Mandated Thermostat Settings
The majority believes that limiting CO2 emisions is critical. People will rarely make personal sacrifices regardless of their beliefs. Manadatory indoor thermostat settings is quite feasible to implement through modern communications. I believe the time is soon coming when we will no longer be in control of our indoor environments.
What temperatures SHOULD be the limits for heating/cooling?
I say 70 winter, 80 summer.
A La Carte Government funding… the real democracy.
Replies
Trolls should confine themselves to the Tavern.
Why does this question define me as a "Troll"?A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
> Why does this question define me as a "Troll"?You saying this isn't a troll?> The majority believes that limiting CO2 emisions is critical. People will rarely make personal sacrifices regardless of their beliefs.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
I think I will just throw another log on the fire in the winter and grab another glass of limonade in the summer.
I don't need anyone dictating how warm or cold my house should be!
ML
The chimney police are gonna get you!
http://www.topix.com/forum/law/environmental/TMCJ791JB1BSSJ3M6 Mike
Small wheel turn by the fire and rod, big wheel turn by the grace of god.
In Britain."Town halls are photographing houses in the middle of the night to see whether they are wasting energy.The thermal images, which show heat escaping though windows, doors and roofs, will be sent to homeowners to encourage them to insulate.Tens of thousands of properties have been photographed over the past few months and there are plans to extend the scheme to every house in the country.The images show warmer temperatures as whites, reds, yellows and oranges, and cooler temperatures as greens and blues.So in the pictures above, the house with the mainly green walls is well insulated, only losing a little heat through the top of the garage door and upstairs windows. The other property is radiating heat through the walls.The company behind the taxpayer-funded Heatseekers scheme denies the photographs are an intrusion into privacy.But the project will inevitably raise concerns about the rise of the Big Brother state.At least 25 councils have signed deals with Heatseekers. This week, the vans were touring Salford in the evening taking around 1,000 images an hour.A spokesman for Salford City Council said: ‘We hope people don’t see it like Big Brother is watching you – it’s about helping people cut their energy bills and save money.'Depending on their age, address and circumstances people may qualify for free or grant-aided insulation.’"http://tinyurl.com/cnkjus
.
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
If they do that to my house my bedroom is gonna be white hot and I don't even use the heater. Mike
Small wheel turn by the fire and rod, big wheel turn by the grace of god.
Yep need to replace my chimney too, the city will probably want me to install a gas fireplace, but theres no cost savings in using gas when I can heat with wood.ML
I call them truths that, along with the last statement, lead me to the conclusion that government management of indoor air temperatures is likely.
I truly want to know the temperatures to which I'll need to acclimate.
This is as good a place as any to get educated on the subject.
A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Don't you think that it's more likely that certain efficiency standards will be mandated -- a process that's been on-going for 30-40 years?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
Of course it's more likely. It's been happening for decades in all facets of fuel consumption and will continue.
I still deduce that we will soon see mandated temperature control. It may be disguised early on as a "voluntary" pricing structure that guarantees a fixed "discount" vs those on the very much more expensive (read higher rates) regular prices. In the end, we will give up our liberty (and comfort) for the lower cost.
I still say 70 and 80... but I rarely get hot.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Here's a novel idea.. Why don't we all pay for the energy we use, don't pay for what we don't use, and mind our own freakin' business!
Gentle comrade! You need to get your mind right for the good of the Party! Please give your address, and one of our counselors will pick you up at 3am and escort you to a state sponsored education camp!Baseboard been VERRRY good to me
because everyone who can afford to do this, raise the price for everyone who can't.Of course, you are free to be a jerk, but it's not like your actions don't have an impact outside of your little world you know.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
I should probably clarify that I am not advocating for governmental control over thermostats. But I am certainly saying that a model more sophisticated than "pay for what you use" is needed in the modern age.Tiered pricing, at the very least, to progressively discourage heavy usage would be a minimum step IMHO.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Pay for use would be great, if it covered the whole life cycle of a product.
Tu stultus esRebuilding my home in Cypress, CAAlso a CRX fanatic!
Look, just send me to my drawer. This whole talking-to-you thing is like double punishment.
Nobody knows better than me how much energy I need to use, how important it is that I use it, and how I can or can't afford it. Especially you. If that makes me a jerk, than fine, I'm a jerk.
You say that some people can't afford all the energy they need at a certain price because others are using "too much." I have no doubt that's true but rationing and price controls are not the answer and will not solve the problem. A quick look at the history of price controls on oil during the Nixon/Carter era should convince you of that, or a good economics text.
If there is a cost to the environment or society for my energy use that is not charged to me, then the government should charge it to me by taxing each unit of energy. And they should apply that tax equally to every consumer of energy. If you have pricing tiers and rations then big business will save money through politics and lobbying rather than through actual energy savings, while you and I pay retail.
I'd say go read up on the Tenessee Valley Authority before you start saying me and my thermostat are out of line.
