Slashdot Mirror


How Tesla Batteries Will Force Home Wiring To Go Low Voltage

CIStud writes with a story at CEPro suggesting that solar power and home batteries like Tesla's PowerWall "will force the reinvention of home wiring from primarily AC high voltage to DC home-run low voltage to reduce power conversion loss," writing "To avoid the 20% to 40% power loss when converting from DC to AC, home wiring will have to convert to home-run low-voltage, and eventually eliminate the need for high-voltage 110V electrical wiring." As a former full-time Airstream dweller, I can attest to the importance of DC appliances when dealing with batteries.

597 comments

  1. Will This Fight Ever End? by pollarda · · Score: 5, Funny

    You'd think the fight between Edison and Tesla would have ended long after their deaths. Clearly not. It is a good thing their graves aren't near each other, if they were, there would surely be lighting bolts going back and forth.

    1. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Back and forth? Sounds like AC for the win!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Well, Edison did have a point that AC is more dangerous. There is a dead elephant to prove it.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 0

      My first rofl on /. I ran out of mod points this morning.

    4. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by bmxeroh · · Score: 1

      Yeah you definitely won the internets this morning.

      --
      Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
    5. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by mi · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, Edison did have a point that AC is more dangerous. There is a dead elephant to prove it.

      Topsy, executed for killing three men, was killed with the "evil" Alternating Current. But that, in itself, says nothing about it being less or more dangerous than the alternative (Direct Current). Edison realized it, of course, but the public — just as short on attention span as it is now — did not... Ehh, if only those people had the Internet! They would've argued with and trolled each other without having to bother with elephants or the like...

      How funny is it, that the name Tesla will now be associated with the Direct Current, that Edison was pushing during the War of Currents?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You'd think the fight between Edison and Tesla would have ended long after their deaths. Clearly not. It is a good thing their graves aren't near each other, if they were, there would surely be lighting bolts going back and forth.

      I have that Thinkgeek t-shirt actually...

      It is mildly amusing that DC, Edison's favorite, might be better suited to an application named after the major proponent of AC, Tesla...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Edison was the original master of FUD.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Because you can't electrocute people with DC?

    9. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Maritz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a dead elephant to prove it.

      If he had simultaneously ran DC to a 'control' elephant and it remained unharmed, you might be on the way to proving something.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    10. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    11. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

      Lightning is DC. Not many survive that

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    12. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Lightning is not really DC. Once the arc is created there is usually a fair amount of charging that sloshes in either direction. It is far too messy of a process to categorize it as either AC or DC.

    13. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Plunky · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, that doesn't seem to be completely true

      1999 Darwin Awards - Resistance is Futile

      and that was only a 9v battery.

    14. Re: Will This Fight Ever End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edison's greatest invention was the modern Research and Development lab, with a staff of professionals. Tesla was part of that staff. Arguably, Tesla's greatest invention was the 'staff member splitting off to form a new company.'

      Both these things are inventions that are essential to the modern technological age. Both men were titans.

    15. Re: Will This Fight Ever End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      AC penetrates complex impedances like skin and muscle tissue deeper and at a higher current level than the equivalent DC voltage.

    16. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by thrig · · Score: 2

      It is mildly amusing that DC, Edison's favorite, might be better suited to an application named after the major proponent of AC, Tesla...

      Yes, that DC is still in business is truly a MARVEL.

    17. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Well, don't be a tease. Fill me in.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    18. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Much of this fight was myth though. There was some, but it's wasn't the good versus evil battle of the century as portrayed by The Oatmeal. It was just marketing, with Westinghouse vs Edison.

    19. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC it was Edison and Westinghouse who faced off on DC vs AC.

      And if the game is lightningbolts, DC will win by a mile.

    20. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DC will kill you dead at the right voltages. Just take a look at all the warnings on anything to do with vacuum tubes. I've built a couple power supplies for tube amps and if you aren't at least a little bit scared you are doing it wrong.

    21. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by mellon · · Score: 2

      This is a load of hooey. Low-voltage wiring is a PITA, and losses due to conversion aren't as high as is being claimed. The loss from just charging the battery is bigger. I'm afraid we are stuck with 120/240 VAC, and Tesla is the winner.

    22. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why couldn't Edison have been brutally murdered???!!!

    23. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Disclaimer: This particular instance of the video is from 'VeganCentury.com', so I suspect there might be a bit of an agenda with the overlaid text.

    24. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 1

      If he had simultaneously ran DC to a 'control' elephant and it remained unharmed, you might be on the way to proving something.

      That would be impractical. But he could have blinded the elephant on both of his eyes, to make a double blind test.

      --
      No sig today.
    25. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      That sounds highly suspect, and I can't find any corroboration. I don't believe the story for an instant.

    26. Re: Will This Fight Ever End? by rfengr · · Score: 1

      When I was a teenager I put a 9V battery across by teeth braces top and bottom). That will knock you on your ass.

    27. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by dwywit · · Score: 1

      It's not hooey. I've got 2 circuits - one for 240VAC, and another for 24VDC. The cabling is identical, i.e. normal 240VAC live + neutral + earth, 10-amp. The low voltage circuit uses the same cable, but doesn't use the earth wire, and the individual circuits were designed to make sure no more than 10 amps were possible on any outlet. The low voltage system is used for lighting (although 24 volt light bulbs are rare and expensive), and a couple of 24 volt power outlets, one of which is used for refrigeration - a normal fridge converted to use a Danfoss 24 volt compressor.

      There are more drop-in DC LED lights these days, and they can take 8-30 volt input, so I'm gradually replacing the halogens with LEDs.

      There's a good reason to use 240VAC cabling on a 24VDC circuit - even though you have to install 3-4 x runs, 240 cabling is cheap, and 24 volt cabling is not cheap.

      Conversion losses are an issue - the inverter runs about 85 - 95% (better at higher loads), and the batteries (lead-acid) are also about 90% efficient, i.e. you need to put about 10% more back in than you take out - so you just up the PV numbers to account for that.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    28. Re: Will This Fight Ever End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should move their graves closer to one another? Let's assume:

      - Tesla/Edison spinning in grave.
      - spin speed inversely proportional to inter-body distance.

      Then use spin to generate power (ac of course :)... closer graves == more power. I see great potential here!

    29. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by nbritton · · Score: 1

      240 VAC * 10 amps = 2400 W.
      24 VDC * 10 amps = 240 W.

      With the cost of copper wire being what it is I don't see DC distribution winning over AC.

    30. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by dwywit · · Score: 1

      240 watts will run a LOT of LED lights. I'm typing this by the light of a 14 watt drop-in LED - so I could run 17 of those off a single cable run and not exceed the cable's load rating.

      It's not about replacing every AC item with a DC equivalent, it's more to do with replacing low-load AC items such as lights, phone and laptop chargers, etc with DC, where there's less conversion losses.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    31. Re: Will This Fight Ever End? by jblues · · Score: 1

      Depending on the frequency of course. Tesla used to give demonstrations where he'd complete an electrical circuit to wire an incandescent (or even, if I recall correctly, new fangled fluorescent) light with his body. The voltages were phenomenal but the frequency was such that it traveled over the outer skin.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    32. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Damn, forgot my drum kit...

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    33. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Pallas+Athena · · Score: 1

      Also, please note that the Tesla Powerwalls are operating on 400 V DC. So even if you are going to run a low-voltage DC line from them, that still means a DC-DC converter at the battery side from 400 V to i.e. 12V, and probably a second DC-DC converter at the device to convert the 12V to the voltage the device was designed for. What is there the efficiency?

    34. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by mellon · · Score: 1

      I hope you sized the wires right. Lower voltage means higher amperage, and while the math isn't quite this simple, the general rule of thumb is that you want the same gauge wire for the same amperage for 24v vs 115v. So if you use the 10a 115 volt wire for a 40a 24 volt circuit, you are likely creating a fire hazard if you actually draw that much power on the circuit. This is why 24 volt wiring is more expensive (in addition to economies of scale, of course). Losses for low voltage DC over longer runs are also quite significant. This is a factor even if you are using 110 for power and an AC-to-DC converter to run a string of LED lights: you need to make sure the supply lines for the lights are sized correctly.

      So I think that you are actually putting your life at risk here if you are sizing your wires on the basis of watts rather than amps. I would recommend that you take a much closer look at this.

    35. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      That simply shouldn't happen, he must have had a weak heart. The voltage and the current from a test meter are both insignificant.

    36. Re: Will This Fight Ever End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, then your house will have two distribution circuits, one with high-voltage AC to run major appliances, and the other with low-voltage DC to run small appliances such as cell phones? Sounds like a win for the companies that make or install house wiring, and a loss for everyone else.

    37. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will not happen

      I have a home and in winter we have 120volts at 200 amps into the building -- hot water, heating, cooking, etc.

      For 12 volt power, I would need to have wiring supporting 2000 amps. That would be a wire the size of my thumb #8 or even larger diameter.
      To distribute that power around, the cabling would be very heavy, and would not necessarily hang from the joists.

       

    38. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      AC is great for long distance and certain applications. DC is great locally. The bridge rectifier should be between the grid & the home battery, not between the home battery and the devices it is recharging and/or powering.

      The exception to this are high power home applications: Stove, Oven, Microwave, Toaster, Fridge, Dryer, Washing Machine, Dishwasher. The battery charger can be on the same circuit set.

