Testing smarter control and feedback with users: Time, temperature and space in household heating preferences and practices in a Living Laboratory

Abstract

Testing smarter control and feedback with users: time, temperature and space in household heating preferences and practices in a Living Laboratory. Global Environmental Change, 65. a102185.

Building performance evaluation of low-energy dwellings with and without smart thermostats

“…The most notable difference was more upper quartile and outlier temperatures in the ZP dwellings which indicate regular use of on-demand heating when desired, potentially leading to more energy use. Borrowing from Sovacool et al 28 defined heating behaviours and the monitoring results discussed in the section before, the following findings emerge:…”

“…The most notable difference was more upper quartile and outlier temperatures in the ZP dwellings which indicate regular use of on-demand heating when desired, potentially leading to more energy use. Borrowing from Sovacool et al 28 defined heating behaviours and the monitoring results discussed in the section before, the following findings emerge:• ZP1 is considered to be an ‘On-off Switcher’ or ‘Steady and Savvy’ as they varied their set point the least and were able to maintain a household range between 18 and 20°C.• ZP2 is considered either an ‘On-demand Sizzler’ or a ‘Toasty Cruiser’, maintaining set points mostly between 22–24°C with household temperatures around 22–23°C• ZP3 is considered to be a ‘Cool Conserver’ never heating above 20°C; however, it is not known whether their motivation was due to concern for energy costs.• NZP1 and NZP3 are considered ‘Steady and Savvy’ as they generally maintain temperatures between 18–20°C in the living rooms; however, their bedroom temperature changes may qualify as a different category; generally cooler preferences in NZP3.• NZP2 is considered an ‘On-demand Sizzler’ with a tight temperature range around 23°C though it appears they prefer to sleep much cooler than they keep their living room.…”

“…On studying thermostat behaviours, heating set points, length of time heated and periods of time heated are found to vary widely, 28 smart thermostats, through greater control, tend to allow these differences to diverge even more. A smart thermostat trial in 100 smart homes throughout England identified six distinct heating behaviours 28 :1. ‘Cool Conservers’ never heat above 20°C and actively focus on keeping cooler temperatures to reduce bills;2.…”

“…The outcome of the heating behaviour study emphasised with a high degree of confirmation that people care deeply about being warm and comfortable and less so with minimising cost; however, use of heat is highly diverse. 28 With respect to taking advantage of smart controls, two studies found smart thermostat overrides to be infrequent and for short durations. 26,29 Though overrides generally were used to maintain comfortable temperatures outside of schedules or to less energy-efficient set points, the short duration of the overrides resulted in minimal energy increase.…”

My smart home: an auto-ethnography of learning to live with smart technologies

“…However, studies concluded that it took time and effort to configure the SHT, and, because of this, some participants deliberately used the simple features of the smart systems only [ 16 ]. A living-lab longitudinal study of a large number of households ( n = 100) with smart heat control found that preferences for temperature settings, energy savings, and time spent on controlling the technology varied [ 17 ]. Learning processes were discussed in relation to householders’ knowledge, or lack of knowledge, about how much energy or money could be saved from heating less.…”