How to design a smart home to increase energy savings?

This time I was struck by purely theoretical considerations.

I am preparing to build a house and would like to implement a number of smart home solutions in it.

However, I also want a home that is primarily energy-efficient, both in terms of heating energy, electricity and water.

I am wondering how to design the automation system so that, in addition to automation for improving the comfort and convenience of the household, it also allows for savings in the areas mentioned above.

After all, the fact that the garage door will open automatically or that I can check the temperature in the house over the phone will not affect my bills (or if it does, it will hardly notice it). I'm not the kind of person who forgets to switch off the light in the bathroom when I'm leaving for work, so I don't make such mistakes.

So how do I design a system so that it is also responsible for tangible savings in the household bills, be it electricity, water, etc.?

Note, however, that a smart home must have a controller that must be switched on all the time and can consume from a few to several tens of watts, plus solenoid valves, relays, sensors - all of which consume minimal amounts of power, but still. And what savings can there be? That the light outside or inside will switch itself off and savings on heating thanks to more precise control. And something that cannot be quantified precisely - convenience...

i know that the automation itself also requires power. i'm just wondering how much energy it will consume. For example, will the automatic switching off of sockets while the occupants are away (i.e. switching off appliances that normally work in "stand by" mode) be noticeable on an annual basis. Obviously appliances such as the fridge, heat pump would have their own independent sockets....

I am also thinking of combining two types of network, distributed and centralised.

I saw a cool lighting controller project here on the electrode that had a decentralised structure. This allowed for a greater sense of security in case the main controller failed.

Mine would probably kill me if, through a controller failure one evening, the lights in the whole house went out

So there is also the question of making the system immune to possible failures, or the possibility of switching to manual control mode. I know this is already going a bit off topic in the thread, but all these questions are tiring me, and when I get down to building I'd already like to be sure that what I'm doing is the best I could come up with

Please keep to the rules of correct Polish. [retrofood]

Controlling sockets with switching off while you are away is, in my opinion, a misguided idea, unless every time you plug in a laptop, a charger or anything else that should also work when you leave the house, you program into the controller that this socket should remain on.... Well unless the sockets with some kind of manual control bypassing the controller. In my opinion, any savings (chargers are increasingly designed to draw negligible power when plugged in with no load: 0.03 to 0.3W) will offset the power consumption of the controller and I/O systems in this system....

I am in the process of building such a system and you have to try hard to make the automation take as little power as possible My control is powered mainly by 24VDC so that I can later use a solar panel or a small wind turbine. The whole thing is run through a 600W 230VAC inverter which provides me with backup during a power failure or outage (recommended). As for switching off the sockets while I'm away, I think it's a good idea and on an annual basis it will make a difference. At my place, the visualisation two 15" touchscreens and a slimmed down PC draw the most current. On a larger scale, it's even the excess relays that start to make themselves felt, which is why I used a solution with triacs (isolated). Personally, I am in favour of a centralised structure because there you can always act in case of emergency, and doing a "manual mode" I think is overkill. My design is based on industrial automation hardware (S7-300) whose justification for use is due to its very, very low failure rate (knock on wood)

Hello
Sterbox, draws 1.8W , microwave with timer 2W
That's not where to look for savings. One example: lowering the temperature by a few degrees,
while the householder is away, is a few kilowatts per day * year.
Reducing the temp at night, lowering the temperature in rooms temporarily not in use, is another kW. Plus the comfort of being able to switch something on or off at any time. Check that something is working, the alarm is on, the front door locked. Email notification that some situation has occurred in the house (smoke, flooding, etc.)
How to value the "saving" of the consequences of flooding, not having a locked door....

That's how I read these above posts .... i
If we put a contactor on the sockets to disconnect the circuits while we are away then we will save a few watts per month, but ....
while we are "present" in the house these contactors will draw several watts per month. So I guess this is form over substance and unnecessarily complicates the electrical installation.
On top of this there are the investment costs:
- some small modular contactor about 60 zl,
- the output in the controller also costs money,
- implementation of the control system,
- control circuit protection

It turns out that the investment costs will pay off after a few years and by then the owner will have come up with "better" savings.

