Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 109 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 6466 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

The future of residential building electrical installations

Arran Cameron
This is a spin-off from the discussion What is the best way to wire ceiling lights.


What do you think is the future of residential building electrical installations in 20 to 30 years time? Will they in modern and modernised houses be significantly different from what they are today or will they most likely be barely changed from what they are today?


Will consumer demand be a driving force for change or will electricians only make changes from the status quo in order to comply with updated wiring regs?
Parents
  • 0

    Sparkingchip:


    It makes far more sense that you pay a higher standing charge to cover the investment in and maintenance of generation and distribution equipment, then pay a lower tariff per Kwh of usage to cover the actual running costs of fuel.




    The Green Party once had a policy (and may still have it) of abolishing standing charges for electricity.


    In some respects it could be argued that if a high proportion of electricity is produced from renewable sources then standing charges are a better system than paying by the kWh, as costs are more skewed towards the investment in and maintenance of generation and distribution equipment. The converse may be true if a high proportion of electricity is produced from fossil fuels.


    However, I still struggle to understand the logic behind a current cap and think that a better system will be a standing charge that includes a kWh allowance where a certain number of kWh are 'free' but anything over that limit is charged for.



     

Reply
  • 0

    Sparkingchip:


    It makes far more sense that you pay a higher standing charge to cover the investment in and maintenance of generation and distribution equipment, then pay a lower tariff per Kwh of usage to cover the actual running costs of fuel.




    The Green Party once had a policy (and may still have it) of abolishing standing charges for electricity.


    In some respects it could be argued that if a high proportion of electricity is produced from renewable sources then standing charges are a better system than paying by the kWh, as costs are more skewed towards the investment in and maintenance of generation and distribution equipment. The converse may be true if a high proportion of electricity is produced from fossil fuels.


    However, I still struggle to understand the logic behind a current cap and think that a better system will be a standing charge that includes a kWh allowance where a certain number of kWh are 'free' but anything over that limit is charged for.



     

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines