Author Topic: Overheard at Work  (Read 8763619 times)

Freedomin5

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1245
  • Location: China
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18350 on: August 28, 2017, 06:20:29 AM »
... I mentioned that I may quit my job in two years (after mortgage is paid off), retire early, and move near DH's work. DH's work provides free housing and free private school education for DD, whereas we currently have to pay for our own housing to be closer to my work and pay for private school for DD.
...

This sounds amazing. Have you run the numbers on doing it now, before the mortgage is paid off?

Yes, unfortunately, it doesn't make sense now because there are no good preschools near DH's work. Since we have to be in a more central part of the city while DD is in preschool, I might as well work.

wannabe-stache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 80
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18351 on: August 28, 2017, 08:05:10 AM »
Anyone else hear the craziest things while at work?

Today it was, "Well the commutes gonna be a lot longer, but it was only $100 more per month for a 3 bedroom"

I was chatting with my co-worker Friday.  He and I are both "car guys" but once i found MMM a few months ago, i sold my BMW and got a used honda.  i didn't mention my lifestyle changes to co-workers but he asked about my car and i told him i didn't want to have a 400hp car that was $$$ to maintain and insure, got 10mpg and was absolutely useless in rush hour traffic.

he looked at me like my head was on backwards.  keep in mind he just leased his 3rd luxury car in 7 years (he's had two BMWs and just leased a $70K Audi SUV).  it's also interesting to point out that i know for a fact he makes about 60% less than i do.  oh, and he's single so i am not sure what he's carrying around in that SUV.

Lentils4Lunch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 106
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18352 on: August 28, 2017, 08:00:27 PM »
oh, and he's single so i am not sure what he's carrying around in that SUV.

Dead bodies, for sure

10dollarsatatime

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Utah
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18353 on: August 28, 2017, 09:49:35 PM »
Coworker apparently just bought a new puppy.  Not sure what, as I try to avoid asking her personal questions, but she got a 'screaming deal' on it.

Same woman who NEVER has any money.  As in, claims she can't afford to eat.  Her lunch most days is a spoonful or two of peanut butter because that's all she can afford.  I know that between she and her boyfriend, they're pulling around $70,000 in a LCOL area. 

Her story last fall was that her boyfriend's dad is a terrible person because he won't let them stay rent free in his rental property. (Seriously, good on dad for kicking them out...)  They now live in an RV in a KOA for $400/month.  And somehow there's STILL no money left over.

She donated $1000 to the Trump campaign while eating peanut butter for lunch.  Because... priorities?

Bought a new vehicle and traded up twice (to a giant clown truck) while complaining about starving.

Started Primerica and tried to convince me to sign up with them.  Um... we get free life insurance through work.  And a pension.  And access to a 457/401k/IRA... you name it.  She's been to two of their conferences in Atlanta, and keeps throwing more money at it.  Thank dog the boss made her stop wearing her Primerica shirts to work and trying to sign up employees... (She's throwing money at Primerica shirts.  I don't think she's even made enough to pay for those, let alone the conference fees.)

She's also upset that her mom won't let her keep horses on her property and/or kick in some cash now and then.  This woman is in her fucking 40s.

I used to just let her talk, but now I have to avoid her.  Everything she says makes me want to punch her.

Playing with Fire UK

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2338
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18354 on: August 28, 2017, 11:52:55 PM »
A "screaming deal" on a puppy is free, IMO. I'm guessing she over-paid.

How the fuck are they going to pay to feed a puppy if she is existing on a scoop of peanut butter?

Ditto for horses.

Thanks for sharing!

paddedhat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2234
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18355 on: August 29, 2017, 07:37:32 AM »
A "screaming deal" on a puppy is free, IMO. I'm guessing she over-paid.

How the fuck are they going to pay to feed a puppy if she is existing on a scoop of peanut butter?

Ditto for horses.

Thanks for sharing!

Buddy of mine, on the phone,  "Hey Paddedhat, you interested in a free horse?"

Me:  I'm not sure if I should be more upset that you clearly think that I'm an Idiot, since you even asked, or that you might be dumb enough to believe that there really is such a thing as a free horse?

Waco neighbor lady had two horses, and no place for them on her small rural lot.  By the time she paid for boarding (just a roof over their heads, nothing more)  food, vet bills, and shoeing, she had over a grand a month spent just so they could stand in somebody else's field, eat and shit. She also had to spend hours a day, before and after work, driving a few miles away to care for the things.  "Great deal" and "free" are not part of the world of horses.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2029
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18356 on: August 29, 2017, 08:17:49 AM »
A "screaming deal" on a puppy is free, IMO. I'm guessing she over-paid.

How the fuck are they going to pay to feed a puppy if she is existing on a scoop of peanut butter?

Ditto for horses.

Thanks for sharing!

Pets are expensive if you take care of them properly.

I kept the free puppy my daughter got and abandoned, because the Venomous Spaz Beast is an incredibly intelligent animal who like all Chihuahuas is probably from outer space. The pup realized my daughter wasn't going to care for her, noticed I was the one who kept giving her kibble, and snuggled me up with a nose in my ear as though to say: "I will be your doggie." Since my daughter wasn't feeding her (as in, would walk right by the crate with the crying puppy to feed herself and then walk right back) and was crating her 24x7 while she went out to gallivant with friends, I stole the pup and introduced her to the world outside the crate.

Between the vet care, the food, the various leashes, flea medicine, collars, beds, and toys that are necessary to keep my shoes from getting chewed, and the obedience school necessary to train the dog to not be a spaz beast, I'm out an average of USD$100 a month. However I adore this little creature. We spend hours a day together walking, interacting, learning tricks, or adventuring. I just took her on a road trip of about 1600 miles and once she got over the car sickness she was the best little travel buddy ever. Unlike my daughter, the little dog woke up cheerfully in the morning, went willingly to whatever activity we had planned, and was either napping quietly by herself or fully engaged in the activities of the day. She wasn't a burden, she didn't whine and complain, and she didn't constantly wander off by herself or pepper me with can-I-have, can-we-buy, and why-can't-I. The little wawa turned out to be a fantastic adventure dog and I'm going to take her with me from now on. Instead of my daughter.

Alfred J Quack

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 181
  • Location: Netherlands
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18357 on: August 29, 2017, 08:28:05 AM »
Coworker apparently just bought a new puppy.  Not sure what, as I try to avoid asking her personal questions, but she got a 'screaming deal' on it.

