very comfortable at 78 though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[NW-Bound]

I have not spent much time in the east to see if 78F is tolerable there. I believe humidity has a lot to do with how one feels.

Also here, unless you stay inside the home throughout the summer, going from a cold home out into the 115-120 heat will give you thermal shock.

 

[davismills]

When I was a very young lad, I spent some winter and summer weeks on my grandfather's farm in rural NC. He was "off grid" except for lighting. We had to cut wood to heat and cook. We had no air conditioning. He had no TV, just a large radio.

Today, I have internet connectivity, my Carrier heat pump keeps my house cool in the summer and warm in winter. I have three TVs, two routers, three Rokus, two refrigerators (one for beer and one for sustenance), one oven, one convection oven, one dishwasher, one clothes washer, one clothes dryer, chargers for various cell phones and tablets and a stereo system that broadcast its pleasing sounds throughout my house.

My electric bill averages $5.50 per day year round. I thank God every day that I don't have to chop wood anymore. I had to give up Starbucks coffee to make this huge expense tolerable.

 

[Mulligan]

I have not spent much time in the east to see if 78F is tolerable there. I believe humidity has a lot to do with how one feels.

Also here, unless you stay inside the home throughout the summer, going from a cold home out into the 115-120 heat will give you thermal shock.

That is true. When I am out in Vegas the 95 degrees there does not feel like the 95 in MO. When I am outside I don't mind being hot and sweaty as long as I am active even in very hot conditions. But when its sitting time, I like to do it in a cool house. I wonder if age has anything to do with it too? I have noticed the past few years that it can get too cool inside for me and I have no use for 68 degrees inside unless I am sleeping under covers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ERD50]

I have not spent much time in the east to see if 78F is tolerable there. I believe humidity has a lot to do with how one feels. ...

Humidity has a lot to do with it. But our AC is not over-sized, and that is important here, as by running a higher duty cycle when you need it, it is pulling more humidity from the air. I guess RH at 70-80% is typical on hot summer days when we run the AC?

I tend to go by comfort rather than be a slave to a number on the thermostat. But in general, I'd say that when the AC is on, we are at typically at ~ 77-78. The humidity comes down pretty quick (but still might be ~ 50, IIRC), and the air movement feels good. We sleep with a ceiling fan on. Anything cooler than ~ 76 would probably seem uncomfortably cold to me. But we will get it down to 72 if we are having a group over on a hot day, to pre-chill the house.

I can't understand why some people set the AC colder in the summer than they do the heat in the winter. Add to that that we are wearing shorts and a t-shirt in summer, and long sleeves and layers in the winter.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

My highest electric bill was $335 last August, for 2626 kWh that month. My last 12-month utility cost is $2085 (no gas). This was for a 2,700-sq.ft. home.

Up in my high-country home, I set the thermostat at 45F year round, except that when I was up there recently I had to turn on the AC as it reached 93F. My wife complained about being cold at 80F!

I do like the cold better than the heat. Even in the winter, I sleep in shorts and t-shirt, rarely under the cover, and have a table fan blowing over me. This drives my wife crazy, as she complains about freezing.

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Update.
DW reports that the new power bill is $64. The small bill was an anomaly.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[samclem]

Update.
DW reports that the new power bill is $64. The small bill was an anomaly.

I don't think you'll ever be able to discern the incandescent--> CFL savings in your power bill, there are just too many other factors that make the monthly use erratic. But you know the savings are there if you are using the lights.
It's even more problematic with big expenses that have squishier "watts saved" calculations. Increased attic insulation and radiant barriers save on cooling costs, but it's hard to say how much when looking at actual bills (due to degree-days, thermostat settings, etc). I tend to trust the research/calculators I used before I make the investment, rather than trying to look at ongoing energy use and see the difference.

 

[ERD50]

Update.
DW reports that the new power bill is $64. The small bill was an anomaly.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!!

Way back from post # 5....

Can you really attribute the $50/month reduction to lighting?

Yes, LEDs and CFLs are more efficient, but that's a lot of light... spreadsheet time...

OK, so for the approx delta of a 60W bulb versus 14W CFL, to make up $50 at roughly the national average of $0.11 per kWh, you would need to replace...

Forty-one 60W bulbs that were burning 8 hours a day all month!

That's a lot of light! Maybe your rates are higher, but even at triple, that's 14 bulbs @ 8 hrs a day.

Anything else to attribute the change to? Maybe estimated reads? Maybe a billing plan?

-ERD50

-ERD50

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

We replaced a lot of little halogen and old fashioned incandescent lamps with LEDs.

I'll bet the longer days had an effect as well.

At our northern latitude we do like a lot of light.

As the bills roll in we will see if there is a real long term effect.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[W2R]

Yes, surely having the lights on more would have a greater effect than the type of bulb one uses.