Supply and demand finds the sweet spot for the particular supply and demand curve: that does not mean it makes supply adequately available to people who need it, only that others, who can afford more, get enough to keep demand up.More to the point, as an example: high oil prices is a pain for americans, but we can generally handle it. However, it raises the cost of food. Well hey, by and large, we americans can still handle it. But that causes a crises in countries were most people cannot.and so an inconvenience to use is a crisis elsewhere, thank you, laws of supply and demand.So sorry, I don't think "use whatever you can afford" is a morally defensible argument. You have valid points about corruption, lobbyists, or what have you, but that does not mean the libertarian ideal is any more moral or workable as a result. Just that it has excuses as to why we shouldn't try.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
My little 1600 sq ft cape and the 4000 sq ft McMansion on the hill both have their thermostats set to 70 by fiat. Guess who gets to use a whole lot more energy?
You cannot control the price of energy by setting political limits on demand, especially when you have no control over the supply nor the demand from others outside your political control. If China and India are willing to pay 0.01 more than your US limit, guess where all the energy goes?
It's funny how my valid points and all don't prompt you to debate them as they come, nor do they prevent you from calling me a jerk first, and now immoral too. I think that says more about you than about me.
I noted I am not a proponent of government mandated thermostat settings (though to be fair, I did it in a second post that you might not have read). I also didn't call you a jerk personally, I said you'd be free to be a jerk and just use whatever you like because you can afford it in light of other people's needs... even if you were aware... because that is a jerky thing to do. Are you doing that? It sounds like you are not. So I am not calling you a jerk. At any rate: I didn't pick my words there for maximum effectiveness for sure. Sorry to confuse the issue unnecessarily with such weighted language.You missed though what I'm talking about is not capping pricing. It's lowering demand. That might actually mean something like rationing at some point... such as, when driving our cars results in a food crisis. But regardless, that's just one possible situation meant to illustrate a point, not a specific issue I was trying to solve. In general, economic justification for over-consumption is not a moral stance, and especially when the issue is entirely self contained in a region controllable by our government (america, as it largely is with power transmission and generation for americans) it most certainly can exert control over the situation. If saying this is not a moral stance offends you (note, again, I noted what behaviour was immoral, not a person), I can't help you with that. That, I won't apologize for. I also won't apologize for my own hypocrisy on that, as I am consuming more than I need to for sure. I just don't pretend it's ok just because I can, and I choose to recognize there is just a bit more to it than that, and that in general, working to reduce my impact is a good thing. I chip away at it as much as I can.that is at least STRIVING for morality, which is a whole lot better than justifying it all on some basis of entitlement as so many do. Do you? I don't know. You seem to be taking all this rather personally, but frankly, I don't know nor care anything about you in particular and I'm not debating who you are at all. If that's what you're discussing, I'm going to seem pretty cold I guess. If the behaviours or actions I have called jerky or immoral apply to you, well then, debate why I'm wrong, but I don't really care if you're all upset about how I feel about those behaviours because they happen to apply (or not) to you. I live with my conflicts, I can't help you live with yours ;)-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
You want to lower demand by telling people how much they can use. You have not actually lowered demand! You have placed a political limit on the amount of demand that can be lawfully supplied. Some of the excess demand may be abandoned as not worth the trouble, while the rest will be satisfied outside the legal market.
You set limits on how much energy each person can use. Soon enough there will be someone who wants to use more. They may have a good reason, like delivering meals to shut-ins. Or they may have reason more compelling to some than to others, like driving people to the polls to vote for a particular candidate. Or they may have a selfish reason, like a heated backyard pool. Anyone with a heated backyard pool should enjoy it to the fullest, but they shouldn't be saying a thing to me about my energy usage. The point is, who's going to decide what's a worthy exemption and what isn't? Right now we can't even agree on who is allowed to "forget" to pay their taxes and who isn't.
There are always going to be people who can't afford something they need. Fixing the price to help them out will only create shortages, then rationing, then eventual government control over individual economic decisions. It's the road to serfdom. Heating fuel vouchers and food stamps are better ways to help the poor.
I understand now that it's not me who's a jerk, just someone like me, and it's not me that's immoral, just my ideas. I feel better, thanks.
rationing is an admittedly extreme and rare circumstance. I do think simply tiered pricing solves nearly all the problems very neatly: as you use more and more, you pay more and more, so you discourage demand over basic levels. It doesn't remove the ENTIRE issue as there are always people who can afford the new levels who will just because they can, but it's a lot better than bulk rate pricing which facilitates large scale usage.I don't think we can hope to achieve any kind of perfection, but it's a big step to fight the basic assumption that just because you can, you should. fighting that, by itself, with no other changes at least changes personal behaviour outside of legislation. Right? And if it doesn't, yes you are a jerk. Yes, you are immoral. And you are saying it is ok to be that way? Really?Well, then we disagree. You jerk ;)-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
I don't know who said just becasue you can you should, but it wasn't me.
I said the only one you should have to justify the cost to is yourself. It sounds nice to say that we can't have anything we want until everyone has what they need, but try running the country that way and see what happens.