If anyone is looking for energy cost savings in a single-family home, I wish them luck.
Yes, in large facilities, where savings can be added up and compounded, by automating management, savings of up to 30% of energy consumption are said to be possible. However, no one publishes for how long (over how many years, not in the year under review) and at what investment cost. I suggest you divide any advertising leaflets on the subject by 10, because these are materials with no basis in reality, just like a TV advertisement for baking powder for potatoes. For enthusiasts, I suggest concentrating only on scientific specialist publications that do not indulge in cheap nonsense.

netotron wrote:

Hello
Sterbox, draws 1.8W , microwave with timer 2W
That's not where to look for savings. One example: lowering the temperature by a few degrees,
while the householder is away, is a few kilowatts per day * year.
Reducing the temp at night, lowering the temperature in rooms temporarily not in use, is another kW. Plus the comfort of being able to switch something on or off at any time. Check that something is working, the alarm is on, the front door locked. Email notification that some situation has occurred in the house (smoke, flooding, etc.)
How to value the "saving" of the consequences of flooding, not having the door locked...

one microwave yes, but a microwave, + one TV, plus another TV, plus some audio towers, console, etc etc etc etc.... a bit of this unnecessary equipment in the whole house.

zaq25 wrote:

Yes I read these above posts .... i
If we put a contactor on the sockets to disconnect the circuits while we are away then we save a few watts per month, but ....
while we are "present" in the house these contactors will draw several watts per month. So I guess this is form over substance and unnecessarily complicates the electrical installation.
On top of this there are the investment costs:
- some small modular contactor about 60 zl,
- the output in the controller also costs money,
- implementation of the control system,
- control circuit protection

It turns out that the investment costs will pay off after a few years and by then the owner will come up with "better" savings.

you may be right, a matter of taking stock of the expenditure. If indeed the energy consumed by the automation system were to be the same, or slightly less than the energy saved, then there really is no point.

To recap. You are surprised that I am looking for savings in a detached house. It may be a small amount, but a few pennies here, a few pennies there and it adds up to a visible sum. After all, I'm not going to sink the issue of savings.

I know that it takes the most out of heating a house, so lowering the temp while you're away is essential.

Hello

Here I have found such quite some analysis of this problem.

http://inteldom.blogspot.com/2011/11/intaligentny-dom-i-oszczednosci.html

http://inteldom.blogspot.com/2012/08/ile-kosztuja-inteligentne.html

To me, the automation of the relationship of heating, blinds, air exchange plus presence, remote control and scheduling of these resources is very worthwhile. Lighting no longer necessarily... unless on the principle of controlling garden lighting, outdoor lighting.... i.e. the kind that mostly burns unnecessarily and usually consists of a few bulbs.

Quote:

This is how urban legends are created. You are invoking someone who has never had and does not have an ID. Nor is he an installer. Nor has he ever done any free training on any IB/ID system. He is an enthusiast who has not bothered to invest £1000 in his hobby.
He is a passionate person who gets his knowledge from a calculator and marketing pap.

And how do you know such things.... how much he has invested... some substantive commentary as to these posts I don't see either....

Well, we are already getting into the subject of the energy consumption of the system itself.
As it turns out, however, contrary to the marketing gimmick, it is difficult to save anything with any ID system.

I'm still considering a battery pack powered by photovoltaic panels to power non-essential lighting, e.g. stair lighting, or lighting in front of a building entrance. That is, anywhere where I will be able to use energy-efficient LED lighting (everyone knows how little light the widely available, cheap, LED 'bulbs' give, the brighter ones being much more expensive).

According to the statistics provided by Fibaro, the savings generated by the implementation of their solutions are up to 23% on heat energy and up to 30% on electricity. On an annual basis, this translates into tangible sums.

Quote:

mikroflota wrote:

Welcome

Here I found this quite some analysis of this problem.

This is how urban legends are created. You are citing someone who has never had and does not have an ID. Nor is he an installer. Nor has he ever done any free training on any IB/ID system. He is an enthusiast who has not bothered to invest £1000 in his hobby.
He is an enthusiast who gets his knowledge from a calculator and marketing pap.

Quote:

III. CASE STUDY

Therefore, a direct measurement system has been set up in a
140m2 KNX house with two inhabitants. The KNX system
includes 38 active devices attached on a single line, fed by a
640mA power supply unit. Basic lighting control automation
and HVAC functions are deployed, making this house an
optimal choice for the purpose of reaching general findings.

Measures have been executed be means of a class 1 energy
meter with precision of 1/100 kWh, installed as to detect the
energy drawn by the KNX bus power supply unit.

With this kind of setup, the energy meter measures the only component due to KNX devices (controlling equipment), independently of the
actual energy consumed by house appliances (controlled equipment).


Energy consumption has been measured this way over a
period of 68 days, and about 200 measures were recorded.


Measurement shows that, during the test period, an overall
consumption of 15,1 kWh took place, due to the KNX system
only.