Same woman who NEVER has any money.  As in, claims she can't afford to eat.  Her lunch most days is a spoonful or two of peanut butter because that's all she can afford.  I know that between she and her boyfriend, they're pulling around $70,000 in a LCOL area. 

Her story last fall was that her boyfriend's dad is a terrible person because he won't let them stay rent free in his rental property. (Seriously, good on dad for kicking them out...)  They now live in an RV in a KOA for $400/month.  And somehow there's STILL no money left over.

She donated $1000 to the Trump campaign while eating peanut butter for lunch.  Because... priorities?

Bought a new vehicle and traded up twice (to a giant clown truck) while complaining about starving.

Started Primerica and tried to convince me to sign up with them.  Um... we get free life insurance through work.  And a pension.  And access to a 457/401k/IRA... you name it.  She's been to two of their conferences in Atlanta, and keeps throwing more money at it.  Thank dog the boss made her stop wearing her Primerica shirts to work and trying to sign up employees... (She's throwing money at Primerica shirts.  I don't think she's even made enough to pay for those, let alone the conference fees.)

She's also upset that her mom won't let her keep horses on her property and/or kick in some cash now and then.  This woman is in her fucking 40s.

I used to just let her talk, but now I have to avoid her.  Everything she says makes me want to punch her.
If she doesn't have money for food she sure as hell shouldn't spend money on a new pet. If you can't take care of yourself, how do you expect to care for your pet?

And I googled the Primarica a bit, dealing with MLM is bad but insuring through an MLM seems even worse or is that me being the sceptic?

Playing with Fire UK

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2338
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18358 on: August 29, 2017, 09:56:21 AM »
A "screaming deal" on a puppy is free, IMO. I'm guessing she over-paid.

How the fuck are they going to pay to feed a puppy if she is existing on a scoop of peanut butter?

Ditto for horses.

Thanks for sharing!

Pets are expensive if you take care of them properly.
...

I may have been unclear, I was talking solely about sourcing said puppy (free / abandoned / nominal cost puppies are available, like yours), not feeding and caring for them, which can be expensive, and which this individual seems entirely unsuited for. 

RyanAtTanagra

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Location: SF Bay, CA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18359 on: August 29, 2017, 10:53:13 AM »
A "screaming deal" on a puppy is free, IMO. I'm guessing she over-paid.

A NORMAL deal is free.  A screaming deal would someone that paid you to take it away, or a puppy that comes with a 10-year repair and maintenance warranty.

Buddy of mine, on the phone,  "Hey Paddedhat, you interested in a free horse?"

Much like a sailboat (one of which I own), and I tell all my friends who start talking about getting one and sending me links to cheap boats asking for opinions, the price of the boat is the cheapest part of ownership.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2029
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18360 on: August 29, 2017, 11:21:23 AM »
A "screaming deal" on a puppy is free, IMO. I'm guessing she over-paid.

How the fuck are they going to pay to feed a puppy if she is existing on a scoop of peanut butter?

Ditto for horses.

Thanks for sharing!

Pets are expensive if you take care of them properly.
...

I may have been unclear, I was talking solely about sourcing said puppy (free / abandoned / nominal cost puppies are available, like yours), not feeding and caring for them, which can be expensive, and which this individual seems entirely unsuited for.

Indeed. The individual in question sounds like she's unable to feed herself, much less an innocent animal.

ETA: In the old days, kittens and puppies used to roam around the neighborhood and pick a free-range kid or adult to follow home. There seem to be fewer such situations now.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2017, 11:24:49 AM by TheGrimSqueaker »

Playing with Fire UK

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2338
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18361 on: August 29, 2017, 01:55:41 PM »
A "screaming deal" on a puppy is free, IMO. I'm guessing she over-paid.
A NORMAL deal is free.  A screaming deal would someone that paid you to take it away, or a puppy that comes with a 10-year repair and maintenance warranty.

Yes, a puppy warranty!

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3786
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18362 on: August 29, 2017, 01:58:32 PM »
We have a water cooler in the office so everyone can have hot and cold spring water for free.

There is an empty Poland Springs water bottle in the recycle bin.

So I guess someone decided it was worth spending money and disposing of a plastic bottle because they... wanted a different brand of spring water? Or... ?? I can't quite figure out the mindset here.

StockBeard

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Age: 36
    • How To Retire Early?
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18363 on: August 30, 2017, 12:18:05 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

ereamrod

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18364 on: August 30, 2017, 02:48:05 AM »
I'd just like to personally register my disdain for the term "adulting." I don't understand how being a semi-responsible adult (when one is you know, of adult age) became this thing you have to call attention to and be congratulated for. I'm not "adulting" when I go to the dentist or call customer service about my bill, I'm just an adult. I blame helicopter parents who have never let their kids do anything on their own.


That may be part of it. Many young adults (20s me included) are woefully unprepared for adult life. This could be from any number of factors. Helicoptering parents. Almost no life skills taught in schools. Having both parents working full time rather than having one stay at home to teach life skills--many of which are taken for granted by older generations. When you're in your 20s or even 30s and were never educated to do your taxes, find a physician, shop for insurance, etc., it feels like an accomplishment when you did it, because you also had to teach yourself how to do it.

this 100%.

I was a latchkey kid and had to figure a lot out on my own. My dad is an accountant and 66.  Despite trying again and again for help I taught myself how to do my taxes.  Nervous nelly will never retire because he doesn't think he has enough.  Mom owns a profitable company and they have 1mil+ in retirement accts.  Empty nesters too.  They just told me to avoid getting a credit card until after college and cosigned my 30k+ in student loans.  I feel like a productive member of society and therefore adult everytime I figure out how to do something on my own. It might be my favorite verb ATM.

paddedhat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2234
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18365 on: August 30, 2017, 06:06:13 AM »


this 100%.

I was a latchkey kid and had to figure a lot out on my own. My dad is an accountant and 66.  Despite trying again and again for help I taught myself how to do my taxes.  Nervous nelly will never retire because he doesn't think he has enough. Mom owns a profitable company and they have 1mil+ in retirement accts.  Empty nesters too.  They just told me to avoid getting a credit card until after college and cosigned my 30k+ in student loans.  I feel like a productive member of society and therefore adult everytime I figure out how to do something on my own. It might be my favorite verb ATM.