As you set your pricing tiers and eliminate bulk rates understand that you will be deciding if it is profitable to manufacture aluminum or steel in the US or not, or make chemicals. You will be deciding if cars can continue to be built in the south. Have fun.
Yes, I understand there are limits to what tiered pricing can do and it can't be an infinite progression, but then, your arguement there applies to environmental regulation of any kind. We can't insist on scrubbing dioxin emissions, it's just too expensive! OSHA? hah!But I'm sorry, I don't think we should manufacturer to the same standard china is, just because they are willing to choke on their own smog for awhile just like we used to. I don't like choking on their smog from here, actually.we SHOULD, therefor, insist on such standards being used on items that wish to be sold here. ah, that's "anti free trade" of me, I know, but I don't have any problem with that at all. If an exporting country will not comply, tariffs baby, lots of them. We can't have standards and completely globalized free movement of capital at the same time or exactly as you say occurs... as we have seen, I believe. And in fact, as anyone interested in us preserving our standards saw coming years ago with NAFTA and its ilk; but "free marketeering" won out.well, it's good that I don't go off on to tangents. Point is: it's not about the individual just doing whatever he/she pleases with no regard for the big picture, and just "paying for what you use" and whistling a happy tune doesn't quite cut it.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Yes, I understand that you have no problem at all taking away people's freedom of choice. Sounds like you got it all figured out. Good luck with that.
Your PC antennae are particularly finely tuned. Are you a program editor for NPR?
Will you be happy when O-Bam institutes our own American version of the Stazi and we all think and act like you? I'm thinking that "The Lives of Others," might be about me. OMG!
Life will be great, won't it, when all our tones are mellow like those of Scott Simon, and all our utterances are like those of Renee Montagne. Think of all the time you'll have on your hands, not having to fire back at all the cretins on Breaktime. Time to do stuff like sort our your carbon credits.
Knock knock. Vee haf orders to check your temperature, and your zhermostat settings! Stand aside!
View Image
"A stripe is just as real as a dadgummed flower."
Gene Davis 1920-1985
Like I said: Troll.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
We have the "Peaksaver" program here that will allow the utility company to remotely access a thermostat and increase the temperature setting during heat waves.
They'll supply the free programable thermostat if you volunteer to join the pilot project.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2006/09/20/hydro-thermostat-peaksaver.html
Edited 1/29/2009 1:37 pm ET by Chucky
We have the same program for water heaters and it is pretty much "invisible". I doubt the level of success for the program will amount to much lower emmissions from the coal-fired power plants. Mandatory is the only way to force the consumer to use less electricity.
A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Your out of your flipping mind, more Gov. control should never be the efficient or effective answer. Besides I already keep my thermostat at 65 at night in the winter and 55-60 during the day, mind you this is in mid-Michigan with a current heat wave of 22, I see your from Tennessee. Maybe I should receive a carbon emission credit. On top of that most visitors in my home complain about that setting and I have to keep the drinks flowing to warm them up. <!----><!----><!---->
Besides how do you or rather do you even want to open Pandora's box and begin to write the regs for things like; I know my thermo runs high because it sits on the wall behind a HD projection TV, or are you going to limit those using wood,corn,trash,and used oil burners? What about those with geo-thermal, or say you're grandpa is visiting up from <!----><!----><!---->Texas<!----><!---->, sorry about your arthritis gramps but the feds say... Than people just start adding inefficient space heaters to supplement defeating the intent. <!----><!---->
In addition to all that is the controversy I've never seen a definitive answer too, is whether it's more effective to turn down the heat and the energy it takes on return occupancy to bring that space back up to temp. Which is going to basically be based on a formula including at least insulation, thermal transfer and retention of materials i.e.. plaster vs. drywall/metal framing/concrete/block/etc..., length of time low or high temp settings are going to be, dwelling air changes from drafts, size of furnace to sq. ft., type of air filters used, efficiency rating of the furnace it's self, if there's a (de)-humidifier and on and on.<!----><!---->
Looked at the 45 page 1040EZ tax form instructions lately? Key point being 45 page so called EASY version, ya that's the same efficiency your suggesting to mandate efficiency
The real answer is to turn all this record snow that won't stop into power, I'm sure some how ofcourse caused by global warming.
and to answer your question, 70F (21C) seems adequate for winter. For summer, 80F (27C) seems high.
On moderate days (82F/28C) , i keep it at 73F (23C). On really hot days (90F/32C and above), the A/C is off during the day and at 77F/25C during the night.
Big Brother can get lost, If I want to be hot its up to me, I want to be cold its up to me.
I get charged for every scrap of "power" I use.
We have enough limits on things! Only drive this fast, only park that long, watch the volume, wear a helmet, don't smoke here, no drinking, that lights to bright, pay this much tax, pay this fee etc,.
This is being talked about here in Tulsa. My home has a meter that measures multiple uses relative to time of day. This was something I agreed to, 100 were offered, as a study. The idea at first seemed interesting.
But what I am learning is that while this may become voluntary when it starts and while those that agree may get a slightly reduced rate for participating, those that don't will pay a substantially higher rate.