In the case considered, the KNX bus consumes a nearly constant average of about 9,2W regardless of the actual occupancy and activity parameters. Dispersion of values around this average has been limited within a range
between a minimum of 9,0W (correspondent to the summer
vacation period) to a maximum of 10,8W (during a pre-
scheduled fine-tuning and re-commissioning of the KNX
system, that took place during the test).

The quote comes from a study of several pages, aimed at reducing the power consumption of KNX devices .

The study was carried out under REAL conditions and not with a calculator.
Commonly used modules were used, just to calculate the FULL energy consumption of KNX alone. This was not developed for marketing purposes to knock down the competition, but for the organisation of KNX and the possible introduction of a function to 'put the modules to sleep' when not needed and to wake them up when needed. This would result in additional energy savings.


The above data is only true for KNX, of course, a skilled marketer will write, after a suitable "polish" of the text, that his system achieves such results or even better..

On one forum you boasted that you have two such devices [ Data sheet ] in your home installation for heating control. Please write how you relate the power consumption of these devices to the study you refer to? I would also ask other technical users to have a look at page 4 of the data sheet, where the power supply parameters are listed.

"Research" you cite does not present such information as to what actual devices are tested and what they can do [I mean Model/Manufacturer information]. I continue to think that a calculator is quite a useful device.

End of OT.

As for the research into the savings that IB or ID systems bring, IMHO this is mere gibberish, or at best a promise and above all a customer lure. Estimates of savings in a case like ID for a system of any manufacturer or association of manufacturers are impossible, because there are too many unknown variables. Dozens of them can be enumerated, from the climatic zone, to the user's preference for ID gadgets, to the layout of room functions, to the materials of the house, to the choice of heating technology, to the habitual habits of the occupants.

One of the most important features of ID systems is comfort. The comfort of the management and automation of the installation, which only enables and facilitates economic use of energy, among other things.

michal_1980 wrote:

From the statistics provided by the Fibaro company, it can be seen that the savings generated by the implementation of their solutions on heat energy reach up to 23%, and on electricity up to 30%. On a yearly basis, this translates into concrete sums.

You see mate your argument only proves that you can read this fact, but to understand what you read is already a problem. The magic word "DO" was used here, so savings of 0.003% are also included in this and you also think they are concrete? Let me remind you that the topic is about the home. Invite an installer to your home to design a system for you and sign a contract with him in which he will guarantee you such specific savings values, and if he doesn't, let him pay the difference out of his own pocket. And you can believe me that you will be left alone.

Quote:

Citation:

"The "studies" you cite do not provide such information as to what actual devices are tested and what they can do [I mean Model/Manufacturer information].

Your problem. It's a pity that you still don't know how 38 devices are powered only from a 640mA power supply and why they consume about 10W. And after all I advised well download the free ETS4 demo and some KNX modules from intelektronik to acquire some practical knowledge, but why after all you have a calculator.

Well, then you would be advising me wrongly because I would only find out that exactly the Intelelektronik devices [as well as your Triac-based device] do not meet the assumptions from the KNX study mentioned above.

Here you have the inside of an 8-fold actuator from Intelektronik.



As you can see from the picture the actuator is 8 JQX-115F relays Catalogue card . Each of these relays draws 16.7mA at 24V when switched on. So at maximum use the device draws at least 133.6mA which is over 3W in total. You just gave a bad example [because these are not KNX certified devices]. I am not saying that there are no KNX devices that fall within the energy consumption of 0.25W, but I don't think there are such "unnecessary" rarities in the smart home such as dimmers and many others that would only "unnecessarily" "falsify" this wonderful result of 10W for 38 devices....

siutek84 wrote:

I know that the automation itself also requires power. i'm just wondering how much energy it will consume. For example, will the automatic switching off of sockets while the household members are away (i.e. switching off appliances that usually work in "stand by" mode) be noticeable on a yearly basis. Obviously appliances such as a fridge or heat pump would have their own independent sockets....

Hello
Control of 230V sockets should be kept to a minimum, disconnecting such circuits for any electronic devices misses the point. One might be tempted to have a few such points for typically functional purposes - e.g. outdoor switched Christmas lights connected to such a circuit for Christmas.
I haven't calculated or considered whether the IB system brings tangible savings - I am in favour of Retrofood's colleague's statement on this point.