      Note that TV is NOT on this list. All video screens can be low power these days. All lighting can be low power. There is no reason why this can't be a simple 5V, 4A circuit with USB compatible plugs, several to a room.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    39. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also is not too far stretch to view it as half-a-cycle of AC.

    40. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lesson? The Navy issues very few objects which are designed to be stuck into the human body.

    41. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by dwywit · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the concern (really), but it's been working for >20 years now without any fires, and as I gradually replace the incandescent and halogen bulbs with much lower wattage LEDs, the load and risk reduces accordingly.

      The house was dual wired with domestic 3-core 240 VAC 10amp cable - live, neutral and earth. Cable leading to light switches and sockets was powered from the DC bus, i.e. directly from the batteries, and only used 2 of the 3 wires, for positive and negative. Cables leading to conventional GPO sockets was powered by the AC bus, i.e. from the inverter, and was wired up according to code - live, neutral and earth.

      There are many more DC cable runs than you would otherwise expect, because each run was designed to carry only up to 10 amps, which would have been no more than 4 x 60-watt bulbs (24 VDC nominal). I was able to replace some of the conventional bulbs with lower-wattage-for-the-same-light-output halogen items, and reduce the amperage load further, and now that drop-in LEDs are available, there's bugger-all load on some of the circuits.

      In practice, the DC circuit voltage is lowest (24 to 24.2 volts) when there's little load on the lighting circuit (about 10pm to 7am), and highest in the middle of the day, up to 30 volts until the batteries reach float, where they stay at 27.4 volts until late afternoon when the sun goes down, dropping rapidly to about 25 volts, then slowly over the evening falling to about 24.2. So the higher practical voltages of the circuit mean even lower amperage for a given load in watts, and this also compensates somewhat for the voltage drop at the far end of some of the circuits.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    42. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      I wish there was a +1000 Funny mod option.

      Best zinger I've seen in years. It'll keep me laughing for days.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    43. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      There is a dead elephant to prove it.

      If he had simultaneously ran DC to a 'control' elephant and it remained unharmed, you might be on the way to proving something.

      Can you prove that he did not? Bwa, and may I add, ha ha.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    44. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      Lightning is static discharge. Doesn't qualify for either.

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
    45. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      Yes you can. Go pick up ten car batteries, connect each + to the next battery's - and then when you have them all except the last one hold the two wires in opposite hands and see what happens. (120VDC shock was the cause of death detective)

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
    46. Re:Will This Fight Ever End? by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      It shares a lot more in common with that than DC.

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
    47. Re: Will This Fight Ever End? by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Higher frequency stays at the surface. Getting a shock from a tesla-coil at millions of volts and hundreds of thousands of cycles per second results in skin pain but not nerve damage.

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  2. Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by BenJeremy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kind of ironic. Nikola Tesla fought to champion AC power, and the company named after him will bring Edison's dream of DC-sourced homes to reality.

    1. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by ClayDowling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Worth noting that this is still forced to work within the Edison system's restrictions: the power source encouraging DC must be local. Which is cool when we all have our own power storage and generation capabilities.

    2. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everything I have read here makes me angry. First, there were technical reasons why Tesla wanted AC, and economic reasons why Edison wanted DC.

      Second, HVDC lines exist. This is for BOTH technical and economic reasons.

      Third, you can run AC and DC on the same lines and filter one from the other. With modern SiC tech this isn't even a challenge.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    3. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      At the time it made sense to use AC, because high efficiency solid state DC-DC converters didn't exist. Nowadays high voltage DC transmission lines are used all over the world, with conversion to AC at the destination.

      For home use it is a little trickier, because you still want high voltage until you get close to the device. Maybe you could have a DC line direct from the battery pack to your car or a central air conditioner or something, if you could keep them physically close together. You won't want to 48V/50A to your appliances that are tens of metres away from the source though. You could step the voltage up but then it might as well just be AC...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

      Absolutely false, ultra high voltage DC is the most efficient way, and smarter countries are building such systems. Brazil is building a system that will have a 1500 mile long line, India is building them too

    5. Re: Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      AC was the only way to send electrical power long distances, at the time. DC-DC conversation wasn't at all practical with technology of the era. It is now, which makes DC a much more realistic solution.

    6. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Actually long distance high voltage lines are often DC.

    7. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      AC is still the only way to send electricity any distance.

      No, most modern long distance transmission uses high voltage direct current. The main advantage of AC, is that it was easier to step from one voltage to another using transformers, a technology from the 1800s. With modern solid state DC to DC converters, that is no longer an issue.

    8. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, most don't. A handful do in fairly specific and limited applications. AC and DC distribution both have their place.

      DC in the home, at least for some things, makes a lot of sense, especially if you have local generation... Which is where the tesla powerwall shines.

    9. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      DC in the home is only viable due to recent advances in power silicon. AC has its problems, but the genius of AC power is that you can controll it with nothing more than carefully arranged windings of wire and big chunks of metal. Transformers, inductors, capacitors, and resisters can all be made with nothing more than properly arranged and chosen wires and metal blocks. There was no practical DC-DC conversion in Edison's day. Even AC/DC conversion was tricky, often requiring an AC motor with a shaft mechanically linked to a DC generator.

      Edison did not have the IGBT
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulated-gate_bipolar_transistor

      Today, that's different.

      You can make tiny, tiny, cheap little AC-DC or DC-DC converters that are dozens of times cheaper and many more times efficient than their counterparts made even a decade ago. What used to require large arrays of MOSFETs and many many pounds of expensive copper windings (And the design/volume/heatsinks/fans to deal with all the waste heat!) is now handled by a much smaller transformer, a handful of inductors, and some advanced switching silicon controlled by a fairly smart processor. You also, thanks to increased efficiency, don't need to overbuild with expensive heat tolerant components so much. (Heat shortens component lifetimes, particularly caps)

      And they're already deeply commoditized because, guess what, the chinese are big in to solar. (They know they are going to need it. They're quite aware that traditional energy can't economically fully meet their future demand.)

    10. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC is still the only way to send electricity any distance.

      No, just the opposite. DC has lower transmission losses, which is why many long distance links are now being converted to DC transmission.

    11. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      AC was the only way to send electricity any distance at the time. There were no DC-DC converters back then.

    12. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Running both AC+DC works but they both still add up to the same tolerable breakdown voltage before it arcs over in an undesirable manner.

    13. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      HVDC works well for long trunk lines between a distant large power source and a population center, but it much less useful for a grid system with many interconnect points. That's why the primary usage has been between hydro plants and distant cities and for international interconnects (especially where the local grids of the two sides do not share a common standard).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    14. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Often is a bit of a stretch, less than 1% of all high voltage distribution lines are DC.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    15. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything I have read here makes me angry. First, there were technical reasons why Tesla wanted AC, and economic reasons why Edison wanted DC.

      Second, HVDC lines exist. This is for BOTH technical and economic reasons.

      Third, you can run AC and DC on the same lines and filter one from the other. With modern SiC tech this isn't even a challenge.

      Should do what travel trailers do. Lights and basic stuff in some cases fridge run on DC. And the house battery is kept charged by AC.

    16. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds like the fight about currents has been rectified then?

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    17. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      High power DC systems have a lot of special considerations that only make it useful in a few circumstances.

      High power DC voltage conversion is exotic. And expensive. And not perfectly efficient. This makes it suitable only in very long haul situations where transmission losses become very severe.

      DC transmission lines also have special construction and maintenance issues because DC power degrades your physical conductors and connections differently than AC.

      This is why there are only a handful of DC transmission lines in the world. This, of course, may change in the future with advances in technology.

    18. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it's not

      For long-distance transmission, HVDC systems may be less expensive and suffer lower electrical losses.

      Obviously I expect you to come now with a "wikipedia is not a source"-whatever. To which I will JFGI and find a more reliable one. Bottom line is: very long distance is cheaper and less lossy with DC.

    19. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely false, ultra high voltage DC is the most efficient way, and smarter countries are building such systems. Brazil is building a system that will have a 1500 mile long line, India is building them too

      It's tough to imagine that third-world countries are the leaders in efficient long-distance power delivery. It's not like Brazil or India have any track record of success in the area.

    20. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Pascoea · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is why there are only a handful of DC transmission lines in the world

      How big are your hands? Wikipedia has a "few" (200+) examples of HVDC transmission lines. And a here's a cool map showing the inverter stations.

    21. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Mr+Z · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's two main sets of losses, as I understand: Resistive losses and radiative losses. You can get into other issues, such as power factor and phase error related losses. The two biggies that hit you almost before you get started are resistive and radiative losses, though, if you just consider a single transmission line driving a resistive load.

      You combat resistive losses by going up in voltage, so you can send more power with less current. Since resistive losses are proportional to the square of current, each doubling of voltage reduces your resistive losses by a factor of 4. That's why long haul transmission lines are high voltage.

      Radiative losses are different. Whenever you accelerate a charged particle, you generate an electromagnetic wave. With respect to wires carrying current, that corresponds to changing the amount of current. (Current measures the rate at which electrons flow, so changing current means accelerating or decelerating electrons.) That's how radio transmitters works, for example.

