It really is. I get it if you’re on extremely limited finances, but for most American families the $15 difference between a comfortable temperature and a uncomfortable one is hardly worth caring about compared to actually feeling comfortable in your own home.
In my case it’s a difference of nearly $100/month to run the heat for a couple hours in the morning and it’s only set at 70. I’d love these tiny amounts people are paying. I don’t even live in a big place.
Unless you live in a subarctic climate you likely have a poorly insulated house, inefficient heat, or both. My previous house was a 2400 sqft modern home on a heat pump and I was paying ~$80 a month for 24/7 heat at 72 degrees.
That said:
Depending on the circumstances, running the heater “for a few hours in the morning” can be more expensive than keeping the heat on all the time. Let’s say it’s 20 degrees outside at night. A well insulated home can take almost the entire day to cool down from 70 to 20, and then you need to run the heater at full duty cycle for a long time to get it back up to temp for your morning routine.
The energy difference between keeping a house at 70 all day versus heating it from 20 to 70 every morning might be a lot smaller than you expect, so even with gas heating it might not me as much extra as you expect to keep the heat on all the time. Furthermore, if you have a heat pump heater it will kick on low efficiency auxiliary heaters if there is a large difference between the desired temp and the current indoor temp. Under those circumstances it will be WAY more expensive to run the heater for a few hours each day than to keep it on.
Also, usually when we talk about parent fighting with their kids about the thermostat, it’s usually a fight over whether to set it at 65 vs 70, not whether or not you have heat at all. Setting it 5f lower is going to be a much smaller difference than simply not using it.
Heat pumps, while not unheard of, are not common in the US. Most people especially those in older homes are using gas or electric furnaces which results in higher bills.
Hence my comment about inefficient heat. The real killer in terms of cost is electric resistance heaters. Luckily, those only make up 20-25% of homes in the USA.
That’s kind of besides the original point though. Most people only run heaters regularly in cold climates and heater cost is proportional to the temperature difference. If it’s an average of 20f outside it will only cost ~10% more to heat the home to 70 instead of 65 and that can be a pretty big difference in comfort for the occupants for a relatively small proportion of extra cost.
No, it’s due to where I live. Default power bill with no heat is about $150. This is just to exist, anything extra like heat kicks it up like crazy. The utility company and regulatory body are openly corrupt and approve a never-ending series of rate hikes.
It really is. I get it if you’re on extremely limited finances, but for most American families the $15 difference between a comfortable temperature and a uncomfortable one is hardly worth caring about compared to actually feeling comfortable in your own home.
In my case it’s a difference of nearly $100/month to run the heat for a couple hours in the morning and it’s only set at 70. I’d love these tiny amounts people are paying. I don’t even live in a big place.
Unless you live in a subarctic climate you likely have a poorly insulated house, inefficient heat, or both. My previous house was a 2400 sqft modern home on a heat pump and I was paying ~$80 a month for 24/7 heat at 72 degrees.
That said:
Depending on the circumstances, running the heater “for a few hours in the morning” can be more expensive than keeping the heat on all the time. Let’s say it’s 20 degrees outside at night. A well insulated home can take almost the entire day to cool down from 70 to 20, and then you need to run the heater at full duty cycle for a long time to get it back up to temp for your morning routine.
The energy difference between keeping a house at 70 all day versus heating it from 20 to 70 every morning might be a lot smaller than you expect, so even with gas heating it might not me as much extra as you expect to keep the heat on all the time. Furthermore, if you have a heat pump heater it will kick on low efficiency auxiliary heaters if there is a large difference between the desired temp and the current indoor temp. Under those circumstances it will be WAY more expensive to run the heater for a few hours each day than to keep it on.
Also, usually when we talk about parent fighting with their kids about the thermostat, it’s usually a fight over whether to set it at 65 vs 70, not whether or not you have heat at all. Setting it 5f lower is going to be a much smaller difference than simply not using it.
Heat pumps, while not unheard of, are not common in the US. Most people especially those in older homes are using gas or electric furnaces which results in higher bills.
Hence my comment about inefficient heat. The real killer in terms of cost is electric resistance heaters. Luckily, those only make up 20-25% of homes in the USA.
That’s kind of besides the original point though. Most people only run heaters regularly in cold climates and heater cost is proportional to the temperature difference. If it’s an average of 20f outside it will only cost ~10% more to heat the home to 70 instead of 65 and that can be a pretty big difference in comfort for the occupants for a relatively small proportion of extra cost.
No, it’s due to where I live. Default power bill with no heat is about $150. This is just to exist, anything extra like heat kicks it up like crazy. The utility company and regulatory body are openly corrupt and approve a never-ending series of rate hikes.