The important element is the heating in the flat and here we can make savings that may offset the cost of powering all the automation, but every flat is different and it is difficult to divine from fiat what exact "result" we will achieve.

siutek84 wrote:

I'm also thinking about combining two types of network, distributed and centralised.
I saw a cool lighting controller project here on the electrode that had a decentralised structure. This allowed for a greater sense of security in case the main controller failed.
Mine would probably kill me if, through a controller failure one evening, the lights in the whole house went out

If I had to recommend something - it is only a centralised system, of course it is not possible to do the whole installation this way, there are automation elements that are located in different parts of the building, but it is worth keeping the bus dispersion to a minimum.
In the event of damage to the main board of the system (knock on wood, I haven't had such a situation yet) e.g. in the case of the Nexo system, you can still normally control all the lighting in the flat with standard switches, so don't worry about your wife

Regards

siutek84 wrote:

Well, we are already getting into the subject of energy consumption by the system itself.
However, as it turns out, contrary to the marketing gimmick, it is difficult to save anything with any ID system.

I'm still thinking about a battery pack powered by photovoltaic panels to power non-essential lighting, e.g., stair lighting, or lighting in front of a building entrance. That is, wherever I will be able to use energy-efficient LED lighting (everyone knows how little light the widely available, cheap, LED 'bulbs' give, the brighter ones being much more expensive).

The discussion is getting academic, how much can you save on relay current
And they escape kW in heating, lighting, appliances that run 24 hours etc
Photovoltaic panels - read facts and myths about efficiency in our climatic conditions (annual insolation). Cost of panels, controller (charger), battery(s) additional electrical installation. Divide by the years of return on investment - minus battery replacement (365 per year cyclical operation)

stkop wrote:

You just gave a bad example [because these are not KNX certified devices]

What do you mean, supposedly KNX devices and not KNX?

adwlodar wrote:

stkop wrote:
You just gave a bad example [because these are not KNX certified devices]


What do you mean, supposedly KNX devices and not KNX?

Intelelektronik on the web declares that it manufactures devices "compatible with the KNX standard", not KNX. This can be called a substitute to some extent.

The savings on a smart home system are easy to calculate.

Let me give you an example of the Ceuron radio system.
The LCD touchscreen control panel consumes a maximum of 3W, i.e. a monthly energy consumption of about £1. (Realistically averaged consumption is about 1.5W)

A single actuator with two relay outputs consumes a maximum of 0.5 W, i.e. a monthly consumption of approximately 17 gr.

So if we wanted to control just one element we would have to spend 1.17gr per month. This may not be worth it.
But if we were to switch off 10 receivers (with optimal use of the actuators), we would pay 1.85£ per month.

So you can check how much energy these 10 receivers will consume in a month and whether it will pay off. It should come out to a considerable plus.

Of course, the price of the system must be taken into account. The central unit of the Ceuron system costs at least PLN 600 and the executive module about PLN 140.
If we set it up ourselves, we will pay about PLN 1,300 for the control of such 10 points.
The payback period will be quite long, but it will pay off in the end.

For the valuation, I assumed the cheapest current intelligent home system from the Polish company Ceuron.

narpaw wrote:

I will give the example of the Ceuron radio system.

Dear Mr President, please provide some in-depth case studies. From what you have written it can only be inferred that in any calculations the cost of operation and investment should be taken into account.... only that no savings result from this.

narpaw wrote:

I have adopted the currently cheapest smart home system from the Polish company Ceuron for the valuation.

Signed:
Manufacturer

narpaw wrote:

The payback period will come out quite long but it will pay off in the end.

No exaggeration. It will get old sooner morally and technically. It will have to be discarded (read: replaced) and new ones bought, which means investment costs again....

Of course, if we only want to save money on standby devices by using home automation, this misses the point, because the payback period of even a cheap system will be several years.
However, the purpose of centralised automation is to control many different actuators.
Much greater savings can be achieved by intelligent heating control: e.g. lowering the temperature of the house when you are away or at night, switching off radiators if you open a window, closing roller blinds at night, not to mention more sophisticated methods such as controlling collectors or recuperation. All this is also automatically controlled by the smart home.

Accumulating all these savings, the investment period is already reduced to around four years (depending on the complexity of the system).

I wrote about the cheapest Keuron smart home system not only because of the advertising, but it also has a very important impact on the calculations (which is what this thread is about, after all). Because if you take competing systems into your calculations, the investment period increases even further.

narpaw wrote:

Accumulating all these savings, the investment period is already reduced to around four years (depending on the complexity of the system).

I wrote about the cheapest Keuron smart home system not only because of the advertising, but it also has a very important impact on the calculations (which is what this thread is about, after all). Because if you take competing systems into your calculations, the investment period increases even further.

