Yes, but ... there is more to heat than the air for the temp in a room to be relatively stable. (Which is why I used "stay warm".) Setting the thermostat higher than the target temperature does expedite the process.
Ann wrote: ...
How, precisely, in the absence of the higher input rate previous poster mentioned do you propose this piece of magic happens???
--
Duration of input.
??? Longer on at constant input --> higher input, certainly, but that comes at essentially higher setpoint. Has nothing whatsoever to do w/ the rate of recover (or loss).
From a given starting temperature, at 'cold soak' the rate of transfer from the heated air to the structure is identical at a given temperature irregardless of the thermostat setting as long as it is above the setpoint (again, w/o a source of 'aux' heat). The heat transfer rate from the air to the structure is simply a function of the temperature differential and the operational characteristics of the heat source are no different.
You can turn it on in the morning after the setback at 72F or 90F and the recovery is identical (again, w/o a source of 'aux' heat). Anything else is simply perception.
YES, do tell how this works.
sthen you go PAST the 'target' temp.
s
Frequency? No. The frequency of all utilities is controlled to the national time standard and is essentially atomic clock accurate over the long term. This is necessary for utility intertie and power wheeling.
Voltage higher? Simple. Many causes. Your distribution spur could have been overloaded and in the process of storm damage rebuilding, that overload was remedied. Ther is now less voltage drop from the substation to you and thus your voltage is higher. They could have upgraded the substation transformer feeding your spur. The voltage regulator (looks like a transformer but normally with only two power cables attached) could have clicked to another tap automatically, have been reset manually to boost voltage or have had its control box calibrated. The storm could have caused the power transmission company to re-route power around other storm damage which resulted in slightly higher voltage.
Without hard data, you'll be ignored or patted on the head and told to go away. If you want any attention from the utility then you'll have hard data at hand. Reading your meter every day for awhile and comparing it to your calculated "before storm" daily value would be one form of hard data.
Let's analyze the situation as I understand it.
You and a few neighbors live on a dead end primary (term refers to the high voltage distribution coming to your transformer) spur. Your power was cut by the storm and was off several days. Based on mostly anecdotal evidence, you all claim to have higher bills. You have asked neighbors who did not lose power and their anecdotal responses were that their bills didn't go up. Presuming I got all that correct, let's see what all you power losers :-) have in common.
You stated that you're on separate transformers so you don't have that in common. You ARE on the same primary spur. You all obviously have separate meters. You probably DO have the same meter reader. And you obviously have the same utility company. You all suffered the same storm and were without power for the same time period.
To restate the commonalities,
primary spur meter reader utility company same storm outage same storm.
Not a lot in common.
Being on the same primary spur leads me to consider higher voltage after the power restoration. Since you have no measurements, no way to know. A good clue would be if your voltage NOW is higher than 120.
That leaves the meter reader, the company and the storm itself.
It is vanishingly unlikely that the meter reader made near-identical reading mistakes on all your meters. It is also unlikely that the meters were even read at all. A power outage that long tells me the utility was assholes'n'elbows during the recovery. The meter readers, unless they are contractors, were likely working on the recovery as ground and support crew. That's the way it works with my client utilities.
That leaves the company itself and the storm. Specifically for the company, a probability of an estimated meter reading even if they don't normally do estimating. Arguing against that is that your non-power-loss neighbors say their bills were only a little higher.
That pretty much leaves the storm itself and post-storm activities. We're back to the storm recovery usage that you're fighting so hard not to acknowledge.
An estimated reading error and storm recovery usage are mutually exclusive. If the reading was estimated then they could not know to bill for any storm recovery usage. If the extra usage IS from storm recovery activity then they had to have read the meter.
In my mind it boils down to two potential but mutually exclusive causes, militated by the possibility of high voltage being a contributory factor. These are the only two possibilities that could roughly equally affect the power losers but not affect others.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet on an estimated reading. I'm intentionally discounting what your non-power-losing neighbors said since memory for such things is notoriously inaccurate. Perhaps even an estimated reading that was boosted to match the storm-induced extra consumption seen across the system. IOW, if the system demand went up 10% because of the storm then perhaps they boosted your estimated reading 10%. In any case, it'll all equal out upon the next reading.
The utility is in a no-win situation forced on them by customer ignorance and "consumerism" (that putrid combination of entitlement and something for nothing.) On one hand if they estimate low then the "consumer" is going to deluge them with calls complaining about the subsequent "high" bill the next time the meter is read. if they factor the estimation up based on system demand in an attempt to make the estimate more nearly reflect reality then they get deluged with calls from customers like you complaining about a "too high" bill.
I'm getting the feeling that you're not going to be satisfied in this thread until someone tells you "Yeah, those dirty bastards are stealing STEALING from you."
Here's what I suggest you do. Don't bother the utility until you get your next month's bill. THEN do your math. If everything approximately evens out, you're done. If you're not satisfied, first thing to do is call the utility and talk to someone more senior than the receptionist and find out for sure whether they estimate or not, and whether the bill you just got was estimated.
In the meantime you can busy yourself by reading your meter daily. Maybe even keep a diary of what electrical-related activities goes on in your house each day. Number of loads of laundry, amount of cooking, etc.
Here's what will happen if you make a big enough stink. The utility will come out and pull your meter, replacing it with a new one. Your old meter will be sent to the meter shop for a calibration determination. In the very very very unlikely event the meter is in error then your bill will be corrected. From experience with meter shops, I can say that the occurrence of this is so rare that it usually generates a little chatter among the techs.