Damn, reading this makes my toes curl. The DW and I have had a really good friend, for many decades. She is the daughter of an accountant. Her dad is an uber control freak, who has a giant pile of coin, at least five million, or so, saved for his retirement.  Her little brother joined dad, in a partnership, right out of college, with the understanding that dad would retire, and walk away in a reasonable time frame. Four decades later,  more than twenty years past where most normal folks take a normal retirement, dad finally gives up control of the family firm.  He is still kicking, in his 90s.  Sadly, the son could of started with a big name firm, right out of school, done his time climbing the ladder, made partner, and retired, well before dad finally gave it up. On some level the son is more than a bit bitter about what could of been.  I hope your dad isn't another elderly accountant, sitting at a computer screen sixteen hours a day, during tax season, since he just "can't" retire yet.

MsSindy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18366 on: August 30, 2017, 07:12:47 AM »
A girl (29 years old) at work wants to get a Camaro as a weekend car. I'm pretty sure she makes $12 an hour, no more than $13 if there was a recent raise.

She has two older cars and wants to trade one of them in for the Camaro plus get a loan. She's not looking for brand new but something very lightly used, only a few years old. So still $10-15k or more. I've tried to hint a couple things like saying I only buy cars cheap enough that I can pay in cash cause I wouldn't be able to make the payment if I lost my job, etc... I've also suggested a 90s Camaro but she's set on the new styling, leather seats, and a very specific trim. She also has bad credit so she needs to get her dad to cosign. On the bright side, since she's so picky she hasn't found the exact perfect one for months now.

This is the same girl who is currently living with her 6 yo at her mom's house because she lost all of her possessions in a fire (including $20k in sneakers supposedly).

It makes me feel a little less ridiculous for wanting a second cheap car but then I think of this forum and all the facepunches I'd get for having two cars even if both are worth under $5000 total.

If she's still living at home, then her Dad should be the one to receive a facepunch for co-signing for her (if he does indeed do that).

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2570
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18367 on: August 30, 2017, 07:54:00 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18368 on: August 30, 2017, 08:39:54 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

By that logic, you should just leave the oven on all day so it doesn't have to heat up from room temperature when it's time to make dinner.

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3786
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18369 on: August 30, 2017, 08:52:18 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

By that logic, you should just leave the oven on all day so it doesn't have to heat up from room temperature when it's time to make dinner.

Yeah, but then the air conditioner you left on all day has to work harder because of all the extra heat... ;-)

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4347
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18370 on: August 30, 2017, 09:09:15 AM »
I never turn my car off, that way it is at optimal operating temperature from the moment I drive away, saving gas.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18371 on: August 30, 2017, 09:24:25 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

By that logic, you should just leave the oven on all day so it doesn't have to heat up from room temperature when it's time to make dinner.

Not quite the same logic, actually.

When our AC was out for a couple of days, it took about 3 days to get the house back cool. Why? Because everything in the house was hot. The couches, walls, floors, beds, tables, everything was over 90*. So the air was cooled, but the things were not.

It doesn't take very long to heat 5 cubic feet of air. It takes a LONG time to cool/heat a lot of things, and air.

I'm not saying he's right--but he has a valid, though mis-led point.

Imustacheyouaquestion

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18372 on: August 30, 2017, 09:47:26 AM »
Carpooled with a few co-workers to lunch last week (there were 6 of us) and one woman suddenly realized her Ford Explorer had six seats and offered to drive. She didn't know how to access the back row of seats because she had never used it. Single lady with a small dog driving a giant SUV with a third row that she had so little use for that she's literally never had anyone seated there.

RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Age: 26
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18373 on: August 30, 2017, 09:54:44 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2570
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18374 on: August 30, 2017, 10:15:38 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

Agreed. Even in non-ridiculous areas it's probably good practice to set a maximum reasonable temperature than to turn it off entirely.

The point though is that if it's more efficient to turn it off entirely then it's also going to be more efficient to raise the temperature threshold while you're out rather than leave it flat.

cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18375 on: August 30, 2017, 10:24:19 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

Agreed. Even in non-ridiculous areas it's probably good practice to set a maximum reasonable temperature than to turn it off entirely.

The point though is that if it's more efficient to turn it off entirely then it's also going to be more efficient to raise the temperature threshold while you're out rather than leave it flat.

Good point. There is an optimum temperature threshold, just gotta find it.

bender

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18376 on: August 30, 2017, 10:57:54 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

Agreed. Even in non-ridiculous areas it's probably good practice to set a maximum reasonable temperature than to turn it off entirely.

The point though is that if it's more efficient to turn it off entirely then it's also going to be more efficient to raise the temperature threshold while you're out rather than leave it flat.

Good point. There is an optimum temperature threshold, just gotta find it.

What kind of temps are we talking?  90+?  Is the fridge in direct sunlight?  The argument that it takes less electricity to keep an entire home cooler does not make sense unless you're leaving the fridge door open.  I think it may be time for a new fridge.

Also the argument about keeping maintaining a consistent indoor air temp all summer is a myth.  It's much better to only run it when you're at home.  Modern AC units can efficiently cooling a place down very quickly.


RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Age: 26
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18377 on: August 30, 2017, 11:06:47 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

Agreed. Even in non-ridiculous areas it's probably good practice to set a maximum reasonable temperature than to turn it off entirely.

The point though is that if it's more efficient to turn it off entirely then it's also going to be more efficient to raise the temperature threshold while you're out rather than leave it flat.

Good point. There is an optimum temperature threshold, just gotta find it.

What kind of temps are we talking?  90+?  Is the fridge in direct sunlight?  The argument that it takes less electricity to keep an entire home cooler does not make sense unless you're leaving the fridge door open.  I think it may be time for a new fridge.

Also the argument about keeping maintaining a consistent indoor air temp all summer is a myth.  It's much better to only run it when you're at home.  Modern AC units can efficiently cooling a place down very quickly.

I admit, mine was an extreme case, but the point stands I think. I was living in a really, really crappy apartment where the only a/c was a wall unit about 8 feet away from the fridge. Downstairs temps averaged the mid-80s w/ a/c. Upstairs temps were typically 90-100 range (no a/c). It's amazing what you'll live with when you teeter on the poverty line. I have since moved.

But, that's extreme. In the real world, central air is at maximum efficiency when working on high. But central air also turns on and off as required so depending on your location, home insulation, and energy costs your results may vary.

M5

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 92
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18378 on: August 30, 2017, 11:22:37 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

Agreed. Even in non-ridiculous areas it's probably good practice to set a maximum reasonable temperature than to turn it off entirely.

