[barbegal]

The problem of saving power with small household devices is similar to the problem with micro-transactions. The overhead of connecting devices into a smart system is far greater than the recovered cost in terms of both money and energy. A smart switch can easily run to $100 to purchase and install and $10 a year to run. So it needs to save you ~$20 a year to be worthwhile. For large appliances that are regularly used such as swimming pool pumps, air conditioners, scooter or car chargers then it can be worthwhile.

I'd like to see smart blinds and curtains become more popular as windows can act like a giant highly efficient solar panel heating your home up when the conditions are right. Sadly again the cost of setting up and maintaining such a system could be ~$100 a year so only certain buildings would actually see a return on investment.

[tbyehl]

'Dumb' timers and thermostats have existed for a long time, the value of something smarter isn't necessarily about reducing power consumption.

I put smart switches on my exterior lights to run them on a schedule. The value proposition was 'People don't arrive to darkness because we rarely remember to turn them on.' I'm trading an increase in consumption for utility.

My 'dumb' pool pump timer died and I replaced it with a more expensive smart model. Now, in addition to running the schedule, the pump also runs when the temperature approaches or drops below freezing. It may be running more or less than under the 'I manually override the timer when it's unusually cold and I remember' scenario but the value proposition was 'Prevent a pipe burst because I forgot to turn it on.'

[Bedon292]

While they may not actually save money over lifetime, its possible they do reduce your carbon footprint over their lifetime. I am actually curious about that side of things. The devices obviously cost some amount of resources and money, does their electricity savings every offset their initial creation.