The answer boils down to how energy intensive it is to remove heat from your home. It’s influenced by many factors such as how well your house is insulated, the size and type of your air conditioner and outdoor temperature and humidity.

According to our unpublished calculations, letting your home heat up while you’re out at work and cooling it when you get home can use less energy than keeping it consistently cool – but it depends.

Blast A/C all day, even when you’re away?

First, think about how heat accumulates in the first place. It flows into your home when the building has less stored heat than outside. If the amount of heat flowing into your home is given by a rate of “1 unit per hour,” your A/C will always have 1 unit of heat to remove every hour. If you turn off your A/C and let the heat accumulate, you could have up to eight hours’ worth of heat at the end of the day.

It’s often less than that, though – homes have a limit to how much heat they can store. And the amount of heat that enters your home depends on how hot the building was to begin with. For example, if your home can only store five units of thermal energy before coming to an equilibrium with the outdoor air temperature, then at the end of the day you will only ever have to remove 5 units of heat at most.

Additionally, as your home heats up, the process of heat transfer slows down; eventually it reaches zero heat transfer at equilibrium, when the temperature inside is the same as the temperature outside. Your A/C also cools less effectively in extreme heat, so keeping it off during the hottest parts of the day can increase overall efficiency of the system. These effects mean there’s no one straightforward answer to whether you should blast the A/C all day or wait until you get back home in the evening.

Energy used by different A/C strategies

Consider a test case of a small home with typical insulation in two warm climates: dry (Arizona) and humid (Georgia). Using energy modeling software created by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory for analyzing energy use in residential buildings, we looked at multiple test cases for energy use in this hypothetical 1,200 square-foot (110 square-meter) home.

We considered three temperature strategy scenarios. One has the indoor temperature set to a constant 76 degrees Fahrenheit. A second lets the temperature float up to 89 F during an eight-hour workday – a “setback.” The last uses a temperature setback to 89 F for a short four-hour workday.

Within these three scenarios, we looked at three different A/C technologies: a single stage central A/C, a central air source heat pump (ASHP) and minisplit heat pump units. Central A/C units are typical of current residential buildings, while heat pumps are gaining popularity due to their improved efficiency. Central ASHPs are easily used in one-to-one replacements of central A/C units; minisplits are more efficient than central A/C but costly to set up.

We wanted to see how energy use from A/C varied across these cases. We knew that regardless of the HVAC technology used, the A/C system would surge when the thermostat setpoint returned to 76 F and also for all three cases in the late afternoon when outdoor air temperatures are usually the highest. In the setback cases, we programmed the A/C to start cooling the space before the resident is back, ensuring thermal comfort by the time they get home.

What we found was that even when the A/C temporarily spikes to recover from the higher indoor temperatures, the overall energy consumption in the setback cases is still less than when maintaining a constant temperature throughout the day. On an annual scale with a conventional central A/C, this could result in energy savings of up to 11 percent.

However, the energy savings may decrease if the home is better insulated, the A/C is more efficient, or the climate has less dramatic temperature swings.

The central air source heat pump and minisplit heat pump are more efficient overall but yield less savings from temperature setbacks. An eight-hour setback on weekdays provides savings regardless of the system type, while the benefits gleaned from a four-hour setback are less straightforward.

Aisling Pigott is a Ph.D student in architectural engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder. Jennifer Scheib is an assistant teaching professor of building systems engineering at Univ. of Colorado Boulder. Kyri Baker is an assistant professor of building systems engineering at the Univ. of Colorado Boulder.

---

Related Articles

Carl Erskine: A boy of summer

April 23 | William A. Gralnick

Opinion: To curb the overdose crisis, New York State must invest in the behavioral health workforce

April 17 | Michael T. McRae, PhD

SPONSORED CONTENT
SUNY Downstate Hospital Proposed Closure Plan: Myths vs Realities

April 15 | Special from UUP, United University Professions

The Reading Rifle: One of my favorites

April 9 | William A. Gralnick