Eventually this increased rate will pressure all to agree.
We set our therm. at 68 winter and 78 summer anyway.
Just A Guy With A Hammer
That's how they do it!
Price you out of your choice.
Ever work in a seniors home? As a general rule, the older you get, the warmer you need the room to be. 75 tends to be a comfortable temp.
Most likely they are looking at going to time of day metering.Then is upto the user to change their usage patterns and/or equipment to make sure of best rates.For exampe. In some areas they have 2 cents/kWh during the deep off hours.And one option is to use electric storage heaters. Large mass that is heated up at night and then fans blow air through them during the day.Less easy to control AC like that. But you could run the temp down mid day and up during the peak rates which are probably around 3 to 8 pm..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
And I might put this large mass for thermo storage where? Front yard?
Granted I've seen them for commercial use also have seen lots of problems with thus far like the chemical filled balls in the units freezing and breaking or power outages at night leaving the system under charged for the day and under-designed supplemental systems to supply during the day for in the event of such instances that then burn up/fail because the intial power failure not charging the overnight storage. Other problem is the weather in Mich. is so erratic it might often be warmer at night than the day either winter or summer and you lose in those very common 30-50 degree temp. swings that we have here your opportunity to be charging at a lower rate.
But for residential, ya where is this cooling tower or boulder of a hot rock suppose to go?
Everybody does this and the rates will be uniform day to night anyway.
"Everybody does this and the rates will be uniform day to night anyway."And cheaper and less pollution.Power plant are much more eff if they run constant output 24x7.I have not no need to research this, but I was under the impression that they would go in a basement and are not that large..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Lots of ways to do it . I dont like mandate although it might be necesary as ridiculas as it sounds. I dont think its got any thing tio do with comfort though. Its kinda like water shortage weve had and metering water usage and no watering on tuesday anfd thursdays.
If it was set up on usage I guess Id be in favor compared to sq ft or somthing .
The old folks are already smart on this . They are a step ahead . They sit on the porch , cool one room and shut the other ones off. Wood heat knocks the h^ll out of a gas bill or elcectric heat pump. You bathe a certain time of day and cook, wash clothes and the like . The rest of the time an electric water heater is off by timer. Warm water instead of hot , etc, and youre as comfortable as you want to be . Ceiling fans , insulation , etc goes on and on. Ive got two ceiling fans at the cabin on the back porch and thats where we sit in the hot part of the day. Comfortable in 100 degree heat.
My ex-inlaws had a 15 gal water heater for the entire house, and the burner was turned off when not in use. Showers involved wetting down, turn off valve (on shower head), soap down, rinse off. Since venting in the bathroom consisted of opening a window, it got pretty darn cold taking a shower. I'd have called it a navy shower, except the tile was this bubble-gum pink.
The majority believes that limiting CO2 emisions is critical.
Not so. Speak for yourself. A recent Pew poll shows this as waaaaaaaaaay down the list of what most people are really worried about.
People will rarely make personal sacrifices regardless of their beliefs.
True, President Obama wants you & me to conserve, but he's cranked the T-stats in the White House to orchid growing temps.
I believe the time is soon coming when we will no longer be in control of our indoor environments.
You're damn right about that, where to live, how to live, what to eat, how much water you are permitted to flush, what kind of light bulbs to use, where to smoke, yada yada yada.
Surprised one of you Lefties would notice this.
Joe H
Dont worry the Pres will hire a bunch more lefters and tax u some more so they can tell you how to heat your house! Oh but don't worry! They will have created some JOBS! so you should say thankyou when bending over!
Mandating thermostat temperatures is doomed to fail as an energy saving technique - people will buy space heaters in the winter and many homes already have window unit AC in the summer. Not sure how you would even implement it with people using propane and oil tanks. And in my house trying to hook a thermostat up to the grid would involve significant renovation.
A better solution might be to "ration" power. You get so many KW hours per household, and then you get to pay exorbitant amounts. If you really want to make it nasty, you have a second threshold that if they cross it they will have to pay the exorbitant amount on the total rather than just the amount over and above. This needs to be per household rather than based on square footage - that way small efficient households will be rewarded and big energy wasting mcMansions will be penalized. During winter I think my natural gas company already does the first - you pay more once you cross a threshold. For oil and propane this would be harder - people can just call a different company to get oil from somebody else.
Wouldnt it be more sensible (albeit much more costly) to mandate geothermal?
You could install mass geo wells in neighbor hoods then offer tax credits to those that tapped in.
Family.....They're always there when they need you.
Edited 1/29/2009 8:08 pm ET by MSA1
Isn't all of Sweeden allready like this? Not geo but piped steam. Much of our surrounding city's public state and city buildings are suplimented if not ran entirely off the GM plants before hitting the cooling towers. Well it was untill 2yrs ago when they started demo on three of the plants.
Why the tax credits? Mandate the geothermal AND temperatures. A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Tax credits because it would be a butt load of money to install.
Hey maybe Obama could add that to the stimulus package. He'd create jobs and get a big hug from Gore.