Dear Mr President

You have described several mechanisms that help to save energy with the support of home automation, but you have indicated, without any justification, that the Ceuron system should depreciate after 4 years of operation. By writing such things, you are continuing the tradition of marketing that manufacturers of similar systems carry out by writing about government energy savings of several tens of percent without citing any studies, calculations, analyses. In other words, it is pure speculation, and your statement is unmeritorious and betrays purely marketing intentions. Despite my sympathy for the new youngeuron brand on the market, I will personally report further such statements to moderation as spam. Please once again provide solid justification for your thesis of 4-year depreciation. Since you cite the Ceuron system as the cheapest, you can cite in your analysis the cheapest materials for the construction of a modern house [windows, insulation, light sources, etc.] and the considered expensive types of heating such as electricity and assume the complete energy indolence of the users. This should make it easier for you to calculate favourably for the system.... but also perhaps meet reality somewhere by accident in some assumption and finally as electrode users have any benefit from your participation in this community.

The stated amortisation period was determined on the basis of a study of one heating period in a 140m2 detached house, built using YTONG technology with windows with a thermal transmittance of 1.1, heated with natural gas (radiators).
Such studies are more reliable than the calculations provided by most companies for marketing purposes, and they come out with savings of 30% (without taking into account the inertia of the building and the specific use of the house).

The study was carried out over 7 months of the heating period in an alternating manner : one week manual control, one week automatic control. General high temperature 22C, general low temperature 19C. Bedroom temperature 19.5C.
The cost of heating the house for the heating season in manual-constant mode was 3860 PLN.
The cost of heating the house for the heating season in automatic mode was 3300zł

Automation used (elements involved in heating control):
- S300-iMax control panel 1200zł
- Executive modules x3 (general control, living room radiators, bedroom radiators). 3x140zł = 420zł.
- Temperature sensors 3x150zł=450zł
- Reed switches to detect door opening (connected to heating control modules) 4x10zł=40zł
- Thermoelectric heads for Salus TA15MR radiators 3x65zł=195zł.
Total : 2305zł.


Maximum electricity consumed (calculated): Controller 12zł, modules 6zł, heads 3zł.
Total : 21zł/year.

Annual profit 560zł.
Payback period 51 months (about four years).

Comments:
-The house also closed the roller blinds at night but it is difficult to concretely estimate their impact on the calculation.
-Profits from electrical appliances were not included in the calculation - they should be considered as added value.

P.S. (Information for malcontents)
Only the prices of the components were taken into account for the system evaluation - assuming personal installation. If an installation company charges 2,000PLN for such an installation, the payback period will of course double.

Hi, I was interested in the power consumption of the ID system itself. Can anyone tell me if the Darin modules draw a lot of power, because there is quite a lot of information on them, but I haven't read it. Indeed, I'm trying to count the savings to make a good choice, and I somehow missed the fact that the system is also a consumer.

ok,
so I owe you some explanations, because I didn't describe this in the first post, and it turns out that this is an important part of your calculations.

I am going to build a house that is as energy efficient as possible, I would say "almost" passive. What I will get out of it remains to be seen. But that is what I will be aiming for.

As far as the automation system is concerned, I was thinking more of an original design on a PLC. Plus the possibility of controlling the system from a PC(via www) and a smartphone.
I'm a little afraid of off-the-shelf systems, mainly because of the costs, and also because of the low flexibility. I can add any module or programme I need to an off-the-shelf system myself at any time. With off-the-shelf systems, I am limited to what the manufacturer offers. As what happens soldering iron I am not afraid

Heating: I am setting my sights on a heat pump. Plus mechanical ventilation. All connected to an IH system.

And a minor fact: rainwater tank for watering the garden

I am simply thinking of how to reduce operating costs.

siutek84 wrote:

I will want to build a house that is as energy efficient as possible, I would say 'almost' passive. What I will get out of it remains to be seen. But this is what I will be aiming for

Such a house will also be 30% more expensive to build.
Poor people can't afford it, the rich will rather do it for the spendy or their own satisfaction.
For me it is a utopia and will be for a long time to come.
The profits made from saving this energy, will be needed after 20 years to replace the pump, valve coil pipe motors etc.
So take it easy with the scorching.
I suggest focusing on perfect thermal insulation and recuperation of ventilation.

I am reckoning with higher construction costs, although I have encountered claims that the higher cost of building a passive house is just a myth, as long as one spends enough time and attention looking for the right materials at the right prices, which is possible