Insulate your home properly, set it to a constant, comfortable temperature, and you're done.
Really? You're going to save more money by heating your house to a comfortable temperature all day while away you're at work, or at night while under the covers? That's arrant nonsense.
On the other hand it's worth noting that projected energy savings in are usually referenced against a plain non-programmable t'stat used in just the way fyngyrz (pardon me if I'm pronouncing that wrongly...) describes. I very much doubt that a single Nest will show more than modest savings over a conventional programmable that's set up appropriately, unless your schedule is so variable that a conventional t'stat simply can't be programmed for it. Where the Nest would always be good is in a house with zoned climate control, but unfortunately that's not all that common.
Sure I could do it but most home owners would not attempt it.
It just seems like a hard sell to me from the perspective of a mass market consumer item.
Not saying it is ineffective just that people resist change. Solar power makes a lot of sense too but for some reason people just don't want it.
True enough. I would put solar panels on in a heartbeat... IF I planned to stay in my home more than I have historically.
When we were looking for a home in Central Florida in 2005 (so when people were getting insane amounts for their house), we looked at a house that had panels, enough to run the house and the pool. He wanted to recoup some of what he spent - and was $80K more than a similar house without it.
The realtor said, even then, that Solar isn't something that gets you more for your house. It might swing people to your house (or, again, with solar, against as you say, people fear change), but will not add value. Sadly.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz
Insulate your home properly, set it to a constant, comfortable temperature, and you're done.
Really? You're going to save more money by heating your house to a comfortable temperature all day while away you're at work, or at night while under the covers? That's arrant nonsense.
On the other hand it's worth noting that projected energy savings in are usually referenced against a plain non-programmable t'stat used in just the way fyngyrz (pardon me if I'm pronouncing that wrongly...) describes. I very much doubt that a single Nest will show more than modest savings over a conventional programmable that's set up appropriately, unless your schedule is so variable that a conventional t'stat simply can't be programmed for it. Where the Nest would always be good is in a house with zoned climate control, but unfortunately that's not all that common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Sure I could do it but most home owners would not attempt it.
It just seems like a hard sell to me from the perspective of a mass market consumer item.
Not saying it is ineffective just that people resist change. Solar power makes a lot of sense too but for some reason people just don't want it.
True enough. I would put solar panels on in a heartbeat... IF I planned to stay in my home more than I have historically.
When we were looking for a home in Central Florida in 2005 (so when people were getting insane amounts for their house), we looked at a house that had panels, enough to run the house and the pool. He wanted to recoup some of what he spent - and was $80K more than a similar house without it.
The realtor said, even then, that Solar isn't something that gets you more for your house. It might swing people to your house (or, again, with solar, against as you say, people fear change), but will not add value. Sadly.
get Lifx instead of Hue, no hub required for about the same price. They should be out with in the next two months
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonevw
get Lifx instead of Hue, no hub required for about the same price. They should be out with in the next two months
Every Lifx bulb has the hub electronics built in.