Family.....They're always there when they need you.
Your idea is much more complicated and difficult to enforce than necessary. If you want people to use less of something [electricity], just make it more expensive.
Not that I agree with that approach either...
My general philosophy has been that there is so much wasted energy being simply thrown away that we have a long ways to go in terms of conservation before we need to think about doing without (i.e. sacrificing comfort).
I don't disagree w/ you and certainly maintaining space temps outside of a 'reasonable' range is probably considered 'wasted'.
While the general population is statistically comfortable at say 70-78 degF there are and maybe should be exceptions. Ambulatory/elderly may need a higher temp year round.
There is a really good article on the subjective subject of thermal comfort that was posted in another topic. I'll try to find it and pass it on.
Personally I don't think you can mandate setpoints ... Big Brother.
Remember, we aren't really concerned with comfort. Sustainability and emissions are the "criminals" and need to be the first consideration in our actions.
If someone is uncomfortable with 70 degrees (or whatever number is chosen) in the winter, their discomfort is justified by the outcome of lowered GW.
We must, as a society, stop thinking "comfort" and realize that "survival" is the only measure of concern...
Maybe 55 winter and 89 summer will be the choices. We can only wait for the experts to tell us what we are allowed.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Yeah, just keep hackinatit.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
If "they" want to set my thermostat at 70 in the winter I'll be opening some windows. It's no more than 67 now and that's were I'm comfortable.Legal Disclaimer: The preceeding comments are for entertainment purposes only and are in no way to be construed as professional advice. The reader of these comments agrees to hold harmless the poster, EJCinc, from any and all claims that EJCinc offered professional advice, ideas, or comments to the reader that may or may not have resulted in the damage, injury, or death to the readers property or person.
Perhaps we're missing something here too before we exhaust temp. limits. My true feelings on this appear earlier in the thread, however I do understand improving what can and where a dent to the problem can be made. On the flip side where on the scale of criminals as one poster put it does thermo energy use fall? In other words, proportionally what is the largest carbon emission producing activity, ie.. transportation, manufacturing, elect. power, what ever and knock that one out.
Additionally has anyone else seen the guy making refrigerators that work on no more elect. than it takes to run a speaker and that's all it uses, sound and liquid helium? Very cool no running parts so it's silent, few parts to ever brake, the helium isn't a green house gas and is obviously safe too. little expensive right now at $10,000 but you'd also almost never have to replace a broken fridge/compressor eliminating landfill waste too. He's currently making some for the U.S. military. The simple process behind it is the sound waves compress the gas moving it from one sealed chamber to another and the exit chamber cools off like emptying an aerosol can. A bit over simplified but it works and it think the number I heard was that in large cities refrigeration accounts for like %30 of all energy this includes refrigerated trucks for food trans./store freezers/warehouse storage and building cooling may have been included in that fig. but not sure.
These sort of inovations are the answer, not the gov. telling you how to live.
Here's a copy of the comfort article. While maybe not thorough, it is still some very compelling information about comfort and the PERCEPTION of comfort.
To extend your discussion ... thinking out loud, here .... if you mandate stat setpoints ... can we mandate and control other key things ... like houses that are 'to big' or to many windows or house designs that aren't responsive to their environment (here, I'll just cover the entire west side of my house for that 'fabulous sunset view' ... it's OK, though 'cause I can afford the A-C bills ... or not and then scramble for solutions for my irrational decision).
Edited 1/30/2009 9:00 am ET by Clewless1
". can we mandate and control other key things ... like houses that are 'to big' or to many windows or house designs that aren't responsive to their environment (here, I'll just cover the entire west side of my house for that 'fabulous sunset view' ."There are already a number of energy codes that do that to a certain degree..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Not in Boulder Colorado where the "average" house size is like 5,500 sqft! OMG. How f'ng ridiculous is that!!
None of the energy codes I've worked with limit any of this. To some degree the area of the windows ... but Boulder residents solved that since typically limits on window area is based on the percentage of floor area!
I've NEVER seen or heard of limitations on other 'bad design' ... just not practical ... because design is so subjective, you can't really codify things that are subjective, aesthetic, etc. Too nebulous.
Edited 1/30/2009 8:18 pm ET by Clewless1
I don't agree with your premise at all.
How ya gonna control my swamp cooler?
If you really want energy efficiency, how about allowing exactly such-and-such an amount of btu to be created by fuel per house regardless of size, but adjusted for local climate.
You want warmer? Build smaller.
Want a big box house? Tee-hee Better invest in lots of sweaters and insulation.
What temperatures SHOULD be the limits for heating/cooling?
Whatever the Design Committee says it has to be, duh! Mama ain't happy none the rest of us gonna be.
I've been running mid 60s all the winter long (but, I'm comfortable in the cooler temps, I have warm cloathing and blankets and the like). I run between 79-80 and 85 during the summer--humidity control being more the issue than temperature. But, I also run fans in almost every room to gain evaporative cooling in the dehumidified air. That, and it gets hot enough here that you don't want to get to used to needing it cold, or going outside will kill you.