      In an AC system, that current is continuously changing, so those transmission lines are continuously radiating away some amount energy. But that's not all. If there are any conductors nearby, those E-M waves can induce a current in those conductors, and the resulting E-M waves from that induced current can drag on the AC line further. This mutual induction is how transformers work. But, along an AC transmission line, unwanted coupling results in transmission losses. So, an AC system has a built in, inherent source of losses in the alternating current itself.

      In a DC system, with a fixed, perfectly resistive load, the current doesn't change, so there's no radiative losses. In the real world, though, the loading on the system is continually changing, so the actual current demand on the DC system will vary over time, and some energy will be radiated away. To some extent that can be filtered, but that's limited by the amount of storage you can put near the ends of the transmission.

      The reason AC won out over DC in the early days is that we didn't have practical means to step DC voltages up and down. But, we had just invented the first practical transformers, and those can step AC to higher and lower voltages trivially.

      HVDC is practical now since we've had 100 years to develop better technology for converting DC voltages on the grand scales required.

    22. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Tesla had no beef with DC as such, but was very astute at recognizing that it sucks for its difficulty in stepping up and down voltages for transmission and reception. AC does this with ease with very simple and robust transformer. Similarly you can make AC motors that have no brushes to wear out. No true DC motor operates without brushes (brushless DC motors are really AC motors using a hall effect sensor to trigger circuits to chop the DC at the right times).

      Edison seemed like the one with religious convictions around DC rather than the other way around.

    23. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      We may have a mixed future, where we get our AC from the Edison company, and our DC from Tesla.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    24. Re: Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't really need Hall effect sensors in most cases because the back-emf can be measured and used to trigger phase shifts. For smooth operation at very low speeds (e.g at startup) where the emf is low, sensors can be useful however.

    25. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Third, you can run AC and DC on the same lines and filter one from the other. With modern SiC tech this isn't even a challenge.

      You can? What's the catch? Higher resistance? More heat generated? Lower maximum current throughput for AC or DC?

      I find it hard (not impossible, but hard) to believe that this is a proverbial free lunch.

    26. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind our 'use' of electricity has changed a lot too. In Edison and Tesla's day there were basically two applications light, and running motors.

      For practical applications lighting (incandescent) AC/DC are more or less equally efficient. Running a motor though AC is a clear win. If you are not highly sensitive to the rate of revolution because its part of a machine tools and you can gear it however you want, or its running a compressor and the cycle on time is flexible etc, than AC means you can build a simple motor with few parts and more importantly fewer wearing parts, no brushes.

      As far as early 20th century commercial and home electrical needs DC would have been aggressively stupid.

      AC did other good things too, it provided a time signal that everyone could cheaply use, so clocks no longer had to run independently at least solved drift. Was useful for governing analog recording a playback devices as well.

      Then came the post war burst of electronics! Now the vast majority of stuff needs DC and with the exception of the vacuum cleaner all the stuff that could benefits from AC, furnace fans, heat pump compressors, refrigerator compressor, are fixed position and frequently on their own circuits. I can see AC to the doorstep a big efficient whole house power supply that has 12vdc and 48vdc rails that are distributed thorough the house and battery backed, and few 220v "appliance circuits" off the AC.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    27. Re: Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the Tesla Powerwall starts shining, it's best to move away from it as quickly as you can.

    28. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Curious - is there any good reading material you could suggest regarding power sourcing/distribution/hvdc/grid power management of this kind? This sounds like an interesting thing to read about.

    29. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by arbiterxero · · Score: 2

      200+ vs MILLIONS of installations of AC

      yes, 200 is a handful in comparison.

    30. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Low voltage distribution won't work, even just inside the home for high power devices.

      Low voltage both needs a bigger wire due to higher current and at the same time is more sensitive to voltage drop (5V drop for a 12V line is much worse than 5V drop for a 220V line). So, plugging in a computer (300-500W more if it's a gaming rig with four video cards) or a big TV (150W) or AC (1kW or more) or electric kettle (2kW) or something else that uses a lot of power is not practical with 12V.

      OK, so let's up the voltage to 48V. Now the TV needs 3A, a PC needs 10A and the kettle needs 42A with permissible voltage drop of 4.8V. This can be doable (except the kettle), but you still need big wires and outlets. Also, you still need DC-DC converters for most devices as they do not run on 48V internally.

      As for having three different voltages (12, 48, 220 AC), that would be really inconvenient. Do you want to be able to plug in you vacuum or kettle in every room? Well, every room has to have a 220V outlet. And those are where the highest power devices will be plugged in. OK, your phone can charge on 12V. Do you want to run a separate cable just for the phone? How much power will it save? When the cost of running the wire will pay off in the conversion savings?

      As for battery backing the low voltage and not backing the 220V - well, if my heat pump, AC, furnace and servers are connected to it, while my phone charger is connected to 12V, guess which line I will want to have backup power?

      Also, backward compatibility. If my radio can only work on AC, then I am going to need a 220V outlet for the radio.

    31. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG, DC is the best option for long distance.

      New Zealand , for example has a 500,000v DC link between the Benmore Hydro Station and Haywards station which converts it back to AC.

      Reason, there are no capacitive losses with DC, no inductive issues with DC and the R losses are no different to AC.

    32. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bigger driver for DC is lighting and modern electronics.

      Pretty much everything that plus into the mains these days is also running low voltage DC for control electronics.

      My house lighting would be more efficient if the 60+ LED lamps ran from say 12v DC rather than 230v AC.

    33. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      Look up the Celilo Converter Station and the Pacific DC Intertie for examples of HVDC in the US. I like how they used +-500kV to ground so that the insulators to the grounded tower could be smaller than if they'd used +1MV to ground.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    34. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Yes they both do, why don't you educate yourself and then post?

    35. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by overshoot · · Score: 2

      The main advantage of AC, is that it was easier to step from one voltage to another using transformers, a technology from the 1800s. With modern solid state DC to DC converters, that is no longer an issue.

      Do you know what the most efficient switch is for voltages over a kilovolt? I'll give you a hint: it's not based on semiconductors. Especially for high power. There's this little matter of "breakdown voltage," for one. Also "channel resistance." When someone comes up with a transistor [1] that can do three-nines [2] voltage conversion, we can talk.

      [1] And bear in mind that I spent forty years making a good living from the little darlin's. I just don't hold illusions about 'em.
      [2] Check the losses that power-station transformers tolerate while doing conversions on megawatts. Those suckers get effficient.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    36. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by skids · · Score: 1

      Well, brush motors and a dynamo back to back in a rotary convertor would have done it, even then.

    37. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Well I guess the Pacific DC Intertie doesn't exist then (and hasn't since 1970), if AC is the only way to send electricity any distance. All you Southern California people - turn off your air conditioners because you don't get any of that power from the Columbia River dams anymore.

      Oh wait, it does, and it can actually be reversed to help with increased electric load in the Pacific Northwest during winter.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    38. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      DC in the home makes a lot of sense now because we have so many devices that use DC inside of them. Basically all electronics, and anything that uses a compressor or motor.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    39. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Tangential · · Score: 1

      While HVDC might be more efficient (no impedance I guess) there are a lot of infrastructure folks who are not big fans of HVDC. Back in the 80's I was a transmission engineer for Ma Bell and a lot of time and effort went into trying to protect our facilities near high amperage DC installations (like subways.) A fault condition in those can cause significant electrolytic damage to metallic plant. Its inconvenient in telephone plant, painful in water pipes and a serious problem in gas lines. We were constantly checking bonding, placing sacrificial anodes, etc and we weren't the only utility out there doing it.

      Of course, over time we put less metal into our infrastructure (plastic pipes, fiber optic cables, etc) but there is still a lot of metallic infrastructure in place that could be adversely affected by DC fault conditions.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
    40. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't.

      DC is in fact absolutely shitty for long hauls, and that is in fact why we use AC.

      Power plants run alternators at specific RPMs intentionally to produce AC. There are no American hydro power generation stations using DC. That would be stupid. Every single one of them uses 3600 hertz multiphase output, one of those phases will give you 60hz AC.

      The parasitic losses of DC over long distance is reason enough that it's not done, when you couple in the fact that it HAS TO BE AC in order to do any sort of reasonably efficient voltage conversion just seals the deal.

      It's used in SHORT haul international interconnects when each side uses different frequencies for their grid OR when they don't want to stay phase synced.

      DC is stupid for normal people for anything other than the last leg, like between your Wallwart and device.

      There are three ways to cut down DC voltage: convert to AC and use a transformer, use PWM and large capacitor bank to smooth it back to DC... Or resistive and essentially turn the extra voltage into waste heat. All of those suck, the last most of all, but also the one that can handle large loads best.

      There is one way to boost DC voltage. Convert it to AC, or at least half wave AC and use a transformer.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    41. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC vs. DC discussion sparks debate

    42. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with direct AC motors is that they're only good for sustained operation at one speed, or a handful of speeds with mechanical gearing. If you need to cycle frequently, or change your speed, you need to change your frequency, and that's not something you can do with AC without first rectifying back to DC.

    43. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Inefficient, high-maintenance. Though compact DC motor-generator units were made for one niche application: Generating high voltages for car radios.

