You don't make the decision just based on if it's 9AM or 1AM.
That indeed would make no sense. But you can use that as one factor
to regulate the water temp the boiler is supplying. Again, if
the system has been running 25% of the time from 1 AM to 7 AM, then
it ran 22% of the time from 7AM to 9AM, that combined with the fact
that it's now daytime, suggests that it's OK to move to a cooler
water temp. It tries that and sees what happens. Within minutes,
it knows how fast the temp in the house is responding to the
new lower water temp, giving it
more information. In an hour, it knows what percent of the time
the system ran and can again adjust.
In fact, I could argue that basing the decision on that, vs outside
temp, might produce better results. Let's say it's 25F outside.
Does the house need the same amount of heat when it's 25F at 3AM at night,
with a 25MPH wind as it does when it's full sun on a still day at
noon? The thermostat knows how much heat the system has supplied
over the past hour and I'd say that might be more relevant than
just the outside temperature.
I did a bit of googling and it looks like this whole idea
of outdoor reset has some holes and some controversy in it.
For one thing, what happens with setback, which can save a lot
of energy use? Presumably, if the outdoor setback is linked
in to a smart thermostat in say a single family home, then the
smart thermostat can accommodate that. You set the temp back
to 60F at night, but in the morning, it knows it has to get the
temp up to 70F fast, so it fires at the higher water temp,
But if it's not linked in, then what? If it's 40F outside,
and the reset controller limits the boiler temp to the lowest,
it's going to take a long time to raise the temp 10F,
So? Don't set it back? Set it
back but have it start going back to 70F at 4AM instead of 6AM?
Either of those negates the savings of setback.
And then what about multi family or apartment buildings?
You can probably kiss nighttime setback goodbye, because then
there isn't one smart thermostat that could solve the above.
So, which saves more energy? Setback or squeezing a little more
efficiency out of the boiler with outdoor reset? IDK
Given the choice between the stat
>
> making an assumption and the system making a decision based on time, indoor
>
> temp and outdoor temp, I'll take a decision based on facts every time.
>
>
The thermostat knows that with the water temp set to 110F, the
system ran 20% of the time the last hour, 22% the hour before,
it's now 8AM, that right now the system has run for 8 mins and
the inside temp has risen .4F. Those aren't facts?
>
> As far as how many systems offer an outdoor reset option, all I know is
>
> that every boiler quote that my dad got (4?) included the outdoor reset as
>
> an option. Each quote was for a different brand of boiler, so they seemed
>
> to be pretty common in the boiler world - or perhaps it was just my dad's
>
> New England location.
>
>
From googling it appears that this is a govt mandate now on
new boilers and it's a minimum reqt.
>
> Regarding the savings achieved, this 2004 study might give actual savings
>
> numbers somewhere in the 25 page report, but I'll just quote the conclusion
>
> reached:
>
>
>
> "The primary conclusion of this work is that condensing boilers can achieve
>
> energy efficiency benefit even when used in homes with common baseboard
>
> radiators by incorporating a reset control which modulates the water
>
> temperature supplied to the baseboards with outdoor temperature."
>
>
>
>
http://www.heatinghelp.com/files/posts/770/Condensing%20Boiler%20and%20Baseboard.pdf
>
>
I'm surprised you're not interested enough to look for the actual
results. First, you're conflating two things:
1 - Getting higher efficiency via reducing the boiler water
temperature when possible
2 - That using outdoor temperature is the only way to do that
I said from the start that I agree you can get slightly higher
efficiency by going to a lower water temperature. It makes
sense, because you're going to extract a little more of the
combustion heat. I said I'd guess you get an extra 1 or 2%
efficiency. Look at the above study you provided, page 9.
It shows that by varying the water temp from lowest to highest,
the boiler efficiency goes from 91.6% to 94%, with the highest efficiency
being with a return water temp of 93F. So, the difference in
efficiency was at most 2.4%. And then consider that the most
energy burned is going to be when it's coldest outside and
that is when the boiler is going to be told to fire at the
hottest temps, so you don't get 2.4% more efficiency
during the periods when
most of the energy is used, you get 0 or maybe 1%. How much
difference is that going to make in an energy bill?
There is another interesting aspect to that whole experiment.
On page 23 they show the efficiency curves for the condensing
boiler they used for the test and for the conventional, plain
old chimney vented boiler that was alternately used. The
difference in efficiency between the two is only about 5%.
That would seem to be so shocking, that you're left wondering
if something is radically wrong with the whole test procedure.
It's like testing some new device on a Porsche Turbo and on
a Smart Car and finding that the device produced a 1.5% difference
in fuel economy for both cars. Reporting that as a conclusion
and then saying, by the way, the Porsche got 28 mpg and the
Smart Car 30 mpg.
>
> I also found a 1984 study that quotes the savings as 10-20% in apartment
>
> buildings after outdoor resets were installed, but a 30 year old study of
>
> apartment building boiler systems might not be relevant. While the theory
>
> behind the savings stills hold, the efficiency of more modern system
>
> probably cuts into the percentage somewhat.
>
>
>
>
http://www.heatinghelp.com/files/posts/9700/outdoor_reset.pdf
>
>
I skimmed through that. They basically took some apartment
building that had a disaster for a heating system. They
talk about over heated hallways, residents opening windows
because the apartments were too hot, etc. That sure sounds
like there are serious other problems that need to be fixed
and should be fixed, by other means. I think even in low
income housing, people don't open the windows instead of
turning down the thermostat. It's a sign of a malfunctioning
or extremely bad install. So, yes, I can see how an outdoor
reset would make a difference in energy usage under those
circumstances. But it doesn't seem like a fair comparison test
to me and we also
don't see any discussion about if there were complaints from
other residents that now were not getting enough heat either.
With what it sounds like was going on in those buildings, I
would not be surprised if that was a side result.
>
> Bottom line, at least as far as I can tell, is that basing the water temp
>
> on the outside temp - with a properly calibrated outdoor reset system -
>
> just makes sense. The only real question is, similar to the situation that
>
> occurs when sizing a house for a new heating system, is whether or not all
>
> the factors required to accurate calibrate the outdoor reset unit so that
>
> it works properly in a given house were taken into account.
I'd say the real question is if you can do pretty much the
same thing, perhaps even better, eg avoiding the setback problems,
with a smart thermostat without using an outdoor sensor. Here's
a company with a product that seems to agree:
http://www.exqheat.com/thermostatsandthelaw.html
"Reset Controls are Required
for Hot Water Boilers Manufactured after September 2012.
Outdoor Reset Control vs.... Indoor Real Time Reset Control for Boilers
Are we heating the outdoors? Exquisite Heat adjusts boiler temperature every hour of the day from indoor real time heat loss data, taking all building factors of heat loss from windows, wind, sunlight activity, insulation, lighting, occupancy, and individual comfort needs into consideration. "