We ran the AC 3 days last summer.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
ran the AC 3 days last summer
I think I managed to make it until 19 May before truning mine on, and ran until probably November; did not program heat until 6 December.
It was shirtsleeve weather here today, again. Down to all of 45 here at 2300. Forecast is for low of 33 (about 0600) then a high of 72. Cold front on Sunday night, monday to be 54/44.
Only good thing is that the RHs have been low, under 40% for the last few weeks.
Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I don't use an air conditioner in the summer. Can I use my heater more in the winter?
Our next door neighbors run their AC probably 45-60 days a summer.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
How long did you run yours by comparison? A big difference between your neighbor and the Capn may be the design of the house (intentionally or by chance). A well designed house can provide you with exactly that kind of savings. But people still insist on picking out their cookie cutter designs out of a book and slapping them down willy nilly on theiir lot and then pay the consequences through the life of their house in high energy costs.
3. Like I said earlier.Our houses were built by the same builder, are about the same size and layout, and his is a couple of years newer. In terms of sun orientation it's a tossup -- theirs gets more midday sun, ours more afternoon sun.We have a whole house fan (and a wife who's a penny-pincher).
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
Whatever the Design Committee says it has to be, duh
I lke that.
Now let me ask a question of everyone.
Who is likely to be the hardest hit victims of a tiered energy cost/usage system?
Hint; it won't be the ones that can pay the bills now.
Not sure if I understand. Assuming the high usage tiers get dinged the higher rates ... it would be the rich who exceed a minimum alotment for e.g. a residential application. Old days rewarded you w/ lower rates at the higher consumption, but that is less the case now. For a [residential] account, you should be alloted X for a low consumption and a relatively low rate for that minimum. A moderate rate for medium size houses and a HUGE rate if you insist on a mcmansion.
Why stop at limiting heating fuel and cooling electricity? In these desperate times we have to think bigger. Food takes energy to grow and ship; maybe we should set a caloric limit for each household. Clothing consumes resources too. I think we'd need a committee (or politburo?) for that one, to make rules like you can't buy pants with a hammer loop unless you're a state-sanctioned carpenter.
Very interesting thread!!
The state trying to control your carbon footprint. And this supposed "cap and trade system" all the high paid idiots talk about.
How about putting PV and wind generation on every home make jobs and to me makes sense.Why don't the mortgage folks calcualulate the cost of running the house into the overall debit ratio? Just because you can afford the principle interest and taxes, does not mean you can afford to heat and cool the said house.I think controling speed of a car/truck would do more good than ones home heating. How about mandated tuneups so your car is running at it's most efficient state! As I hear another Canadian Soldier was killed in the middle east today. It buggs the heck out of me that no mater how you cut it it is an energy war. Not for the betterment of the locals.I mainatin that if all the money spent on financing a oil war be put towards R&D to solar and wind power we would not need this after the fact control of co2.
Has anyone calculated the co output of fighting a war? Remember Quait when they set all the oil wells on fire? Better yet nationalize all the oil and power companies so profits no longer are wasted to the consumer and use the profits for developing alternative power solutions. The energy companies have no vested interest in us saving power, lip service is cheap.
These shareholders do not care about tomorrow just todays profit and loss statements.Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not law in the US, that a companies board of directors is mandated to make a profit for the Corporation. When was the last time you heard a corporation say they were not increasing prices because they wanted to be nice to the consumers? As for the free market philosophy it only really works for the top 2-3% of the population. I used to sing the right wing agenda till I realized my main competion was goverment subsidized operations, slightly disquised buy the veil of private enterprise. The only free market was having the money to donate to the political campains and I don't have enough "buy in power"As my Mommy said "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
The common misconception ... jobs and conservation. Conservation creates jobs ... big time. It's just a little different economy that has people working in some 'new' trades. These trades need the competition to raise the bar on quality of work ... IMO.
Better yet nationalize all the oil and power companies so profits no longer are wasted to the consumer and use the profits for developing alternative power solutions. The energy companies have no vested interest in us saving power, lip service is cheap.
So you are advocating socialism?
Since when has goverment ever been good a running a business efficiently? The British did that for years. They eventaully figured out that privatizing the utility industry would save eveyone money and energy.
Gee not bad only 3 posts before I got called a socialist. Well some may think so and others think I am a flaming right wing arshole. I am self employed so technically I can't be a socialist. Were I live the power and natural gas are supplied by Crown corporations in Canada there are many. But then consider, under some half brained scheme called the North American Free Trade Act. Our local utilites must charge rates at "World Rates" So even though we have lots of NG we are bound to export to the US a certian Percentage. and we can not use it for our own good at a lower rate. So the profits from this do add to support the social heathcare.But just wander out to the gas pump and look at the price of gas with the present price per barrel it should be about 60 cents a litre but it's at 89 cents. and some expert now tells me the price of refined fuel does not have a lot to do with the price of crude. well that totally opposite from the line the spun about 7 months ago. I'm not against profit but how much is fair and reasonable. I cannot pass my energy costs right to my customers I end up sucking it up. and getting damn tired of doing it.Getting back to the original thread why do we need big brother to monitor and adjust our thermostas. For the sake of green house gas. Why not ask why the goverments all over the world still keep us addicted to oil. Did we learn anything since the 1970 energy crisis?