    44. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      The parasitic losses of DC over long distance is reason enough that it's not done

      Siemens quotes 3.5% loss per 1,000km for +-800kv DC vs 6.7% for 735kv AC systems, exactly the opposite of your claim. I think I'll trust one of the biggest names in power over someone with a free bitcoin scam in their signature.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    45. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by bidule · · Score: 1

      Worth noting that this is still forced to work within the Edison system's restrictions: the power source encouraging DC must be local.

      HVDC is better than AC for long range.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    46. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Well if you can reverse it it must be AC, very low frequency AC

      --
      Nullius in verba
    47. Re: Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably the DC travels while the AC current is switching directions . So they would be using the same line, but at different times.

      The reason people don't do that is that if you screw it up you have massive resistance and major damage.

    48. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about 800kv AC?

    49. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Do you know what the most efficient switch is for voltages over a kilovolt? I'll give you a hint: it's not based on semiconductors. Especially for high power. There's this little matter of "breakdown voltage," for one. Also "channel resistance." When someone comes up with a transistor [1] that can do three-nines [2] voltage conversion, we can talk.

      http://www.hvswitch.com/

      http://www.behlke.com/

      http://www.mouser.com/new/ixys/ixys-4500vmosfet-mosfet/?cm_mmc=PressRelease-PR-_-IXYS-_-4500V+High+Voltage+Power+MOSFETs-_-2013-08-07

      Granted, most of these are only pushing 99% efficient, but at the current rate of improvement, MOSFETs will surpass 3 nines at 10kV by 2030. 3 nines at 100kv by 2050. Somewhere in there, you start reaching limits of physics, but IIRC its not until somewhere around the 50kV mark, and even there, you can compensate by increasing the size of the gate to allow enough insulation around the device to prevent arcing around it.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    50. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DC has no corona loss unlike AC, previous poster is an idiot.

    51. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rotary converters didn't actually have DC generators...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_converter

    52. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Pallas+Athena · · Score: 1

      Your city block doesn't qualify as long range.

    53. Re: Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car radio powered of its own Dynamo? That's badass.

    54. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Pallas+Athena · · Score: 1

      AC to the doorstep, yes. An efficient whole house power supply - yes. Separate 12vdc and 48vdc rails, probably not. No battery backup for the 220vac appliances, definitely not, because exactly the 220vac appliances are the appliances that you want to keep running during a blackout. A possibility could be 12VDC and 220VAC running on the same line, which could probably even be done on current wires and current outlets. And every device (or a filter plugin) could use the most appropriate voltage. Your washing machine could even use both - 12VDC to power its electronic circuits, and 220VAC to power the actual motor.

    55. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      DC motors still have their place, but with the advent of VSDs, not as much as before. That being said, large AC motors/generators still require a DC field current. In the old days this was done by a DC generator on the same shaft(with associated brushes...). Now days we do it electrically (thyristors to make a variable field), but most medium to large AC motors I have worked on have brushes for the field current. Not everything can be self-excited or use permanent magnets.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    56. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Second, HVDC lines exist.

      HVDC is mostly fake. The power created at the powerplant (carbon, hydro or nuclear) is AC, since the turbines rotate on their axis, thus creating alternating current. Then some magic happens (e.g. Hewittic mercury arc rectifier or recently power semiconductors) that turns AC into up to 750kV DC, which goes over the long distance. At the destination DC is converted to AC, so that transformers can then lower the voltage to a few tens of KV for distribution to disctricts. Then 10kV AC gets down-converted to 380/230/110V AC for end user consumption.

      There is currently no DC-to-DC conversion without AC middle step, even if that fact is well buried.

    57. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Couldn't find any numbers for 800kv AC, the Tepco 1,000kv AC line is >5%/1,000km so the extra 10% from 735 to 800 isn't going to help much.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    58. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Distribution, yes, but when you need long distance HVDC may be just cheaper. Or the only realistic option in cases like no phase in sync or underwater cables.

    59. Re: Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Do not taunt Tesla Powerwall.

    60. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad jokes will meet powerful resistance from the inductance committee.

    61. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Pascoea · · Score: 1
      Yes, a small amount when compared to the number of AC transmission lines, but the parent comment didn't mention anything about a comparison (other than the difference between AC and DC termination degradation)

      By your logic, there are only a handfull of Ferraris on the road (Ok, I had to stretch for this one... 7000/year sold vs 15.6M/year sold, or .04%), or only a "handfull" of CO2 in the atmosphere (.04%). That low percentage, compared to other cars and compounds, doesn't mean there isn't a shit load of Ferarris or CO2 out there, as the parent was seeming to imply.

    62. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by overshoot · · Score: 1

      http://www.hvswitch.com/

      Forward voltage at rated current is 450 volts. Even at 30 KV that's some serious loss. The specified risetime of 10 ns into a resistive load isn't bad, but the falltime isn't specified and the interesting loads are all inductive -- falltime into those is tricky because of snubbing losses and Miller capacitance.

      Others rather less precisely specified but generally similar.

      Rather more to the point, though, is that they don't get you usable voltage conversion. You still need a transformer, so the semiconductor losses are in addition to the transformer losses. And all of that lovely high-frequency switching causes problems when you're dealing with transformer cores weighing tons. Which you need to keep the Q of the transformer up (inductive loss is pretty much a pure function of how much copper you're willing to pay for.)

      The loss of efficiency is acceptable for applications like PC power supplies or lighting ballasts because the added functionality such as flexible regulation makes up for it. But when you're looking to handle the output of gigawatt power plants, you really don't want to be dissipating several percent of your output (pure loss) into a solid-state system that has to be kept below 70 degrees under peak load, which around here means an ambient temperature of close to 50 degrees. That is, for one, a big direct cost for the inefficiency. Also a honking enormous cooling system prone to catastrophic failure due to thermal runaway. And, finally, a maintenance nightmare. What is the service MTBF of one of those switches? Now, figure it for an array capable of handling a gigawatt. Don't forget that you can't just take the system down for safe maintenance.

      Much as I love transistors, this isn't happening in my lifetime.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    63. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the tension remains high.

    64. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC lines with high current create large magnetic fields that tend to induce currents into the ground, fences and other things not designed to use the power. This is a significant loss over a long distance transmission line. DC with little or low changes in current do not couple power into fences, gas pipelines, etc.

    65. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      I said as much above.

      In an AC system, that current is continuously changing, so those transmission lines are continuously radiating away some amount energy. But that's not all. If there are any conductors nearby, those E-M waves can induce a current in those conductors, and the resulting E-M waves from that induced current can drag on the AC line further. This mutual induction is how transformers work. But, along an AC transmission line, unwanted coupling results in transmission losses. So, an AC system has a built in, inherent source of losses in the alternating current itself.

      ...and...

      In a DC system, with a fixed, perfectly resistive load, the current doesn't change, so there's no radiative losses. In the real world, though, the loading on the system is continually changing, so the actual current demand on the DC system will vary over time, and some energy will be radiated away. To some extent that can be filtered, but that's limited by the amount of storage you can put near the ends of the transmission.

    66. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Had occasion to take apart my electric (plug in ) lawnmower the other month, and was surprised to see that the motor was not an AC motor, but a DC motor with a big fat bridge rectifier sitting on top of it. Anybody who can explain why will have my gratitude. (Can't be for compatibility with the battery operated mowers, because it's a 110 v DC motor, while the battery models top out at 48 v).

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    67. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      DC in the home is only viable due to recent advances in power silicon. AC has its problems, but the genius of AC power is that you can controll it with nothing more than carefully arranged windings of wire and big chunks of metal. Transformers, inductors, capacitors, and resisters can all be made with nothing more than properly arranged and chosen wires and metal blocks. There was no practical DC-DC conversion in Edison's day. Even AC/DC conversion was tricky, often requiring an AC motor with a shaft mechanically linked to a DC generator.

      Edison did not have the IGBT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

      Today, that's different.

      You can make tiny, tiny, cheap little AC-DC or DC-DC converters that are dozens of times cheaper and many more times efficient than their counterparts made even a decade ago. What used to require large arrays of MOSFETs and many many pounds of expensive copper windings (And the design/volume/heatsinks/fans to deal with all the waste heat!) is now handled by a much smaller transformer, a handful of inductors, and some advanced switching silicon controlled by a fairly smart processor. You also, thanks to increased efficiency, don't need to overbuild with expensive heat tolerant components so much. (Heat shortens component lifetimes, particularly caps)

      And they're already deeply commoditized because, guess what, the chinese are big in to solar. (They know they are going to need it. They're quite aware that traditional energy can't economically fully meet their future demand.)

      I still have my WWII surplus dynamotor designed to convert low voltage DC to high voltage 400 hz for aircraft purposes. hasn't been too useful thus far, but someday might come in handy.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    68. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by AaronW · · Score: 1

      DC actually works quite well over long hauls. One nice thing about using HVDC instead of AC is that you can carry more current over the same wire since you no longer have to deal with the skin effect. It also makes it easier when it comes to synchronization. With HVDC they still have to periodically switch the direction of the DC current throught he lines.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    69. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Actually that's false. Most compressors are AC motors though some applications are moving towards DC. Brushless AC motors are fairly easy to make and don't require any electronics to control them, though high power ones will use a capacitor since 3-phase power is not generally available for residential use in the US. Most fans, blowers and compressors are AC motors. Some higher-end blowers use DC when full variable speed motors are needed.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    70. Re:Tesla enables Edison to win the endgame? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's asynchronous - less power comes back north when it's reversed in the winter. But it's definitely DC, thus the name "Pacific DC Intertie"

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  3. oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, a company called Tesla is developing technology that will prove that in the long term that DC is the better choice for powering homes?