The overwhelming likelihood is that the meter will be in calibration. At that point you'll get a call or perhaps just a form letter stating that your meter was checked and was in calibration and therefore your bill stands. This is all that they're legally and IMO, morally obligated to do.
John
-- John De Armond See my website for my current email address
Correct. I didn't say it was the most efficient way to do it.
I'd find out if your usage was under estimated in the prior month, or over estimated in the current month before I'd expend any effort on other hypotheses.
Boden
Great post.
I have not been able to get a Google hit on a good explanation of "storm recovery usage." Maybe you could enlighten me.
One example of how your usage can go up after a storm would be backed up dirty clothes. Another would be to have to reheat your house and hot water. < I guess you do need to heat hot water. :)
I can't see how any of this would cause your monthly bill to be any larger.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Overshoot a bit and then let the system relax. You might reach a stable point quicker that way than approaching it asymptotically from below, which is what he said.
Google "critically damped."
It wouldn't, but if you divide by only the days the power was on, the average usage would increase.
There are, indeed, a couple of cases where "recovery" will cause an increase in electrical cost.
a: if you've got an electrical heat pump that keeps your place warm, it usually runs as a "reverse air conditioner" and is reasonably efficient.
However, many also have a straight "resistance heater" strip in them that gets called on for extreme conditions.
This costs a _lot_ more per BTU, so you generally don't want it to kick in.
(most, not all, thermostats have a "lock out the strips" button on them so they won't come on unless you really, really, want them).
After a day or two of no heat, your home might be down to 40 degrees, so when power comes back the heat pump assembly _will_ turn on the strips.
b: if you're a larger customer (business, etc.) you're generally paying a "peak usage charge" that gets pegged at the highest demand you pull - even if it's only for an hour one afternoon.
So if you've been powerless fo a day, all the refrigerators will kick on at the same time, and all the air compressors and pumps and lights and everything else... will _all_ turn on for the first couple of hours after power is restored.
(Generally these things cycle a bit so they _won't_ all be on. There is, in fact, a pretty well developed science of "load management" to spread them out. For example, if you've got a car garage, you might lock out that 25 kw air compressor from 3 pm to 4 pm and instead let the air tank drop pressure a bit).
There are several more power losers than the 4. I just mentioned the 4 on this line when questioning the one line vs. 2 line scenario. Folks on completely separate lines are complaining of higher bills also.
All measurements since have been ~ 120.
Meter readers are contract, usually retired farmers that drive around and wife gets out to read while farmer pats the dog on the head. I would suspect that the reader is the same as all I've spoken to are in the same township. But identical mistakes?? Doubt it. I can question the REC about other reader's districts.
If all were estimated at previous years levels this would make sense, excepting the fact that when I read the meter it was still in line with average daily usage based on 6 years data. The November bill was higher than average which negates the estimate theory , I think.
"I'm so confused!"
If there was higher voltage, it's gone now.
That's not quite so. If I can come away from this discussion or a discussion with the REC understanding how with 20% fewer days usage, the total kwh went up by 5% over the 6 year average, I'll be tickled. If they estimated: OK, I'll accept that It will all come out next bill. If higher voltage 'spun' the meter, OK, just tell me. I just feel I need to know. As I said before, I may be thick as a brick when it comes to electricity, but I'm fairly methodical and can see through a wall if given enough time. I appreciate those who are continuing to put up with my plebeian thought process on this.
Now, where's that next windmill, Pancho?
I've been reading the meter nearly daily since I got the bill. Usage is in line with 6 year data averages. (21 kwh/day)>
Yeahbut, it's not just me and my meter.
Thanks, john
Steve
Well i thought the original conversation was about saving energy. So if you're not concerned with efficiency, then why not just leave it turned up to begin with?
s
My post was about "recovery" and the furnace was turned off, not down. My intended point was that people sometimes don't warm a cold house up in the most fuel efficient way ... and end up "giving back" some of their savings. (No, I don't think this explains Steve's situation because of the length of the outage and the fact that he kept most of his house warm with the wood stove.)
I don't think that's what she said. If you want the temp to be 70, then set the t-stat to 80. It will cycle once or twice, then set it to 70. This is from a "cold" start where the temp is way below the setting. It takes time to bring the furnishings, &c up to temp, so having the t-stat set at
80 helps with this. Yes?[snip]
No. A thermostat is an on-off switch. As long as the room temperature is lower than the thermostat's setpoint, it's on. When the room temperature reaches the setpoint, it turns off. That's all.
I've found that it does help, even if it shouldn't. At least I've seen this with a particular gas furnace. When expected to raise the temperature 20 degrees of so, the furnace would cut off well before reaching the set temperature.
Again, unless there are different heating rates available dependent on the difference between measured and setpoint, it's thermodynamically impossible. If it turned off, it simply either reached the demand point _at the location of the thermostat_ or there was/is another interlock on the system coming into play.
The thermostat turns the unit on; it runs until demand is satisfied. Heat input is fixed while the unit is on; off when it isn't. Loss to fixtures, etc., is dependent on the surface temperature differential and the local heat transfer characteristics and has nothing whatsoever to do w/ the setpoint.
It is true that if one overshoots an end temperature significantly (say
80F instead of 70F) and lets that reach an equilibrium there will be more retained heat in fixtures, etc., than there is at 70F which, some of which will gradually be re-radiated and convected back into the room, but the overall heat input required will be greater than if simply set to the desired end setpoint.The only way the setpoint matters on rate is if there is a variable input source that is dependent on the temperature differential between setpoint and actual.
--
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.