I did I have kept abreast of building green since then. Now they are talking about a nuclear plant near near a proven money looser. Buy the way we are the biggest uranium exporter in the world. Just look at the big 3 asking for hand out and did not embrace hybrid technologies and got there butt kicked in the market place.So instead of borrowing money to fight a war to gain access to resources that are finite? Put that money into alternate energy sources on a regional basis, get away from the mega project mentality, did you forget the black out in the east a couple years, ago and rolling blackouts in California?For what it costs to have a soldier in a combat theatre for one day they could have paid for most of my house to be off grid and make no CO.!!!! So get your priority in line.Have you ever had your gas cut off because you got screwed by a contractor not paying? and you have to tell your kids no hot water? So if the free market was fair can i then pass those costs on to future customers? is that not a form of corporate socialisim?My stance is energy security. If the wind blows and the sun shines why can't I get a grant to harness these free resources? I will alter my lifestyle to account for the unreliablity in the system as I have had to under the current system. Don't forget about all the good people at Social Services ready to take your kids away if there is no heat in the house. Food/warmth why should we have to decide?
Were I live the province has made billions from oil royalties, but we still have homeless and 3rd world conditions, less that 2 miles from the seat of government!!!!Just a last note I did join the Canadian Reserves and served for 2 years in a local disasters.
When I hear my comrades die for a futile oil war I hurt, just like every soldier hurts around the world. So why can we not quit fighting and get along with life? Make love not war! But making love does make a certian amount of CO!! Oh darn another excuse for DW to make.
See life is trade offs!! No matter if you are left or right we all want are kids to grow be healthy, and get a good education. But the method to that end has yet to be figured out my man, since the first ability to stand upright.
Now, I'm not sure here, but, I'm thinking that this line of "government controlled t-stats" goes back to a news story about how some place was thinking about offering wireless stats so that owners could have remote ability to modify setbacks based on the exigencies of real life. That story then morphed into "well, if I can change the stat, then couldn't [government entity] do so too?"
But, I'm only speculating.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
We had a demos trailor in here a few months ago. It was called Smart City Grid, and was showing how to manage an areas overall energy consumption. In addition to the network management technology they were showing the remote home management concepts.
I did not get to take the tour and hear the whole concept explained, but did get a short explanation from one of the gurus as they were packing up to leave. The technology would allow utilities to set back t-stat in homes that chose to participate in the program. We currently have a program that turns off high usage appliances durring peak load times, but it is an automatic sequence installed at the appliance, and once set we have no remote control over it.
In the Smart City Grid concept the control would be remote and controled by a computer program that analyzied the net work load. For those that participate it might mean that their a/c might set back any time the total net work load went to high on thier particular circuite. Other areas could also experience set backs just to balance the loads at a substation or several substations. All kind of parameter could be programed into the operating system, including an HO work schedule and living needs, so that they would be able to conserve and it would not have a huge negative impact on their lifestyle.
All in all it was very interesting. I think it would be very doable and sellable in areas that have high energy cost already, but for low rate areas it is going to be a slow concept to take root.
Man you covered a lot of ground there.
First I have no idea how Canadian utilities are regulated, or not. I do know that within our service arae we are only allowed a 12% profit on the service we provide. If we can sell off our grid, then it is whatever the market will bear. We are not garrentied that 12% by any means. It is just the ceiling we can shoot for.
I am not a big fan of NFTA either, but energy trading is a part of it. The fact that a resource is abuntant in your area is not reason enough for it to be cheap there. The market drives the cost with energy just like it does with almost everything in a free society. In fact goverment intervention thrue import quotas is what drove the formation of OPEC. But this topic is more a tavern issue IMO.
At one time we were owned by a Britsh energy company. IMO in bringing the "how we do it across the pond" ways here, they hurt not only the employees of this company but the community it serves. Most of the practices they set in motion were left over from when the British government owned and ran the utilities.
But in the end I will also admit that I am a bottom feeder in the utility industry, so all my observations may a little tainted by my veiw of it.
From a utility usage point of view i think you will find that the highest consumption per square foot or per occupant will be in the low income brackets. they live in the least energy efficient older homes or rentals. Even newer rental units are not built to be energy efficient, just capital efficient.
The first people to suffer from your scheme will be the most needy people in our society.
Hey ... this isn't MY scheme. I'm just contributing to the chatter.
Also ... I've done a lot of energy audits on low income housing and have found that in spite of the aged construction and lack of education of the occupants, that they use considerably less than the typical residence that is occupied by e.g. middle class. They tend to not leave lights on, do with lower/higher temp settings, etc. How you operate/occupy/use a building has as much to do with energy use as the construction, I've found out.