    1. Re:oh the Irony by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Can't the electric company supply both AC (for home appliances) and DC (for electric cars)? They could also add a state tax to the DC meter charging 1.5 cents road tax for certain amount of kWh charged by the vehicle. Gasoline cars pay 30 cents per gallon for road tax, so it's time for EVs to start paying too.

    2. Re:oh the Irony by Immerman · · Score: 1

      What do electric cars have to do with anything? The article is talking about *home* batteries.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:oh the Irony by ClayDowling · · Score: 0

      DC has very rapid power loss over any kind of distance. DC in the home is based on the premise that the home will be powered off the local battery.

    4. Re:oh the Irony by amias · · Score: 1

      nope , dc over long lines means lots of energy via heat loss

      --
      [site]
    5. Re:oh the Irony by Immerman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, as soon as someone invents the AC battery we can switch back...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:oh the Irony by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Ow.

    7. Re:oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope , dc over long lines means lots of energy via heat loss

      dc over long lines means long lines of thick heavy copper cable to negate the heat loss good that I have share in a copper mine

    8. Re:oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "so it's time for EVs to start paying too"

      EVs (and hybrids) already pay taxes.
                Tax on vehicle price (usually higher in my area)
                Tax on the electricity used
                Higher costs from those businesses "providing" charging stations
                Tax on contractor's bills for install charging station at home
                Tax on auto supplies (wipers, filters, tires, etc., etc.)
                Tax on gas for hybrids
                Tax on license
                Tax on wheels
                Tax, tax, tax...there are too many taxes already and the total tax demands is an overburden on the average/middle class wage earner.

      Some of you people live in fantasy worlds.

    9. Re:oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only they'd tax /. to weed out the cheapskates like you...

    10. Re:oh the Irony by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      DC has very rapid power loss over any kind of distance.

      No it doesn't. Losses are related to current, not AC vs. DC. A higher current in the same sized conductor equates to higher loss. You can get around this by raising the voltage (traditionally easier with AC), thus transferring the same amount of energy with less current, or you can increase the size of the conductor. DC can actually transfer more energy than AC on a similar sized conductor because it doesn't have to deal with skin effect.

      I could link all of these terms to applicable articles for you but I'm feeling lazy and this is all common knowledge stuff anyway.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:oh the Irony by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      So, a company called Tesla is developing technology that will prove that in the long term that DC is the better choice for powering homes?

      Why would this battery tech kill the long-distance transmission of power?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    12. Re:oh the Irony by suutar · · Score: 1

      Depends on the voltage. Assuming the same total power (demand) and the same resistance (same cable), double the voltage means half the current means a quarter the resistive losses. Used to be that getting AC to and from a nice high voltage was a lot easier than DC, because we had transformers but not DC-DC converters, but now the gap has shrunk.

    13. Re: oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. I could imagine some back-and-forth chemical reaction.

    14. Re:oh the Irony by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      DC has very rapid power loss over any kind of distance. DC in the home is based on the premise that the home will be powered off the local battery.

      DC is slightly better than AC over the same wire at the same voltage and amperage as AC due to absence of "skin effect".

    15. Re:oh the Irony by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Batteries are DC.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    16. Re:oh the Irony by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Tax, tax, tax...there are too many taxes already and the total tax demands is an overburden on the average/middle class wage earner.

      If you don't pay this tax at the electric meter, the Oregon govt (and other states in the future) will fit GPS devices into your car to track how many miles you drove inside the state and charge you a road tax based on the in-state miles.

      Do you really want that? Isn't eliminating big-brother tracking your car worth paying road tax at the point where you charge your EV (just like gas cars pay road tax at the gas pump)?

      Visit this link for the new GPS tracking system:
      http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

    17. Re:oh the Irony by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be easier to just tax tires instead of gas/electric for the purposes of road maintenance?

    18. Re:oh the Irony by skids · · Score: 1

      Just tax tires and eliminate the gas tax. Done. Next problem.

    19. Re:oh the Irony by jandjmh · · Score: 2

      DC over long lines means no inductive and capacitive parasitic losses, and also reduces corona discharge (100,000 VAC has a peak voltage 141,000 volts)
      DC over long lines also means you need AC to DC conversion at the source, and DC to AC conversion at the other end. Expensive and awkward in Edison's time - much less difficult now. (It is still impossible to beat the reliability of a passive transformer for voltage conversion)

      DC over long lines does NOT mean thick heavy cables or lots of loss, unless you stupidly try to distribute at low, end user voltages over long distances.

    20. Re:oh the Irony by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Not in the last 50 years or so it doesn't. There are literally hundreds of high-voltage DC transmission lines worldwide that are hundreds if not thousands of miles long.

      You might have noticed, but solid state electronics changed the game from what was state of the art in the 1920s.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    21. Re:oh the Irony by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Plenty of cheapskates would drive tires with worn out treads resulting in spinarounds in wet weather and inefficient braking/skids on dry roads.

      This [tax on tires] would lead to people pushing the limits of their tires, resulting in a lot more tire blowouts on the roadway. Blown out tires can cause cars to go out of control and lead to accidents, or at the very least result in pedestrians needing to leave their vehicle in close proximity to the roadway to change to a spare. Neither of these situations are safe, and we shouldnâ(TM)t implement a policy that will likely increase these instances.

      user comment from http://freakonomics.com/2013/0...

    22. Re: oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Unfortunately those same people are still driving their tires bald.

    23. Re: oh the Irony by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      So the sales tax is ok, but a road maintenance tax is going to totally change their behavior.

    24. Re: oh the Irony by gnupun · · Score: 1

      My point is, If a tire tax is passed, there will more cars on the road with bald tires, than if they stick to a per gallon/kWh tax.

    25. Re:oh the Irony by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      Well, as soon as someone invents the AC battery we can switch back...

      Ok, like this one? Flywheels store energy mechanically instead of chemically, and you can get get ac electrical output about as easily as you get dc. Just depends on your generator / converter setup.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    26. Re:oh the Irony by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Ah. Of course. Absolutely. Nice catch. I look forward to the day when high-capacity flywheels become cost-competitive with chemical batteries. But I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    27. Re:oh the Irony by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Can't the electric company supply both AC (for home appliances) and DC (for electric cars)? They could also add a state tax to the DC meter charging 1.5 cents road tax for certain amount of kWh charged by the vehicle. Gasoline cars pay 30 cents per gallon for road tax, so it's time for EVs to start paying too.

      Some buildings used to be hooked up to DC instead of AC. Not sure if it was the same power company or not. The last one I knew of was a Boston University women's dorm in the 70s; supposedly it was being supplied from the same source as the subway lines, but that I can't confirm.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  4. Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Low voltage is impractical for long runs. The amperage has to be too high and the voltage drop is too great.

    High voltage DC is much more likely to happen, although my money is on higher efficiency conversion.

    1. Re:Impractical by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      Yeh, for anything that produces heat, and hence requires a lot of power, this really isn't going to work. 250A cabling to a little electric fire place is a non-starter.

    2. Re:Impractical by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      We're not talking grid back-haul though, we're talking a few tens of metres maximum within a house. I've wondered for a while if it would be more efficient to have moderately high voltage DC room-to-room and then low-voltage DC in rooms. Given the number of things in my house that would prefer a DC supply and so end up with (cheap and inefficient) AC to DC convertors per plug (and especially if you use LED lighting), it seems like it ought to be a win. And now seems like a good time to do it, as USB-C is a consumer connector that can provide up to 100W via something that's designed to be very cheap to produce in the lower power variations.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, pretty much. Mains voltage in Oz is 240v AC for similar reasons, we can run a 2400w Clothes Dryer from a single phase, standard 10A outlet. IN the US this requires 2 phases IIRC. Power (in watts) is a function of voltage and current, it's relatively easy to juggle 100-300v on fairly light cable, but there's a good reason car starter motor cables are half an inch in diameter, they need to be to handle the 200plus amp current the starter motor needs at a nominal 12v. Low voltage is fine for lighting and low current applications, but once you get over a hundred watts or so, you need heavy cable or the resistance of the cable becomes a significant source of loss - and heat. This was the problem Edison couldn't solve with DC transmission lines - it was doable for lighting, but even that became a problem when it was all hanging off one mains cable and the current began to build - AC neatly avoids this. It would make sense to use two wiring systems, low voltage DC for lighting (leds by preference) and AC mains voltage for appliances. We have mains voltage standards, we probably need something for DC low voltage systems. 12v is a bit low for more than very light loads over any distance (cars aren't that big) 24v is better, but years and years ago there was a 'Freelight' system that ran on wind generators charging batteries - dates from the 30s and the batteries were just plain Lead Acid, but the system was 32v and there were a lot of small appliances (drills, fans et al) that worked fine at 32v without needing heavy wiring, the same gauge as the lighting was adequate.

      Geoff in Oz

    4. Re:Impractical by Phreakiture · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is largely what I was thinking.

      As it currently stands, commercial buildings often have 277V lighting circuits (this is in the US) because it involves installing less copper in the ceilings.

