Interesting - I hadn't heard of the recent proposed changes before.
From what I can gather the proposal is to move from 230V +10% / -6% to 230V +10% / -10% ... i.e. what my 16th Ed brown book says was originally proposed for 1st January 2008! (but then later dropped).
I think the idea then was to bring us fully into line with ex-220V lands - as their change to the tolerance bands was initially the opposite way around to us (something like 230V +6% / -10%) - so we'd eventually meet up at +/- 10% for all. I believe it was the filament lamps the scuppered that plan though - the simple tungsten technology couldn't cope with such a wide voltage range - resulting in either obviously dim lamps or unacceptable reduction in service life, so even after 230V harmonization lamp manufacturers still produced separate 220V and 240V versions.
These days though, the filament lamp is just about extinct, so problems should be fewer...
- Andy.
Interesting - I hadn't heard of the recent proposed changes before.
It seems to be very recent - see eFIXX article here. It is not clear whether a consultation has been opened, but since I cannot find one, it is probably still a proposal to consult.
As the article says, the ESQCR would have to be amended first.
obviously dim lamps or unacceptable reduction in service life
Yes, 220 V lamps were noticeably brighter, but not for long.
It appears that the intention is to drop the target mean voltage (taken over a period) in order to allow for excessive household generation. At one time the grid had to cope with peaks of demand, but now it is peaks of supply.
Interesting - I hadn't heard of the recent proposed changes before.
It seems to be very recent - see eFIXX article here. It is not clear whether a consultation has been opened, but since I cannot find one, it is probably still a proposal to consult.
As the article says, the ESQCR would have to be amended first.
obviously dim lamps or unacceptable reduction in service life
Yes, 220 V lamps were noticeably brighter, but not for long.
It appears that the intention is to drop the target mean voltage (taken over a period) in order to allow for excessive household generation. At one time the grid had to cope with peaks of demand, but now it is peaks of supply.
My rough understanding was that this adjustment to the lower voltage limit was an accommodation of potential effects of prosumer generation/consumption fluctuations at the point of customer supply.
This was so that the DNOs didn't need to change anything on their side, and that if extra customer loading dragged voltages down a bit they wouldn't be forced to make adjustments (or they could make changes if generation was pushing old setting too high).
Meanwhile I saw a YT video about New Zealand also adjusting their high side limit to give headroom on long lines for cases where customer generation made their supply voltage higher than current limits. The newly announced NZ Grid Voltage Increase explained
New Zealand have not just moved the upper limit, but both, and are going from 230 +/-6% to 230+/- 10%
According to their energy networks association bulletin
This means that they will be like us there will be no allowance at all between supply spec and product spec for voltage drops within installations.
Mike.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site