The point though is that if it's more efficient to turn it off entirely then it's also going to be more efficient to raise the temperature threshold while you're out rather than leave it flat.

Good point. There is an optimum temperature threshold, just gotta find it.

What kind of temps are we talking?  90+?  Is the fridge in direct sunlight?  The argument that it takes less electricity to keep an entire home cooler does not make sense unless you're leaving the fridge door open.  I think it may be time for a new fridge.

Also the argument about keeping maintaining a consistent indoor air temp all summer is a myth.  It's much better to only run it when you're at home.  Modern AC units can efficiently cooling a place down very quickly.

HA! I've had the exact same argument with people I work with. As long as your house is pretty well insulated, you should have no problem leaving your a/c or heat off while you aren't home (unless you will be gone for several days). I have found that even in 100 degree weather my house never climbs above 80. When I get home, I turn the a/c on for a couple hours and it's cool enough to last another 24hrs before repeating. Of course, if the outside temperature will be cool enough overnight, I open windows and let mother nature do the work for me.

Just for kicks, I left my a/c set at 72 for a couple days.. energy cost was more than double for those days!

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18379 on: August 30, 2017, 11:33:03 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

No fucking way this is true.  It doesn't even make sense.  You just had a malfunctioning fridge that couldn't keep cold enough, or the efficiency difference between your fridge and AC unit was so disparate that no one should have been using that fridge (ie it was clearly malfunctioning). 

I also call bullshit on anyone saying it takes 3 days to recool their house or anything else.  It takes less energy to turn the AC or heater off/down while you are away and only run it while you are home, absolutely no exceptions.   You can make the argument that you are more comfortable for some short period by keeping a constant temperature rather than turning the unit off then back on and waiting for it to reach your ideal temperature, but leaving it on uses more total energy absolutely no exceptions ever.  That's just the laws of thermodynamics. 

Prairie Stash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18380 on: August 30, 2017, 11:58:16 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

No fucking way this is true.  It doesn't even make sense.  You just had a malfunctioning fridge that couldn't keep cold enough, or the efficiency difference between your fridge and AC unit was so disparate that no one should have been using that fridge (ie it was clearly malfunctioning). 

I also call bullshit on anyone saying it takes 3 days to recool their house or anything else.  It takes less energy to turn the AC or heater off/down while you are away and only run it while you are home, absolutely no exceptions.   You can make the argument that you are more comfortable for some short period by keeping a constant temperature rather than turning the unit off then back on and waiting for it to reach your ideal temperature, but leaving it on uses more total energy absolutely no exceptions ever.  That's just the laws of thermodynamics.
It could be true if it was severely malfunctioning. In that case the solution should have been a fridge replacement but the AC was used instead. Possibly the coils were severely dust laden, a good cleaning would fix it, that's my guess for poor heat transfer. Maybe the guy had empirical evidence, but holy CRAP! What kind of electric bills would show much difference? Is the guy saying he can notice changes in his bill, which is lower, when the AC is on? HOLY Heatwave Batman, how large are the electric bills when AC causes them to appear smaller? This requires more electricity to be used in running the pump then in the actual heat transfer, its ridiculous.

Although extremely silly, never underestimate the ability of people to need a face punch. Instead of fixing problems, like dirty coils that need a good vacuum or replacement, some people will turn up the AC to have their whole house operate as a fridge.

OP - Clean your fridge coils. If that doesn't work, get a new fridge, yours is broken.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2780
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18381 on: August 30, 2017, 11:57:39 AM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.
If it helps, you can think about A/C as a heat-removal machine.  The more heat it removes from your home, the higher your bill.  The other side of the equation is things that put heat into your home.  Appliances, computers, stoves, outside air, and of course, the sun.  Let's ignore the man-made stuff and the sun, and focus on the outside air.  The amount of heat that enters your home through the walls is proportional to the temperature difference between inside and outside.  Roughly speaking, you get twice as much energy entering your 75-degree home if it's 95 degrees outside (20 degree difference) vs 85 (10 degree difference).

Let's do a case studey: For simplicity's sake, let's say that during the 10 hours you're away from home for work, the average temperature outside is 85 degrees, and your thermostat is set at 75.  We'll compare two houses one where the A/C is left on during the day, and one where the A/C is turned off when you leave and turned on when you return.  Let's say that the houses are insulated so that when it's 10 degrees warmer outside, enough energy enters the home to increase interior temperatures by 1 degree per hour.  We'll call that amount of energy X btu/hour.  Whatever the total energy input into the houses over the 10 hours must be removed by the A/C.

For the A/C-always-on house, the calculation is simple: 10 hours * X btu/hour.

For the A/C-off-during-the-day house, the calculation is a bit more complex and probably involves calculus.  Roughly speaking, during the first hour, the house gains X btu, which causes the temperature to rise by 1 degree.  During the second hour, however, the temperature difference is only 9 degrees, so the energy gained is only 0.9X btus.  During the third hour, the delta-T is 8.1 degrees, so 8.1X btus are added, and so on.  By the end of the day, the temperature has risen 4.5 degrees, and the total energy gained is only about 6.5 * X btus. 

Now, this ignores other heat sources (sun, appliances, etc), but it's not a big deal--as they heat up the house faster, the delta T between inside and outside shrinks, and the house will gain less energy from the outside air.

It's also worth pointing out that the cooler the outside air, the more efficient your A/C will be.  Running the A/C in the middle of the day when it's 95 degrees requires more energy to expel X btus from the house than when it's only 85.  So by waiting until late afternoon to cool the house, you save even more.

I'll grant that it's nice to come to a nicely climate-controlled house.  But that's why you get a programmable thermostat.  Have it maintain 75 degrees (or whatever) from one hour before arrival, and switch to 95 degrees (so it basically turns off) one hour before you leave in the morning.  Now you get the savings from turning off your A/C during the day, and still come home to a cool house.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8092
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18382 on: August 30, 2017, 12:29:02 PM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

No fucking way this is true.  It doesn't even make sense.  You just had a malfunctioning fridge that couldn't keep cold enough, or the efficiency difference between your fridge and AC unit was so disparate that no one should have been using that fridge (ie it was clearly malfunctioning). 

I also call bullshit on anyone saying it takes 3 days to recool their house or anything else.  It takes less energy to turn the AC or heater off/down while you are away and only run it while you are home, absolutely no exceptions.   You can make the argument that you are more comfortable for some short period by keeping a constant temperature rather than turning the unit off then back on and waiting for it to reach your ideal temperature, but leaving it on uses more total energy absolutely no exceptions ever.  That's just the laws of thermodynamics.