      From this, one can intuit that lowering the voltage will significantly increase the amount of copper, but let's take an example and make it more solid.

      Let's say, for the sake of example, that we were considering 48V DC as an alternative to 120V AC (I personally would not want to consider anything lower than 48V in a home environment). If you need to deliver 1200W from point A to point B, it will require 10A at 120V, and 25A at 48V.

      That 10A could be safely delivered on a 14 ga. wire in most domestic contexts, but will probably be delivered on 12 ga. For 25A, however, you're going to need 10 ga.*

      A 250' roll of wire is ~$43 for 14 ga, $95 for 12 ga., and $138 for 10 ga. See the problem?

      For the next challenge, you will also need to use different, more expensive switches and circuit breakers, or drop back to using fuses. This is because an AC arc self-quenches in half a cycle or less, and won't re-establish until the contacts are brought close enough together. The DC arc, on the other hand, is continuous, and requires additional effort to quench. Just for the record, there is an arc every time that a circuit breaker or switch is opened under load. This is the reason why you will often see switches and breakers labelled "AC Only".

      Now, this is not to say that these problems won't be overcome or that a different variant might come about. Who knows? Maybe they'll gravitate towards 120V AC or some such, in which case it will be 1915** all over again.

      (*For the non-Americans and uninitiated, US wire gauge is backwards: larger numbers are smaller wires. 14, 12 and 10 gauge are ~2.1, 3.3 and 5.3 mm^2, respectively)

      (**There is nothing special about 1915, but I live in a house that was built in 1915 and was electified from day one. It would have had DC delivered to it in those early days, courtesy of Mr. Edison's various efforts in my current home town of Schenectady.)

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    5. Re:Impractical by mlts · · Score: 2

      Even with a few meters, it will require fat, all copper cables (A/C, one can use CCA due to the skin effect.) These are not cheap, and even the big fat ones are not run for more than a few feet.

      As an RV-er, I'm familar with both 12 volt and 120 volt systems. For a LED TV or other low wattage appliance, 12 volt is better, just because it directly comes from the batteries. However, for a load like a microwave, A/C, heater, or anything above 300 watts, trying to run that on 12 volts would require very fat, expensive cable. High amperage DC stuff is expensive too. For example, since there are no zero crossings of the electricity, a switch needs to be made quite beefy to handle the arcing when being turned on and off.

      USB-C can provide 100 watts is because it steps up the voltage, up to 48 volts. If the connector was trying to provide 25 amps at 5 volts via the thin little wires, they would arc into gas almost immediately.

    6. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Houses here are still single phase; they just split the 240v.

      Most homes here have a few 240V outlets for dryers, AC and electric ovens.

    7. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      240v is still single phase in North America. The standard setup for residential electrical service is single phase fed by a center taped distribution transformer. The center tap of the transformer is tied to ground at the home and is used as the neutral. The voltage differential between each of the 2 hot leads of the transformer is 120v. The differential between each of the 2 hots are 240v. However each of the two 120v legs are still on the same phase. You'll still need a capacitor to get the phase shift needed to start the motor.

    8. Re:Impractical by PitaBred · · Score: 2

      48V is a common telecoms voltage, may as well work with an existing standard (it's 48V because you don't need an electrician's license to work with low-voltage, defined as under 50V).

    9. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is largely what I was thinking.

      As it currently stands, commercial buildings often have 277V lighting circuits (this is in the US) because it involves installing less copper in the ceilings.

      From this, one can intuit that lowering the voltage will significantly increase the amount of copper, but let's take an example and make it more solid.

      Let's say, for the sake of example, that we were considering 48V DC as an alternative to 120V AC (I personally would not want to consider anything lower than 48V in a home environment). If you need to deliver 1200W from point A to point B, it will require 10A at 120V, and 25A at 48V.

      That 10A could be safely delivered on a 14 ga. wire in most domestic contexts, but will probably be delivered on 12 ga. For 25A, however, you're going to need 10 ga.*

      A 250' roll of wire is ~$43 for 14 ga, $95 for 12 ga., and $138 for 10 ga. See the problem?

      For the next challenge, you will also need to use different, more expensive switches and circuit breakers, or drop back to using fuses. This is because an AC arc self-quenches in half a cycle or less, and won't re-establish until the contacts are brought close enough together. The DC arc, on the other hand, is continuous, and requires additional effort to quench. Just for the record, there is an arc every time that a circuit breaker or switch is opened under load. This is the reason why you will often see switches and breakers labelled "AC Only".

      Now, this is not to say that these problems won't be overcome or that a different variant might come about. Who knows? Maybe they'll gravitate towards 120V AC or some such, in which case it will be 1915** all over again.

      (*For the non-Americans and uninitiated, US wire gauge is backwards: larger numbers are smaller wires. 14, 12 and 10 gauge are ~2.1, 3.3 and 5.3 mm^2, respectively)

      (**There is nothing special about 1915, but I live in a house that was built in 1915 and was electified from day one. It would have had DC delivered to it in those early days, courtesy of Mr. Edison's various efforts in my current home town of Schenectady.)

      All of that info is very good and informative, however, the whole premise of rewiring a home for DC to accommodate renewable sources is, well, folly at best and corporate FUD at worst. They make inverters for a reason. Sure, there is some loss doing the inverter DC to AC conversion, but that loss is negligible (even over the lifetime of the system) compared to the cost of rewiring a home. Note, that you would also have to buy new appliances and such that ran on DC, and currently there aren't any suppliers of home appliances that run off DC, they are all RV or marine appliances.

      The whole rewiring premise is stupid! The linked article is nothing but FUD to drum up business for electricians from idiots that know nothing about power electronics.

    10. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that means it's coming, right? The industry would never miss an opportunity to sell expensive cables.

    11. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is 220V AC single-phase, but split in half with a center-tapped neutral to yield 2 110V "phases".

    12. Re:Impractical by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      The two hot phases in American home wiring are 120 degrees out of phase, hence there are not 240 volts between them, rather about 210 (voltages are all nominal anyhow, frequency is locked, voltage varies). You get two of three phases to your house. (To prevent you from running a blast furnace in your back yard.)

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most American home consumer power drops are single phase. 220V are opposing ends of the same center tapped winding, not true "two-phase".

      Examples of true two phase : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-phase_electric_power

      "As of 21st century, two-phase power was superseded with three phases and is not used in the industry. There remains, however, a two-phase commercial distribution system in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; many buildings in city center are permanently wired for two-phase[citation needed] and PECO (the local electric utility company) has continued the service."

    14. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.ccontrolsys.com/w/Two-Phase_Electrical_Service

    15. Re:Impractical by dj245 · · Score: 1

      We're not talking grid back-haul though, we're talking a few tens of metres maximum within a house. I've wondered for a while if it would be more efficient to have moderately high voltage DC room-to-room and then low-voltage DC in rooms. Given the number of things in my house that would prefer a DC supply and so end up with (cheap and inefficient) AC to DC convertors per plug (and especially if you use LED lighting), it seems like it ought to be a win. And now seems like a good time to do it, as USB-C is a consumer connector that can provide up to 100W via something that's designed to be very cheap to produce in the lower power variations.

      USB 1.0 came on the scene in 1995, 20 years ago. Since then, there have been at least 10 different plug types. Some of these never caught on, and some are now depreciated, but I have personally used 7 different plug types in different devices over the years. I have yet to see a USB-C connector yet, and I am usually a first adopter.

      Do you really want this connector madness to be permanently installed in your house? It will be obsolete in 5 years.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    16. Re:Impractical by minimum · · Score: 1

      To add to all those valid points; you have to consider voltage drop across wires as well. It will affect much more severly low voltage/high amp DC system than high voltage/low current AC.

    17. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The two hot phases in American home wiring are 120 degrees out of phase

      You keep saying this but you're wrong. The phases are 180 degrees out of phase.

    18. Re:Impractical by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      Agreed - US residential power is center-tapped single-phase 240V. From the center neutral to each line, you get 120V. The two "phases" are 180-degrees apart. Commercial power often comes in 208V three-phase. Each line is 120V, but phased from the others at 120 degrees. The next power increment is 480V 3-phase, composed of three 277V legs. Most commercial "240V" fluorescent lighting fixtures will be rated for 208-277V to account for the common commercial power options.

    19. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schenectady! That's the fake zip code I use online. 12345 FTW.

    20. Re:Impractical by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      The heavier wire is to reduce the resistance, which reduces the voltage drop and the heat generated.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    21. Re:Impractical by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Do you own an oscilloscope? I don't think you do.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re:Impractical by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't think it's happening.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    23. Re: Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one should I get out of storage? I assume you want a dual trace, but as long as there's a good external trigger that isn't essential. We won't need the dual beam storage, will we? That one's sort of a monster, they were kidding when they put the handle on the top- it's not really portable.

    24. Re: Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just cut off the ends of all the Appletalk cabling that I wisely had the builders run, end to end, through my house, and finally get some use out of it all again.

    25. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who needs an oscilloscope? Just look at your overhead power lines. The residential transformers only tap one phase.

    26. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one times costs for wire and solar panels lasting 20 years... 35-40k ... that should power a home decently

      ii purchased a kw of panels, 960whr set of batteries and a 2300 watt inverter + all the wire for around 5k ... solar is off grid completely separate circuit ( wanted to see if it was feasible )

      i pay 300 to 400 a month for power and that just keeps going up....

