Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Up to 2.5 minutes of the sun being fully covered up (in certain areas) makes that big of a dent in solar panel energy production and requires "traditional power to be fired up?" I'm calling BS.
Not ******** when you actually think about it.

Total solar phase will be 2.5-3 hours in some areas. As soon as the sun is partially covered the efficiency of solar is drastically reduced.

Now most solar farms directly feed the grid as it’s more cost effective than charging big expensive batteries.

So when the sun is up power plants dial back supply as demand is met with solar. The coal and gas stations become suplimentary just trickle feeding the grid.

When the eclipse hits the solar dials back and the coal and gas kick in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: manu chao
What a damn publicity stunt! We had a total solar eclipse in Europe about 10 years ago, and I can assure you then even when the sun is covered 100%, the amount of light is equivalent to the one of a cloudy day, and literally just 5 minutes.
 
How about we just all go plant a tree, like John Denver sang about to help offset the CO2. By all means, that IS what plants breathe in and in turn, give back oxygen.
You can plant a tree or you can reduce the number of 'old trees' you dig back up from the ground and burn them. Same overall effect.
[doublepost=1502473642][/doublepost]
What a damn publicity stunt! We had a total solar eclipse in Europe about 10 years ago, and I can assure you then even when the sun is covered 100%, the amount of light is equivalent to the one of a cloudy day, and literally just 5 minutes.
The last eclipse I watched, the street lights came on automatically. And no, the solar power generation doesn't just go down for the few minutes of the total eclipse but over a few hours, depending on how large the relevant electrical grid area is. Here are a couple of graphs from two articles:
mar_836_solareclipse_150227_03.png

mar_836_solareclipse_150227_01.png


entsoe-solar-eclipse-impact-analysis.png


What also matters is the rate of change:
entsoe-solar-eclipse-impact-analysis-rate.png


How much this poses a problem depends on many factors. Foremost probably the percentage of PV in the total electricity supply at the time of the eclipse (which among other things depends also on the weather, the time of day) and secondly how flexible the grid and other power sources are (including storage systems from pumped storage to batteries). If an eclipse hits an island that is not connected to a wider grid (eg, Hawaii), things get more critical.
 
Last edited:
What a damn publicity stunt! We had a total solar eclipse in Europe about 10 years ago, and I can assure you then even when the sun is covered 100%, the amount of light is equivalent to the one of a cloudy day, and literally just 5 minutes.

“Our solar plants are going to lose over half of their ability to generate electricity during the two to two and a half hours that the eclipse will be impacting our area,” says Steven Greenlee, spokesperson for the California Independent System Operator, or CAISO, one of the largest independent grid operators in the world.
 
Man - how do they survive a cloudy day?!? How did the US ever make it through the eclipse of '79 without these smart thermostats?
The real problem is not the lack of sunlight but the rate of change of (non-PV) electricity supply needs. You never get such a coordinated change from sunlight to thick cloud cover over such a large area from normal weather changes. The rate of change (in decrease in PV electricity production in about the hour leading up to the total eclipse and the rate of increase after the total eclipse) is more than twice as fast as the rate of change during the normal daily cycle in the morning and in the evening. And daily PV electricity production cycle is partially matched by the daily demand curve, making the normal rate of change required from other electricity sources to compensate even less than that.

The good thing about an eclipse is that it is very predictable. The bad thing is that it needs relatively steep ramps from other electricity supply providers. Tweaking the demand curve to decrease somewhat in lock step with the eclipse reduces the rate of change provided from other electricity sources.

And if you are wondering how the U.S. ever made it through the eclipse of 1979, I ask you to ponder what percentage of electricity back then was supplied by PV compared to what percentage it supplies today.
[doublepost=1502482201][/doublepost]
The better approach would've been to let the home air temperatures creep up. Besides, half of the cooling load in homes comes from solar gains through windows, then another quarter through internal heat gains mostly cooking. Just turn that A/C off, grab your solar eclipse glasses, have friends over, BBQ, and enjoy the show.
The best approach is to do both: Lower the temperature a bit before the eclipse and let it increase a bit during it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hipnetic
These HomeKit posts crack me up.

We had a Nest2 for about 2 years, loved it. Switched to EcoBee for HomeKit, hated it. Siri never understands what you are asking, or it takes her forever to respond, it was more annoying than anything. Plus, Nest gives a very simple quick glance at the day's usage. The EcoBee gave 5+ lines of simultanous data points, information overload. We sold the EcoBee and went back to Nest, with a Nest3. HomeKit hasn't impressed me yet, at all, Siri isn't good for much other than setting timers.

Since when does Nest have a touch screen?

View attachment 712542

It doesn't. You turn the outer dial to your selection and press in on the screen to select your highlighted selection. The entire device "click" as you push it in.

Man - how do they survive a cloudy day?!? How did the US ever make it through the eclipse of '79 without these smart thermostats?

Seems to just be a marketing gimmick. Free news = free publicity = free advertising.
 