In this thread, there are two separate arguments:

1) it's cheaper to turn off the AC when you are gone.  I think this is true 99% of the time.  I actually have a corner case because I have a smart meter with "flex days" which basically means on certain high usage days the cost skyrockets ($1/kWh from 1pm-7pm).  These days are typically the hottest days.  We rarely use ac, but when we get a few super hot days in a row, night temps don't drop enough to cool our house so we close up the windows and precool the house in the morning while rates are low.  I know from experience that the house will gain 10-15 degrees on the hottest days, so if it starts off at 75-80, we are risking very uncomfortable temps in the late afternoon when it would cost a small fortune to tune AC.  So let's say we wake up and it's like 80 inside and the weather is looking to be 110. I'm going to turn on the AC and probably run it until we get down to 70 or it's 1pm which ever comes first.  Even if I leave the house I'm leaving the AC on. Because I don't want to come home at 1pm to a warm house and have to turn of the ac.  This scenario has happened maybe 1-2 times, but it's just an example of how energy pricing can mess up your standard assumptions

2) it's "better" to turn of the ac where "better" is some combination of cost and comfort.  I'd say this is where most of the so called "exceptions" come into play.  Even if it takes your house 3 full days to recover from the ac being off, it'll still be cheaper.  But most people will say it's not "better" because it would be uncomfortable. 

Another example would be if you have perishables that you can't keep in the fridge- expensive chocolates or wine or whatever.  If the house gets too hot they could be ruined.  Of course it would be cheaper to refrigerate them but if you don't have an extra wine fridge it could be cheaper to set the thermostat vs letting it all melt.  I had some chocolate melt on vacation but luckily it wasn't expensive and I just used it for baking.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 12:32:53 PM by dragoncar »

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18383 on: August 30, 2017, 12:30:51 PM »
One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.
If it helps, you can think about A/C as a heat-removal machine.  The more heat it removes from your home, the higher your bill.  The other side of the equation is things that put heat into your home.  Appliances, computers, stoves, outside air, and of course, the sun.  Let's ignore the man-made stuff and the sun, and focus on the outside air.  The amount of heat that enters your home through the walls is proportional to the temperature difference between inside and outside.  Roughly speaking, you get twice as much energy entering your 75-degree home if it's 95 degrees outside (20 degree difference) vs 85 (10 degree difference).

Let's do a case studey: For simplicity's sake, let's say that during the 10 hours you're away from home for work, the average temperature outside is 85 degrees, and your thermostat is set at 75.  We'll compare two houses one where the A/C is left on during the day, and one where the A/C is turned off when you leave and turned on when you return.  Let's say that the houses are insulated so that when it's 10 degrees warmer outside, enough energy enters the home to increase interior temperatures by 1 degree per hour.  We'll call that amount of energy X btu/hour.  Whatever the total energy input into the houses over the 10 hours must be removed by the A/C.

For the A/C-always-on house, the calculation is simple: 10 hours * X btu/hour.

For the A/C-off-during-the-day house, the calculation is a bit more complex and probably involves calculus.  Roughly speaking, during the first hour, the house gains X btu, which causes the temperature to rise by 1 degree.  During the second hour, however, the temperature difference is only 9 degrees, so the energy gained is only 0.9X btus.  During the third hour, the delta-T is 8.1 degrees, so 8.1X btus are added, and so on.  By the end of the day, the temperature has risen 4.5 degrees, and the total energy gained is only about 6.5 * X btus. 

Now, this ignores other heat sources (sun, appliances, etc), but it's not a big deal--as they heat up the house faster, the delta T between inside and outside shrinks, and the house will gain less energy from the outside air.

It's also worth pointing out that the cooler the outside air, the more efficient your A/C will be.  Running the A/C in the middle of the day when it's 95 degrees requires more energy to expel X btus from the house than when it's only 85.  So by waiting until late afternoon to cool the house, you save even more.

I'll grant that it's nice to come to a nicely climate-controlled house.  But that's why you get a programmable thermostat.  Have it maintain 75 degrees (or whatever) from one hour before arrival, and switch to 95 degrees (so it basically turns off) one hour before you leave in the morning.  Now you get the savings from turning off your A/C during the day, and still come home to a cool house.

Not necessarily true.  An AC's efficiency is dependent on outside temperature.  It takes a lot less energy to move heat outside when it's only 70* outside as opposed to 100*.

bender

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18384 on: August 30, 2017, 12:34:27 PM »
Since I'm not always home at the same time, I prefer to under-do the "return home" setpoint of programmable thermostats.  Most programmable thermostats have 4 setpoints - here's what I do:

In the Summer, I either use manual mode or I set all 4 points to extreme temp (essentially off).  Programmable mode ensures that if I forget the AC on it will turn itself off at some point.  My system reacts fast enough that I'm only uncomfortable for a few minutes, and many times I'm comfortable at higher temps if the humidity isn't too bad.  So automatically turning on the AC is a waste for me.  Automatic shutoff is an insurance policy.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8092
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18385 on: August 30, 2017, 12:40:11 PM »
  An AC's efficiency is dependent on outside temperature.  It takes a lot less energy to move heat outside when it's only 70* outside as opposed to 100*.

Admittedly I'm no expert in mechanical thermodynamics but...

Isn't ac efficiency also dependent on inside temperature?  Or more specifically the difference between inside and outside temperature.  My instinct tells me it will be more efficient to cool a 100 degree home when it's 109 outside than an 80 degree home when it's 85 outside.