      400*12*20 == $96000

      yeah... power companies want you to think its not feasible... it is

    27. Re:Impractical by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If the connector was trying to provide 25 amps at 5 volts via the thin little wires, they would arc into gas almost immediately.

      My phone charge does 5A at 5V without an issue, and my laptop doing 5A at 20V does so over tiny wires.

      As an RV-er, I'm familar with both 12 volt and 120 volt systems. For a LED TV or other low wattage appliance, 12 volt is better, just because it directly comes from the batteries. However, for a load like a microwave, A/C, heater, or anything above 300 watts, trying to run that on 12 volts would require very fat, expensive cable.

      You answer the question, then immediately forget the answer. You have AC at 240 (sigh, 110, if you must) and have outlets in some strategic areas (kitchens and for major appliances), and 12V or 48V everywhere else.

      I think we should have a 48V internal wiring standard, with some 240V appliance plugs, for vacuums, refrigerators, washers and driers, and such. The dual-standard will complicate things slightly, but result in a large overall savings, as wall-warts are eliminated, and all their waste.

    28. Re:Impractical by jandjmh · · Score: 2

      Utterly wrong. Very few US house get two legs of a three phase system. Post above has it right. The power poles running down my street have three wires at the top, 12 KV three phase. The transformer mounted just below those wires is a simple single phase transformer with two skinny wires at the top connected to the 12 KV, and three terminals on the side, that as stated above are a 240 V secondary with a center tap. Center tap is the neutral, and is literally grounded. A wire runs down the side of the pole and connects the center tap to a 10 foot long copper plated steel rod pounded into the ground beside the pole. Three wires come across the street to my house: the center tap (a bare wire) and the two outside taps of the single phase secondary.
      At my house, the center tap is connected to the bare metal buss bars inside the breaker panel that are in turn connected to the metal case of the breaker panel. Another heavy wire connects these neutral buss bars to my house's own ground rod - a 10 foot long rod driven into the soil beside the house. Inside the breaker panel the half the breakers are connected to one of the two hot wires, half to the other. The wires from the breaker box to an outlet in a room have three conductors:typically one black, one white, and one bare wire. Oddly both the bare wire and white wire connect to the exact same neutral buss bar in the breaker panel. Yes, that is right - they are redundant connections to the same place. At the wall outlet the black wire goes to one flat opening in a wall plug, the white wire goes to the other flat opening, and the bare (ground) wire goes to the circular connector. If you need a 240 volt connection for a high power load, a two pole breaker is used, and the wire to the outlet will have 4 wires: typically black and red (hot), white (neutral) and bare (ground). As with a 120 volt outlet, the white and bare wires are both connected to the same buss bar in the breaker box.

    29. Re:Impractical by jandjmh · · Score: 1

      At 60 Hz skin effect is essentially nonexistent. There is no physical reason why AC at that frequency would work better (or worse) with a copper clad aluminum conductor. At 60 Hz the whole conductor is used by the AC - there will be just as much current flowing down the center as down the skin. The only reason the aluminum wire is clad with copper is that aluminum oxide is a very good insulator, and bare aluminum gets an oxide coating within minutes in our oxygen rich world.
      Copper oxide is a pretty good conductor, and does not (in the thin layer that occurs) impede connections. Bare aluminum wire was made infamous for causing fires in homes, when connections became high resistance (where the wire connected to a switch or outlet). I don't believe bare aluminum is allowed by most building codes anymore. CCA has replaced it..
      BTW - the only reason to use aluminum at all is cost. Aluminum is much cheaper than copper. Also much inferior as a conductor, with about twice the resistance. The cladding on CCA is not thick enough to significantly offset this deficit, so for a given amperage, copper clad aluminum has to be 2-3 wire gauges heavier. For example, in the US building codes require 12 gauge wire for a typical run from a 20 amp breaker to a string of standard wall outlets. If you are using CCA, you have to use 10 gauge wire, which has about 1.8 time the cross sectional area of a 12 gauge wire. Aluminum is so much cheaper that it comes out ahead despite needing so much more material.

    30. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my neck of the woods, CCA is used in some installations (at a gauge larger than copper) because it tends to be less of a target for meth-heads than items that have pure copper. Even though they look the same at first glance.

    31. Re:Impractical by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. I've known that for years. It's not the solar that's being claimed infeasible, it's the idea of wiring your house for low voltage DC.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    32. Re:Impractical by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      You're still wrong. North America is 240, center tap single phase for residential. All you have to do is look at the power transformers hanging off the poles - they are fed from *1* high voltage line.

    33. Re:Impractical by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      But if the voltage drop is inversely proportional to the cross section of the conductor, for a given material and length, isn't the work-around simply a bigger conductor for the links between the power bank and each room or energy intensive appliance? Recent success with fabricating continuous ribbons of grapheme in an industrially applicable manner could make the "just use more conductor" solution economically viable.

    34. Re:Impractical by storkus · · Score: 1

      As it currently stands, commercial buildings often have 277V lighting circuits (this is in the US) because it involves installing less copper in the ceilings.

      Perhaps that was the reason in the old days, but more likely (especially for newer construction) it's because this is the voltage you get between a leg and neutral from a 3-phase wye transformer at 480 volts leg to leg AKA 480/277Y. Here in Phoenix you see this a lot at the bigger retailers where that 480 volts is used to drive the freezers and general building refrigeration needed in summer. It makes sense, from a safety standpoint, to use the lower 277 volts where the power draw doesn't necessitate a higher voltage. (Of course, that doesn't mean I'm not wrong here, and your Cu cost argument is totally sound, especially these days!)

      The lower voltage version (here in NA) is 208/120Y and is VERY common in certain places such as the motel where I work where 120v is needed most, but 3 phase is needed by a few things (in our case, the washing machines and outdoor sign). The A/C units are wired to accept the lower 208 volts instead of 240 and we buy them that way from the retailer (they can still be rewired to 240 if necessary).

    35. Re:Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia changed from 240V AC to 230V AC several years back.

      Australia also has 3 phase power (not 2 phase) running at a bit over 400V. Now that stoves and washing machines don't need it, I think 3 phase is mostly used by really big appliances like "whole of house" air conditioning, and concrete slab heating.

      I was wondering if we could switch to AC at a much higher frequency - don't marine and aircraft systems run at 400Hz? Means you have far less delay between peaks, so you can use smaller ripple capacitors.

    36. Re:Impractical by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Why would I be stuck with the connector? For one thing, you can easily install adaptors - even if you'd rolled out USB A or B sockets, they'd still be supported everywhere and you can buy adaptors very cheaply. The main problem with a USB A socket (which is really the only one of the previous ones that you'd consider for charging) is the low power - it can only provide about 10W, even if you have some adaptor. USB C can provide 100W, and 100W seems like enough for a DC supply for quite a while.

      But if I'd rolled out USB A sockets in 1995, I don't think I'd object strongly to replacing the faceplates on the sockets with USB C ones in the next five years, if the wires in the wall could supply the required power.

      I have yet to see a USB-C connector yet, and I am usually a first adopter.

      No one you know has a MacBook Air? Most of the next generation of mobiles are going to have USB C (Apple and Google are among the bigger backers), so expect to see a lot of them appearing.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    37. Re:Impractical by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I have a 'scope, and I have lots of practical experience with 120/240 US power systems. I challenge you to explain how you get a 120 degree phase difference on the secondary of a transformer that has a single primary winding and a center-tapped 120/240V secondary.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    38. Re:Impractical by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Yeh, for anything that produces heat, and hence requires a lot of power, this really isn't going to work. 250A cabling to a little electric fire place is a non-starter.

      I've found the power brick to my laptop is just what I need under the blanket on a cold night, a replacement for the obsolete hot water bottle. No I'm not kidding. And yes, I am sad and pathetic.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    39. Re:Impractical by Agripa · · Score: 1

      48V by itself qualifies as low voltage but does a 48V lead-acid battery system? They operate at up to about 56 volts.

      Didn't the proposed 42V car electrical standard use 42V instead of 48V for this very reason?

      I consider the 50V standard idiotic; It should have been just high enough, say 60V, so that the telecom 48V standard would be considered low voltage.

    40. Re:Impractical by Agripa · · Score: 1

      For the next challenge, you will also need to use different, more expensive switches and circuit breakers, or drop back to using fuses.

      DC rated fuses are more expensive for the same reason. 250 volt AC rated fuses are commonly only have a DC rating of 32 volts. I usually run across this with multimeters and test instruments which require very expensive DC rated fuses protecting their inputs to achieve their CAT safety rating.

    41. Re:Impractical by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      I believe it may also be somewhat impacted by the type of building. What I have seen is in industrial buildings, office buildings and malls. I have seen the 208/120 wiring you described.

      One particular building where I used to work had 208/120 in the data centre, but most of the building's lighting was 277. 277 was also available in the data centre, as was 100 and 240, because we were frequently hosting our customer's computers, which came from all over the world. I don't think I ever saw the 277 used, but the 240 and 100 were provided by small single-phase transformers in a side-room.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
  5. 20-40% overblown by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    If you're using somewhere near the inverter's peak output, then you can get as much as 90% efficiency. Inverters are getting smaller all the time, which makes it more feasible to gang modules instead of using monolithic units which will provide very low conversion efficiency for low outputs.