Personally, I think it would be tough to mandate a 'lifestyle', but energy codes have started mandating reasonable construction practices ... unfortunately, they mandate what is normally common practice and don't really 'push the envelope' (no pun intended) into 'new technology' or products. Codes generally, I think, don't/can't mandate things that aren't readily available or already in common use. I think that is the case w/ life safety and energy codes. It's the nature of codes.
I think in one of my posts, I suggested a tiered energy rate that provided a very reasonable rate for the minimum energy requirements of a household. Moderate rates for medium uses and very high rates for the large users (i.e. large houses).
I admit I have never done and energy audit on low income housing. I have worked and buildt HUD low income units as well as renovated numerous rental properties for the owners over the years. Neither of those catagories were overly concerned with how much it cost the tenent for utilities.
I also see or customer lobby fill up every month with low income people that can not pay their bill, have been cut off for none payment, or just raisinh cain because the bill was so high.Our customer service reps take more verbal abuse than most any of us could take every day, and hear some of the most outragouse stories and fabrication you could imagin.
There are a couple of agencies that furnish finacial aid for as many as they can, with the funds and grants they recieve. They even do audits and hold seminars to teach energy conservation, but even the simplist items require a change in life style or habits that most are unwilling to make. Almost 90% of our non-collectables are repeat offenders and have had some type of assitance.
Raising rates or setting limits IMO simply won't change how the low income use energy. Yes a few may change, but for the most part they will accept it as just another burden in the normal cycle of poverty.
It can clearly go either way, I think. Uneducated don't understand what they should do, but then again even they know enough basics and their lifestyle (energy wise) is often minimal. Maybe it is more about the low income that have a good sense about life and are simply low income 'because' vs. the ones that have a tendency to simply mooch off the gov't and expect a handout from everyone.
Did a lot of work w/ Housing Authorities (HA) who own their own properties ... vs. programs that provide support to independent landlords for low income. The HAs had a tendency to maintain things fairly well compared to maybe the independent landlords. Also the HA was a little more willing to invest some conservation money into their housing stock ... actually, HUD mandated it in some forms, if I recall.
The majority believe nothing of the sort. The majority of the people you hang out with may; this is bound to warp your perception.
Government controlled thermostats are nothing new. My wife works for a school district that implemented this centralized 'energy conservation program' some time ago. All of the thermostats get read at the central office, and heating/cooling is provided as decided by that office, not the people in the rooms at the schools. Well this sucked, the gals were too hot, too cold...so I suggested putting Ziplocks full of ice on the thermostats in the winter, and 'Little Hotties Toe Warmers' in the spring and summer. Fools the thermostat, fools the central office, remove and reapply as needed.
People will always find a solution, we're very frustrating for people like you, who know best.
Hack was just setting up a straw man.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
I was just trying to burn it down.
That is not government control.That is control by the building owner..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
The building owner is local government, dependent and beholden to the State and the Feds. It's the government.
No any building owner can do that.IT is the building owner trying to control energy cost. Not because of a government law.BTW those systems are often installed, at no cost, by private companies for a percent of the energy savings..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Point is, it's easily overridden. As I explained. Which makes central control BS.
Easily overriden ... if you want to put your job on the line, I suppose. If the system is working reasonably, there would be no need for overriding such a system. A DDC control system isn't much different than a lockbox on a thermostat in terms of your illustration. If the administration is smart, they will have a system of taking complaints and then making adjustments as appropriate. If the occupants insist on wearing light clothing in the winter and then expect comfort ... I say forget them. If they have legitimate complaints, then it is often a sign of system problems. If the space temp is in fact between e.g. 70-76, then they shouldn't have anything to complain about.
"If the occupants insist on wearing light clothing in the winter and then expect comfort ... I say forget them."I assume that you have let Obama, who keeps the oval office hot enough to raise orchids and works in his shirt sleeves, know you feelings on the subject.http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/.
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Dang right I did. ;)
Got to walk the walk when you talk the talk.
I might have a change of heart on this matter after battling the old lady last night about the first option to be warm is not the thermostat but a sweat shirt. "I don't wanna have to wear a sweat shirt all the time, yada yada" I put a lock box on the termo and I'll be outside, but if I don't have control over it than I'm not to blame or argue with. Think they'd lock it for 55?
I do what my wife wants. Problem solved.
Nice try. But no soup for you.
According to my MIL, the top winter temp shall be 66 in the day, 62 at night.
She apparently likes wearing sweat shirts and turtle necks every day.
But let me ask you this - if you could save $100 to $200 per month by letting my MIL, the bureaucrat at the dial, set the temp, wouldn't you?
Tu stultus es
Rebuilding my home in Cypress, CA
Also a CRX fanatic!
Look, just send me to my drawer. This whole talking-to-you thing is like double punishment.
If I could save $100-200 a month by turning down the thermostat I'd look for a better-insulated house.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
Yeah ... and one small enough where the MIL wouldn't fit! I could probably turn up the stat and still save $100-200 a month (at least in food).
Edited 2/11/2009 7:53 am ET by Clewless1
Not if it was my house and I was cold. A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.