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 6465 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

    Sparkingchip:


    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. 

    Standing charges that provide nothing in return but a connection benefit no customers regardless of their financial status.


    Of course, being the Green Party, there is a big catch to the abolition of standing charges that's clearly evident if you study some of their other policies...
    If you want an on-demand electric supply you will have to subscribe to it by paying a standing charge. 

    Do you have some vested interest in the French system of tariffs?
  • 0

    mapj1:

    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.




    Very true if you factor out washing machines and anything with a heating element.


    This is why I dislike the current cap as it severely restricts short term peak loads but is limited in its effect to reduce energy consumption over a longer period of time.



     

  • 0

    AJJewsbury:


    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.

    At one time power generation companies which operated gas and oil power stations (covering peak demand more than baseload) used the TV Times to identify the time and date of popular TV programmes, and the resulting times of when viewers switched on their kettles, so that they could ramp up supply to cover short peaks of high demand.


    Has the move away from linear TV towards on-demand TV had any significant effect on demand peaks? I'm intrigued to know how domestic electricity consumption patterns have changed since the year 2000.
  • 0
    some public domain info on energy in general in the uk and  electricity use patterns    here (domestic electrics)
    here -use changes        and here ecuk overarchinvg view
  • 0

    Arran Cameron:




    Sparkingchip:


    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. 

    Standing charges that provide nothing in return but a connection benefit no customers regardless of their financial status.


    Of course, being the Green Party, there is a big catch to the abolition of standing charges that's clearly evident if you study some of their other policies...
    If you want an on-demand electric supply you will have to subscribe to it by paying a standing charge. 

    Do you have some vested interest in the French system of tariffs?

     




    Some years ago I installed a replacement consumer unit in Birmingham, tucked behind the meter board was the original meter reading card from when the house was built in the 1930’s, completed in pencil with a warning of the consequences of altering the record.


    When the house built in the 1930’s two electricity meters were installed, one for lighting and one for sockets. Electricity used for lighting was charged at a lot higher rate than for the sockets, because the cost of supplying electricity just for lighting, particularly on a summers evening, without daytime usage to justify running coal fired steam powered generators 24/7 is ridiculous. They are still having issues such as that on Sark.


    I really cannot see how you think the generation and distribution network can be paid for if there is going to be minimal consumption and payments are expected for exporting electricity along with renewable heat initiative payments at properties own by millionaires, who can afford to invest in the required equipment, without the costs being charged to those in energy poverty and can only consume electricity in their inefficient and poorly insulated homes.


    The Green Party policy to ban standing charges favours middle class voters and is also impractical.


    Andy Betteridge 

  • 0

    Sparkingchip:


    I really cannot see how you think the generation and distribution network can be paid for if there is going to be minimal consumption...

    Are you basically trying to say that we need to use more electricity, not less?
  • 0
    You need to use an amount that matches your generation plant,  - hence tricks like E7 to boost demand at times when the gensets would otherwise be idle but costing almost as much to not run..

  • 0

    mapj1:

    You need to use an amount that matches your generation plant,  - hence tricks like E7 to boost demand at times when the gensets would otherwise be idle but costing almost as much to not run..

     



    That's true but how does it square with an increasing shift towards electricity produced from renewable sources along with changes in consumer demand such as EV charging or LED bulbs?
  • 0

    Arran Cameron:




    Sparkingchip:


    I really cannot see how you think the generation and distribution network can be paid for if there is going to be minimal consumption...

    Are you basically trying to say that we need to use more electricity, not less?

     




    That is one answer to the problems on Sark, if usage increases plant and equipment costs can be spread more thinly.


    Andy Betteridge 

  • 0
    At the moment, in the UK at least the continuous electrical energy is nuclear, and the variable is met by wind when available, and gas when it is not. Electricity is not our main energy consumption, but as and when transport  becomes more electrified it will be.

    So we either use excess power to generate gas by electrolytic processes, and store it to burn it for peak load, or more practically large coal burning stations will probably be replaced by large energy storage facilities, be that liquid air, chemical batteries, pressurized gas, seawater in lagoons, or other as yet unknown techniques.

    Once we can store enough for say 14 days of non-generation, we can have very fickle main generation, and still be  in a similar position as we are now with  oil and gas dependancy.

    I agree this will be significant change, and reduced consumption /limited loads/less transport and local manufacture may be part of it.

Community Rules & Guidelines