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 6445 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?
  • 0
    Chimneys: step-daughter's house has two symmetrical chimneys. There are (only) 3 fireplaces, so one of the chimneys is, in a manner of speaking, 50% fake. That's fine by me because the purpose is to make the house symmetrical for aesthetic reasons.


    Daughter's house is a Victorian pair of semi-detached peasants' cottages. There are 4 fireplaces, but when renovations were done, they put 6 pots on the chimney. Granted there are a couple of small wood-burners downstairs, but there will never be a fire lit in the carpeted hearth in one of the bedrooms, nor at the back of one of the fitted wardrobes.


    I despair - form ought to follow function!
  • 0

    Arran Cameron:

    I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned universal provision of kWh meters for individual circuits in order to create an itemised electricity bill and find out exactly where the energy is being consumed.




    As I have said before, my wife has unplugged our smart meter monitor as in in her opinion it wastes electricity, who am I to argue? After all you can boil a kettle once a year with the electricity it would have consumed.


    The idea that she would monitor several displays recording the usage of several separate circuits is laughable, it just will not happen.


    She already knows that if you are cooking, using the washing machine and do on, during a dark winter evening that your electricity consumption will be higher than at other times without a monitor to tell her.


    Andy B.

  • 0
    Tarif Bleu: mes yeux sont devenus vitreux - my eyes glazed over - after the first few paragraphs.


    Presumably it can work only with either timed meters (like Economy 7) or smart meters.


    I don't really see how current limitation helps.


    I was surprised to find out a couple of years ago that we are on a 63 A fuse. Ça suffit!
  • 0
    You agree to pay a standing charge based on your agreed maximum demand, the more you ask to have made available to you the more you pay.


    Then the smart meter applies six different tariffs depending on the time of day and which day it is.

    Has something been lost in translation?


     Andy Betteridge
  • 0

    Chris Pearson:


    I don't really see how current limitation helps.




    I struggle to see the logic behind it. Customers should be charged by how many kWh they consume rather than how many amps they are allowed to consume even momentarily.




    Sparkingchip:

    You agree to pay a standing charge based on your agreed maximum demand, the more you ask to have made available to you the more you pay.


    Then the smart meter applies six different tariffs depending on the time of day and which day it is.




    Are you seriously saying that the UK should adopt this system? If so, then why?



     

  • 0
    Really, you think that electrical generation companies should keep everything ticking over on standby, just in case you might want to plug in several electric heaters for a hour or so?


    You think they should keep everything ticking over so you can suddenly increase the loads in your house, when actually you are out of the country on holiday?


    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.


    Otherwise you will end up with the The problems there are on Sark actual consumption decreases and the cost per Kwh actually consumed increases.


    The Sark Electricity Company should introduce a “Tariff Blue” immediately, with a high standard charge for an agreed maximum demand  for each customer, then lower the charge for actual usage.


    Worst case scenario for the generation companies is that someone goes virtually off-grid with solar panels, batteries and the like, but then retains a grid connection “just in case” and expects the generation company to keep a supply available 24/7 without the customer covering the cost of if.


    Andy Betteridge
  • 0

    I struggle to see the logic behind it. Customers should be charged by how many kWh they consume rather than how many amps they are allowed to consume even momentarily.



    It suits the French way of generating electricity - i.e. primarily nuclear - which being very expensive to build but relatively cheap to run, best suits a relatively constant load. They'd struggle to supply the UK using their system as our peaks are about 100% higher than baseload. Their pricing system discourages large short-duration loads and encourages long duration small loads (especially off-peak) - so French homes tend to have 2kW immersions running off-peak rather than instantaneous electric showers for example. As a result their peaks are only around 50-60% higher than their (much higher) baseload - a far better use of their nuclear fleet, especially when they can use hydro/pumped-storage to help with the comparatively small peaks.


    When we burned mostly gas to generate electricity, which being more 'turn on and offable' than nuclear, we worried more about total consumption than baseload and peaks, but as we move more towards renewables we find ourselves in a situation of having better to match demand & supply. So we could end up in a similar (although not identical) position to the French of wishing to encourage consumption at times of low demand (or surplus generation) or discourage it at times of high demand (or insufficient generation), even if we're coming at it from a different direction.

       - Andy.
  • 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.



     

  • 0
    Well, at the moment the domestic network is sized to take peak load of 5 to 8 amps per house average, sort of enforced by the outbound fuse at the substation, where each phase could  fused at something like 400 to 800  amps depending on size, and then goes off to supply perhaps 50-ish  houses per phase, some streetlights, and then maybe an odd row of corner shops and an occasional large pub with 3 phase.

    However, each house is limited by in incoming fuse of 60A or maybe 80A, if not fitted with storage heating, or 100A if economy 7.


    Now we all know that to blow the fuse at the house is rare, and to blow the fuse at the substation is rarer.  Of course, some of the time the substation might be running at 150% ('and the rest' muttering at the back) of rated load, but if that occurs during the winter so it is all cold outside, and the oil does not boil and the fuse does not melt, then it is not a real issue. That design approach may  need to change with electric cars becoming popular.  Right now most of the time the whole house could be put on a 13A plug and fed from next door, apart from meal times and instant showers. In such a case the whole lot relies on averaging in time and space to avoid needing a grossly oversized network, but to enforce a current limit makes the network design easier, as demand is managed rather than supply.
  • 0

    Arran Cameron:




    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.

    Maybe they need to reconsider that policy as it may not work in favour of those who cannot afford to improve their homes and invest in renewable energy equipment.  I can think of far more wealth people that would benefit than people in energy poverty. 

    They are pitching that policy at the better off in society. 


    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.

    If you want an on-demand electric supply you will have to subscribe to it by paying a standing charge. 



     


     




    Andy Betteridge 

Community Rules & Guidelines