So the more heat you remove the higher your bill, all things being equal.  You could be suggesting something along the lines of my precooling scenario above, where you run the ac in the morning when both inside and outside temps are 80, giving you little temperature gradient and maximum efficiency.  This is better than running in afternoon when temps are 90 inside and 110 outside, a 20 degree gradient.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 12:44:53 PM by dragoncar »

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18386 on: August 30, 2017, 12:45:03 PM »
In this thread, there are two separate arguments:

1) it's cheaper to turn off the AC when you are gone.  I think this is true 99% of the time.  I actually have a corner case because I have a smart meter with "flex days" which basically means on certain high usage days the cost skyrockets ($1/kWh from 1pm-7pm).  These days are typically the hottest days.  We rarely use ac, but When we get a few super hot days in a row, night temps don't drop enough to cool our house so we close up the windows and precook the house in the morning while rates are low.  I know from experience that the house will gain 10-15 degrees on the hottest days, so if it starts off at 75-80, we are risking very uncomfortable temps in the late afternoon when it would cost a small fortune to tune AC.  So let's say we wake up and it's like 80 inside and the weather is looking to be 110. I'm going to turn on the AC and probably run it until we get down to 70 or it's 1pm which ever comes first.  Even if I leave the house I'm leaving the AC on. Because I don't want to come home at 1pm to a warm house and have to turn of the ac.  This scenario has happened maybe 1-2 times, but it's just an example of how energy pricing can mess up your standard assumptions

2) it's "better" to turn of the ac where "better" is some combination of cost and comfort.  I'd say this is where most of the so called "exceptions" come into play.  Even if it takes your house 3 full days to recover from the ac being off, it'll still be cheaper.  But most people will say it's not "better" because it would be uncomfortable.

1. It uses less energy 100% of the time.  If you pay different rates for different time periods that's a separate issue and calculation.  It definitely could cost less money to keep it running depending on the different rates, but it will for sure use more energy.  We don't have tiered prices for different times.

2.  I tried to keep to to a an actual energy usage basis rather than making a judgement call about "better" or not.  That's a value judgement everyone has to make for their own situation.  But if your house is taking 3 days to recover and cool down you either have an over sized house or an undersized AC unit and you should probably worry about that rather than whether to run your undersized AC 24/7 or not.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8092
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18387 on: August 30, 2017, 12:54:39 PM »
In this thread, there are two separate arguments:

1) it's cheaper to turn off the AC when you are gone.  I think this is true 99% of the time.  I actually have a corner case because I have a smart meter with "flex days" which basically means on certain high usage days the cost skyrockets ($1/kWh from 1pm-7pm).  These days are typically the hottest days.  We rarely use ac, but When we get a few super hot days in a row, night temps don't drop enough to cool our house so we close up the windows and precook the house in the morning while rates are low.  I know from experience that the house will gain 10-15 degrees on the hottest days, so if it starts off at 75-80, we are risking very uncomfortable temps in the late afternoon when it would cost a small fortune to tune AC.  So let's say we wake up and it's like 80 inside and the weather is looking to be 110. I'm going to turn on the AC and probably run it until we get down to 70 or it's 1pm which ever comes first.  Even if I leave the house I'm leaving the AC on. Because I don't want to come home at 1pm to a warm house and have to turn of the ac.  This scenario has happened maybe 1-2 times, but it's just an example of how energy pricing can mess up your standard assumptions

2) it's "better" to turn of the ac where "better" is some combination of cost and comfort.  I'd say this is where most of the so called "exceptions" come into play.  Even if it takes your house 3 full days to recover from the ac being off, it'll still be cheaper.  But most people will say it's not "better" because it would be uncomfortable.

1. It uses less energy 100% of the time.  If you pay different rates for different time periods that's a separate issue and calculation.  It definitely could cost less money to keep it running depending on the different rates, but it will for sure use more energy.  We don't have tiered prices for different times.


OK, so there's a third argument 3) it uses less energy 100% of the time.  Of course you are right, but my point is to be clear which thing you are arguing about.  There are threads explaining why it uses less energy, and people responding about how it's better.  I think we all can/should agree it uses less energy to turn off the AC.

Although, I think you should focus on price since this is the MMM forums.  CA has a lot of solar, and sometimes it is literally wasted or other states are paid to accept excess energy.  I would 100% spin up my AC during those times to avoid wastage except for being pissed doff my utility won't pass on the great deal to me and would likely charge me a surplus price.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 12:56:18 PM by dragoncar »

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8092
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18388 on: August 30, 2017, 12:58:23 PM »
if your house is taking 3 days to recover and cool down you either have an over sized house or an undersized AC unit and you should probably worry about that rather than whether to run your undersized AC 24/7 or not.

some would say your AC is perfectly sized if it runs 24/7 and maintains a comfortable temperature.  Is it better to have an oversized AC that can cool your house in 2 hours and then cycles on and off, or a much smaller, more efficient unit that runs 24/7?  I said better, but I'm open to answers for energy usage, total cost including equipment, and comfort.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18389 on: August 30, 2017, 01:00:00 PM »
  An AC's efficiency is dependent on outside temperature.  It takes a lot less energy to move heat outside when it's only 70* outside as opposed to 100*.

Admittedly I'm no expert in mechanical thermodynamics but...

Isn't ac efficiency also dependent on inside temperature?  Or more specifically the difference between inside and outside temperature.  My instinct tells me it will be more efficient to cool a 100 degree home when it's 109 outside than an 80 degree home when it's 85 outside.

So the more heat you remove the higher your bill, all things being equal.  You could be suggesting something along the lines of my precooling scenario above, where you run the ac in the morning when both inside and outside temps are 80, giving you little temperature gradient and maximum efficiency.  This is better than running in afternoon when temps are 90 inside and 110 outside, a 20 degree gradient.

Yes it depends on both.  But "the more heat you remove the higher your bill" is not necessarily true, because the cost to remove a given unit of heat is variable.  So I guess my "no exceptions ever" statement might not be true either when it comes to AC...

If for some reason you had a cloud of hot ass air moving towards your house that would cause the outdoor temperature to jump 30*F in a matter of one minute you would be better off (use less energy, and less money) to run the AC and get your internal temperature down to an ideal spot before the hot air shows up, then not run it after the hot air gets there (because your house is already cooled) rather than inverting that.  Not really a realistic scenario though.  A much more likely scenario is the one you suggest of precooling the house when it's cooler outside, but the problem with that is that your house is not perfectly insulated.  You may be moving units of heat "cheaper" in the morning because it's more efficient, but you end up moving more units of heat total by precooling it and then maintaining that temperature.  The end result is that it still requires more energy to precool than it does to turn it off and on as needed. 

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18390 on: August 30, 2017, 01:08:29 PM »

2.  I tried to keep to to a an actual energy usage basis rather than making a judgement call about "better" or not.  That's a value judgement everyone has to make for their own situation.  But if your house is taking 3 days to recover and cool down you either have an over sized house or an undersized AC unit and you should probably worry about that rather than whether to run your undersized AC 24/7 or not.


This depends on what you mean by taking 3 days to recover. If you leave the AC off for 15 hours and then turn it on and it takes 3 days, yes there is a problem. But if your AC is off for 3 days and it takes 3 days to recover, that is normal in high heat situations.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18391 on: August 30, 2017, 01:09:17 PM »
if your house is taking 3 days to recover and cool down you either have an over sized house or an undersized AC unit and you should probably worry about that rather than whether to run your undersized AC 24/7 or not.

some would say your AC is perfectly sized if it runs 24/7 and maintains a comfortable temperature.  Is it better to have an oversized AC that can cool your house in 2 hours and then cycles on and off, or a much smaller, more efficient unit that runs 24/7?  I said better, but I'm open to answers for energy usage, total cost including equipment, and comfort.

lol no one would say that.  I don't think you want a unit to run 24/7.  You probably want some where in the middle.  Also what if it gets a few degrees hotter? How does your AC handle that if it's already running 24/7?

Given that this is MMM this debate shouldn't even exist.  You probably aren't a perishable vegetable that needs to be refrigerated, so the most MMM thing would be to adapt to the summer weather.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18392 on: August 30, 2017, 01:12:56 PM »

2.  I tried to keep to to a an actual energy usage basis rather than making a judgement call about "better" or not.  That's a value judgement everyone has to make for their own situation.  But if your house is taking 3 days to recover and cool down you either have an over sized house or an undersized AC unit and you should probably worry about that rather than whether to run your undersized AC 24/7 or not.


This depends on what you mean by taking 3 days to recover. If you leave the AC off for 15 hours and then turn it on and it takes 3 days, yes there is a problem. But if your AC is off for 3 days and it takes 3 days to recover, that is normal in high heat situations.

Where do you live, the sun?  I don't think it's normal for any place to take 3 days to recover and get down to room temperature if it has an appropriately sized AC. 

marielle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 863
  • Age: 25
  • Location: South Carolina
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18393 on: August 30, 2017, 01:15:25 PM »
if your house is taking 3 days to recover and cool down you either have an over sized house or an undersized AC unit and you should probably worry about that rather than whether to run your undersized AC 24/7 or not.

some would say your AC is perfectly sized if it runs 24/7 and maintains a comfortable temperature.  Is it better to have an oversized AC that can cool your house in 2 hours and then cycles on and off, or a much smaller, more efficient unit that runs 24/7?  I said better, but I'm open to answers for energy usage, total cost including equipment, and comfort.

No, this would be terrible for comfort. If you DO leave for a day, a week, or just want to turn it off when you're not home for 8 hours at work, you would be miserable when you do actually want it. If the unit is that undersized you would be waiting many hours to reach optimal temperature. A unit that runs 24/7 wouldn't be efficient, it would be undersized. You'd save a couple thousand on equipment costs but it wouldn't be worth the comfort/cost of running the unit when you're not home.

Maybe if you used window AC units in only the room you're currently occupying? That wouldn't be a bad strategy as far as money-saving, comfort, and equipment costs.

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3786
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18394 on: August 30, 2017, 01:36:30 PM »
Where do you live, the sun?  I don't think it's normal for any place to take 3 days to recover and get down to room temperature if it has an appropriately sized AC.

"Appropriately sized AC" along with insulation is the key. I used to live in a place with under-sized A/C and lousy insulation/leaky windows and doors, and it easily took over a day to cool down to a normal room temperature. And it was just an apartment which got very little direct sun, not a whole house or anything. My new place goes from Sahara > Antarctica in about an hour.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18395 on: August 30, 2017, 01:41:03 PM »

2.  I tried to keep to to a an actual energy usage basis rather than making a judgement call about "better" or not.  That's a value judgement everyone has to make for their own situation.  But if your house is taking 3 days to recover and cool down you either have an over sized house or an undersized AC unit and you should probably worry about that rather than whether to run your undersized AC 24/7 or not.


This depends on what you mean by taking 3 days to recover. If you leave the AC off for 15 hours and then turn it on and it takes 3 days, yes there is a problem. But if your AC is off for 3 days and it takes 3 days to recover, that is normal in high heat situations.

Where do you live, the sun?  I don't think it's normal for any place to take 3 days to recover and get down to room temperature if it has an appropriately sized AC.

No, just Chicago.

Earlier this summer, during the hottest week (of course it was the hottest week, when else does it happen?), we lost our AC. We put in a window unit in one room for the dogs, but we couldn't get the AC repaired for about 3-4 days. By that point, everything in the house was 90*, or close to it. Guess what? The repaired, efficient, correctly sized 5 year old AC in a house with good insulation took 3 days to get the house down from 90 to 72. It wasn't running the whole time--I'm guessing for efficiency reasons--but it took 3 days to cool the entire house down. Sure the area right by the thermostat was comfortable, but the upstairs was in the 80's for days 1 and 2. after the repair.

At one point I lived in a house with nearly no insulation and an undersized AC. That one required us to have a sprinkler on the house to help keep it cool. It never actually got cool, even though the AC was working correctly.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8092
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18396 on: August 30, 2017, 02:00:38 PM »
if your house is taking 3 days to recover and cool down you either have an over sized house or an undersized AC unit and you should probably worry about that rather than whether to run your undersized AC 24/7 or not.

some would say your AC is perfectly sized if it runs 24/7 and maintains a comfortable temperature.  Is it better to have an oversized AC that can cool your house in 2 hours and then cycles on and off, or a much smaller, more efficient unit that runs 24/7?  I said better, but I'm open to answers for energy usage, total cost including equipment, and comfort.

lol no one would say that.  I don't think you want a unit to run 24/7.  You probably want some where in the middle.  Also what if it gets a few degrees hotter? How does your AC handle that if it's already running 24/7?

Given that this is MMM this debate shouldn't even exist.  You probably aren't a perishable vegetable that needs to be refrigerated, so the most MMM thing would be to adapt to the summer weather.

This guy would:

Quote
When outdoor conditions are at the design temperature, an air conditioner should run pretty much continuously and be able to keep the house at the ACCA recommended indoor design temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit

What if it gets hotter?  The idea is to run continuously at "design temperature."  Everything below that is gravy.


No, this would be terrible for comfort. If you DO leave for a day, a week, or just want to turn it off when you're not home for 8 hours at work, you would be miserable when you do actually want it. If the unit is that undersized you would be waiting many hours to reach optimal temperature. A unit that runs 24/7 wouldn't be efficient, it would be undersized. You'd save a couple thousand on equipment costs but it wouldn't be worth the comfort/cost of running the unit when you're not home.