I've been meaning to sell my nest and switch over to an ecobee for a while now.

I did this, and I am happy with the results.

There is *one* gotcha... The Nest can work without a common wire because it can "vampire" power itself through the HVAC relay wires. The Ecobee cannot. If you don't actually have a common wire, then you need to install a gizmo on your furnace to allow the wires you have to also transmit power to the thermostat.

That said, we had a common wire, because we added one because the Nest vampire power system was not reliable. Adding a common wire made the Nest work better for us. Fortunately, our wiring bundle had a spare we could dedicate to it for the purpose. So moving to Ecobee for us was not an issue.

To bring this back on topic, the talk of the lack of solar production specifically due to the eclipse reminds me a lot of the Y2K talk. This little move by Nest is clever marketing, but I seriously doubt that even if it had perfect buy-in it would make any noticeable difference at all.
 
People in the summer generally prefer to be a little cold over a little hot, so the "pre-cool" allows energy use during the eclipse (where presumably we will have peak energy use) to be avoided. "Just let the temp creep up" starting from "comfortable" means that the moment the eclipse starts the temp will be above comfortable for the occupants, which human nature tells us means they will fairly quickly turn the thermostat back on to resume its normal schedule.

I find most people crank their A/C to freezing cold to begin with. I like 73-75F in the summer but can generally tolerate up to 85F if it's dry (less than 25% relative humidity) and the sun's not shining, as I sometimes don't run A/C in my car when it's that warm. Not a fan of cold air drafts.
 
The better approach would've been to let the home air temperatures creep up. Besides, half of the cooling load in homes comes from solar gains through windows, then another quarter through internal heat gains mostly cooking. Just turn that A/C off, grab your solar eclipse glasses, have friends over, BBQ, and enjoy the show.
Yeah, I don't get what the big deal is. It's a couple of hours. Won't make any difference. Even if it does, is that really so intolerable?
[doublepost=1502562461][/doublepost]
Smart thermostats is not Apple's core business. It's a neat device but not imperative for Apple to own.
The more accessories Apple doesn't build, the less of an ecosystem they have. Why don't I just buy an Android phone next? My iPhone is so laggy now that it would be the same experience.
 
Last edited:
The amount of misinformation in this thread from people looking to wax their pseudo-environmentalist crosses is hilarious.

Live off grid with 100% solar power and you'd know better than to buy into nonsense like this Nest advertising campaign.
 
We bought an ecobee (ecobee 3 lite) last week to replace one (of two) old Honeywell thermostat.

The Homekit integration is very nice, and setting up a schedule was a breeze (I'm not one for the "smart" thermostat auto-scheduling, primarily because we have eight people and three dogs in the house all with wildly varying schedules so I have no confidence a thermostat would ever make sense of what we want when and also couldn't rely on motion sensors since the English Mastiff looks just like a person to any motion sensor). And, unlike the Honeywell, it was also a breeze setting up a "peak electricity" cool-down/warm-up cycle to avoid using the AC during the more-expensive peak energy times of 4-9 weekdays. So far, per PG&E's website, we're saving about $5/day compared to before the ecobee, but the temps also haven't gotten quite as hot this last week so that peak-energy avoidance strategy might end up not being as effective on a real scorcher where the house heats up too quickly.

All that said, ecobees are much cheaper than Nest, allow for "remote sensors" in any number of rooms you'd like to build a more complete efficacy picture in the thermostat, and allow you to use Siri to interrogate your thermostat ("Hey Siri, what is the temperature upstairs?" is the most common evening query in our house, replacing me walking up the stairs and shining a flashlight on the unlit Honeywell's screen to see what it says) as well as adjust the schedule when the last one leaves / first arrives home with absolute ease. The app is great when we don't want to talk (I'm still not a big proponent of talking to devices). We don't have enough other Homekit stuff to really benefit from "scenes" and such, but that is something I'm still experimenting with.

One other difference with ecobee is that you generally don't set specific temperatures on the device, but "comfort settings". You have three: "home", "away", and "sleeping". Each comfort setting has a minimum temperature (for when heating is on) and a max temperature (for when cooling is on). This indirection makes it easy to set things up so that it is a little cooler (or a little warmer) at night, without having to go to each day's schedule to set a specific temperature each time. That said, we have to reuse the "sleeping" comfort setting at the 3-4 hour to hyper-cool the house, and the "away" setting from 4-9 to allow it to heat up as needed. It took a little getting used to, but overall I like ecobee's approach.

The second (downstairs) thermostat won't really pay for itself until we get to heating season, so we won't be upgrading it until later in the fall. That one might end up being an ecobee 3 (non-lite) which includes one other-room sensor, and we might get a few other sensors to go with it (if someone is in the downstairs bedroom we might need to run the AC/heat longer to keep it comfortable, same with the office and potentially the front room).

Overall, without having seen anything other than Nest's marketing materials, I am quite happy with ecobee, and it integrates well with our iOS devices (and supports Alexa etc, for the Google/Amazon folks).
Thank you
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.