Maybe if you used window AC units in only the room you're currently occupying? That wouldn't be a bad strategy as far as money-saving, comfort, and equipment costs.

Comfort would be improved because you wouldn't have the heat swings you get from the bang/bang thermostats.

You'd have to leave it on all the time, so you'd lose setback gains.  Probably more ideal for people who are home all day, like elderly retirees.

There are, however, efficiency gains.  The blower would be smaller with lower pressure and CFM, which is more efficient for the same total volume of air moved.  The AC would be smaller, and I believe wear and inefficiency are both higher on startup/shutdown, which would be eliminated with a 24 hour run time. 

Even better would be a variable speed compressor/blower that can adjust down from max design temperature as things cool off.  That would make the equipment more expensive of course.

Like I said, I hardly ever use AC anyways, since our house is almost never gets uncomfortably hot even on 100+ days.  But it's an interesting theoretical problem, although perhaps impossible to solve without doing actual math or real world tests vs the butt-math we are using here.

Playing with Fire UK

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2338
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18397 on: August 30, 2017, 02:19:34 PM »

2.  I tried to keep to to a an actual energy usage basis rather than making a judgement call about "better" or not.  That's a value judgement everyone has to make for their own situation.  But if your house is taking 3 days to recover and cool down you either have an over sized house or an undersized AC unit and you should probably worry about that rather than whether to run your undersized AC 24/7 or not.


This depends on what you mean by taking 3 days to recover. If you leave the AC off for 15 hours and then turn it on and it takes 3 days, yes there is a problem. But if your AC is off for 3 days and it takes 3 days to recover, that is normal in high heat situations.

Where do you live, the sun?  I don't think it's normal for any place to take 3 days to recover and get down to room temperature if it has an appropriately sized AC.

No, just Chicago.

Earlier this summer, during the hottest week (of course it was the hottest week, when else does it happen?), we lost our AC. We put in a window unit in one room for the dogs, but we couldn't get the AC repaired for about 3-4 days. By that point, everything in the house was 90*, or close to it. Guess what? The repaired, efficient, correctly sized 5 year old AC in a house with good insulation took 3 days to get the house down from 90 to 72. It wasn't running the whole time--I'm guessing for efficiency reasons--but it took 3 days to cool the entire house down. Sure the area right by the thermostat was comfortable, but the upstairs was in the 80's for days 1 and 2. after the repair.

At one point I lived in a house with nearly no insulation and an undersized AC. That one required us to have a sprinkler on the house to help keep it cool. It never actually got cool, even though the AC was working correctly.

If I understand how this system works, the issue is that the thermostat was signalling that the building was cool, so the AC stopped cooling. Then warmer air gradually drifted and heated the area near the thermostat, and got cooled, and so on. It was the air movement that took the time. If it happens again, see if running a $20 fan to move the air around the house helps.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18398 on: August 30, 2017, 02:43:09 PM »

2.  I tried to keep to to a an actual energy usage basis rather than making a judgement call about "better" or not.  That's a value judgement everyone has to make for their own situation.  But if your house is taking 3 days to recover and cool down you either have an over sized house or an undersized AC unit and you should probably worry about that rather than whether to run your undersized AC 24/7 or not.


This depends on what you mean by taking 3 days to recover. If you leave the AC off for 15 hours and then turn it on and it takes 3 days, yes there is a problem. But if your AC is off for 3 days and it takes 3 days to recover, that is normal in high heat situations.

Where do you live, the sun?  I don't think it's normal for any place to take 3 days to recover and get down to room temperature if it has an appropriately sized AC.

No, just Chicago.

Earlier this summer, during the hottest week (of course it was the hottest week, when else does it happen?), we lost our AC. We put in a window unit in one room for the dogs, but we couldn't get the AC repaired for about 3-4 days. By that point, everything in the house was 90*, or close to it. Guess what? The repaired, efficient, correctly sized 5 year old AC in a house with good insulation took 3 days to get the house down from 90 to 72. It wasn't running the whole time--I'm guessing for efficiency reasons--but it took 3 days to cool the entire house down. Sure the area right by the thermostat was comfortable, but the upstairs was in the 80's for days 1 and 2. after the repair.

At one point I lived in a house with nearly no insulation and an undersized AC. That one required us to have a sprinkler on the house to help keep it cool. It never actually got cool, even though the AC was working correctly.

If I understand how this system works, the issue is that the thermostat was signalling that the building was cool, so the AC stopped cooling. Then warmer air gradually drifted and heated the area near the thermostat, and got cooled, and so on. It was the air movement that took the time. If it happens again, see if running a $20 fan to move the air around the house helps.

No, it is central AC with air going to all rooms evenly. What happens is that the air is cooled down, but it takes a long time to cool down the walls, couches, counters, beds, etc. So the air is cooled, but then warmed by the rest of the house.

It is much, much easier to keep something cold or keep something warm than it is to make it cold or make it warm.

Imma

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Location: Europe
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18399 on: August 30, 2017, 03:28:59 PM »
if your house is taking 3 days to recover and cool down you either have an over sized house or an undersized AC unit and you should probably worry about that rather than whether to run your undersized AC 24/7 or not.

some would say your AC is perfectly sized if it runs 24/7 and maintains a comfortable temperature.  Is it better to have an oversized AC that can cool your house in 2 hours and then cycles on and off, or a much smaller, more efficient unit that runs 24/7?  I said better, but I'm open to answers for energy usage, total cost including equipment, and comfort.

lol no one would say that.  I don't think you want a unit to run 24/7.  You probably want some where in the middle.  Also what if it gets a few degrees hotter? How does your AC handle that if it's already running 24/7?

Given that this is MMM this debate shouldn't even exist.  You probably aren't a perishable vegetable that needs to be refrigerated, so the most MMM thing would be to adapt to the summer weather.

This is what I do, but I'm in a moderate climate. It's different when you're in the desert or something.

Where I live, it doesn't get any hotter than 90-95 degrees F in the hottest weeks of the year. When I close the curtains on the sunny side of the house, it means it gets up to about 80 F inside the house and for a few weeks a year, you can easily survive that.

During winter, we do it the other way round and let it cool to about 65 F before we put on the heating. In a moderate climate where winter temperatures vary between 20 and 50 F, that means we barely have any heating costs and no cooling costs at all. We have a portable fan from when we lived in a top floor apartment that we've been hanging on to 'just in case' but we could just as well declutter that.