    It's still unfortunate to leave 10% on the table. But a lot of DC-DC power supplies are also not very efficient. Best-case, they are only around 95% efficient, and you can easily lose another 10-15% if you execute them poorly. So yes, optimally they have half the peak loss, and even bad ones are likely to be better, but we can make better inverters and we will as the demand increases.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:20-40% overblown by gnupun · · Score: 1, Informative

      He's talking about solar DC -> AC conversion: 20% loss, for AC appliances. Then another 20% loss for converting the converted AC back to DC: 40% total loss for connecting to DC appliances.

      * Sun generates 12VDC via the solar panel

              * Solar panels push power to a battery

              * The battery or the solar panel push 12VDC to a DC to AC converter (20% loss of power).

              * AC is distributed throughout the house

              * Many devices then convert the power BACK to DC (20% loss of power)

          * This all seems pretty silly to lose this much power.
      I am sure it is less than a cumulative loss of 40 percent power, but when your trying to free yourself of the power company, this really adds up.

      Shouldn't there be an option for the battery to generate AC or DC based on the type of appliance that is connecting to it? That would mean 20% conversion loss for DC to AC, for AC appliances, and 0% loss for connecting to DC appliances. The main point is we need both AC and DC sockets connected to this battery.

    2. Re:20-40% overblown by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Batteries are intrinsically DC. It's fundamental to how they work.

    3. Re:20-40% overblown by Mike_EE_U_of_I · · Score: 5, Informative

      > If you're using somewhere near the inverter's peak output, then you can get as much as 90% efficiency

        These days inverters are much better than that. To use a random product that is currently shipping, an SMA Sunny Boy 5000 runs at 95.5-97% efficiency. Bigger inverters are even better with some commercial scale monsters at 98% efficiency.

        The original article is pure nonsense. There are already three port inverters on the market. Those ports are: your 120V AC, your solar array, your battery bank. If the energy is going from the solar array to the battery there is simply no intermediate conversion to AC. With a three port inverter, there is only ever a single conversion from DC to AC. And, as I previously mentioned, will only get hit with a 3-4.5% loss. There is simply no way the world is going to change how electricity is delivered to avoid that.

        Since the Tesla Power Wall is pretty much for sure going to be a high volume product, there are inverter manufacturers falling all over themselves to design and build three port inverters specifically optimized for the Tesla product.

    4. Re:20-40% overblown by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      That takes care of the first 20%... but what about the cheap AC->DC transformers that sit between your house wiring and your devices? I'd love to be able to switch each outlet I have between 110VAC/15a, 12VDC/3-5a and 9VDC/500Ma-2a, and do away with wall warts altogether.

    5. Re:20-40% overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't there be an option for the battery to generate AC or DC

      There should be an option to filter posters on /. that talk with literally 0 idea of what they are talking about, yet still get +3.

    6. Re:20-40% overblown by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      That takes care of the first 20%... but what about the cheap AC->DC transformers that sit between your house wiring and your devices? I'd love to be able to switch each outlet I have between 110VAC/15a, 12VDC/3-5a and 9VDC/500Ma-2a, and do away with wall warts altogether.

      You already can come close, since these are products. As more and more devices switch to USB power ports, you'll want more and more wall outlets with USB ports and fewer and fewer with AC ports (of the various and sundry flavors in use worldwide).

      It's a little depressing to realize that the one thing that will make AC power in the home hang on long after it should be dead and buried is the humble vacuum cleaner.

    7. Re:20-40% overblown by Kjella · · Score: 1

      That takes care of the first 20%... but what about the cheap AC->DC transformers that sit between your house wiring and your devices? I'd love to be able to switch each outlet I have between 110VAC/15a, 12VDC/3-5a and 9VDC/500Ma-2a, and do away with wall warts altogether.

      Since you have different DC voltages you either need DC wall warts (not achieving anything), per outlet transformers (sounds expensive and turn the socket into a wall wart) or one circuit per outlet (sounds expensive and needs big conduits). And because of fire risk, property damage and whatnot you'll never get to use the same plug, tripling each outlet. Then you need something fancy to flip each socket at the source and what part of the socket is powered at the sink in a safe way, for every outlet. And I doubt 9VDC/500mW-2A matters much economically, if you want the aesthetics embed the wall wart in the wall, it'll probably be less hassle than the alternatives.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:20-40% overblown by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Well, baseboard heaters will use AC on their own circuit for a long time, I'm sure -- as will ovens, hot water heaters and clothes dryers.

      Anything with a heating element is likely to be pegged to 110VAC, including hair dryers, soldering irons, curling irons, clothes irons, heat guns, and the like. At least with vacuum cleaners, you have the option to go with a built-in system, at which point your power options are less limited.

    9. Re:20-40% overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, this bloke needs to replace the valve inverter in his vintage Airstream with a more modern solid state switcher...

    10. Re:20-40% overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, 20% loss over 80% of the power does not equal 20% of the total. It becomes 16%.

      Secondly, if you're losing 20% power in your inverter and another 20% in your power supply you've done them both horribly wrong.

      Thirdly, I hope you realize that being DC or AC is not the only attribute which qualifies a power source - if you have a 72V battery pack and need to power your 18V laptop, you're still gonna need a power supply.
      You might cut /some/ inefficiency away compared to a 230V AC -> 18V DC power supply, but not very much. It certainly won't be "0% loss" as you suggest.

    11. Re:20-40% overblown by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      I think you're misunderstanding the author. From the article:

      Sun generates 12VDC via the solar panel

      Solar panels push power to a battery

      The battery or the solar panel push 12VDC to a DC to AC converter (20% loss of power).

      AC is distributed throughout the house

      Many devices then convert the power BACK to DC (20% loss of power)

      He doesn't claim there's an energy loss between the solar panel and the battery. The conversion happens when the power comes out of the battery and gets distributed to all your appliances, many of which promptly convert it back to DC.

      However, if the loss from each conversion is only 5% instead of 20%, the whole issue becomes a lot less important.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    12. Re:20-40% overblown by Agripa · · Score: 1

      He's talking about solar DC -> AC conversion: 20% loss, for AC appliances. Then another 20% loss for converting the converted AC back to DC: 40% total loss for connecting to DC appliances.

      I was not sure if the article was saying 20% loss for each stage or 20% loss combined but it does not matter; online UPSes which do both conversions continuously often have a 90% or better combined efficiency. I doubt the credibility of the article and author because of this.

      Shouldn't there be an option for the battery to generate AC or DC based on the type of appliance that is connecting to it? That would mean 20% conversion loss for DC to AC, for AC appliances, and 0% loss for connecting to DC appliances. The main point is we need both AC and DC sockets connected to this battery.

      An easier way to handle this is on the device side but there are issues.

      Switching power supplies will usually run on AC or DC without modification. The problem is that the standard voltage doubling input stage without power factor correction expects either 120 volts AC or 340 volts DC. A power factor corrected universal input design will run on 120 to 240 volts AC and 170 to 340 volts DC but this minimum DC voltage is too high to be safe using standard 120 volt AC infrastructure like switches, breakers, fuses, and plugs.

  6. A/C vs. D/C Irony? by alanmeyer · · Score: 1

    Maybe they were both right and both wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

  7. This has been played out before... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...albeit this has already happened on a smaller scale before. All you need to do is ask anyone who owns or has owned an RV or Camping trailer.

    I dealt with it myself when I had an RV: a bank of huge batteries, an inverter, and a generator. In Tesla's instance, you replace "generator" with "local power grid", but otherwise it's the same routine: Your lights and similar are low-voltage (just like most RVs), but you use an inverter for any general consumer item (TV, computer/laptop, hair dryer, whatever).

    I think the only diff would be in the appliances... most RV appliances (e.g. the refrigerator, furnace blower, AC units) are made to run off of 12v DC, but most RV appliances are pretty small when compared to their house-made counterparts.

    Maybe ask folks who do the hardcore solar/wind thing?

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:This has been played out before... by Holi · · Score: 1

      I deal with boats and a lot of the appliances are moving to 48v.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:This has been played out before... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Boat people use 36 or 48V in larger vessels. There is a lot of work done in high voltage DC for people with lots more money than sense.

      The higher DC voltages seem to work well for everything except household-class heater appliances like dryers. But 12V isn't going to cut it for house-sized objects. Yes, you can do it - but why would you want to?

      For one thing, high amp copper cable is expensive and a PITA to install.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:This has been played out before... by mlts · · Score: 2

      RVs tend to have two rails. A 12 volt set of circuits, and 120 VAC. However, because it is only 3-4 meters at most, one can get away with using low-amp appliances on that rail.

      A house, with its far longer runs should be on 120 for everything, and if 12 volts is needed... put a rectifier in the room. No need to use big fat meth-head attracting cables.

      If one wants the advantage of clean power without needing a power supply for every box... this is a long since solved problem. Telcos have been using 48VDC and NEBS compliant machines for decades.

    4. Re:This has been played out before... by swb · · Score: 1

      As a person who spends a significant amount of their time planning my fantasy boat, it looks like in terms of equipment selection, 12v and 24v seem to be kings with much less choice once you get to 48vdc.

      Now this is mostly for recreational boats up to about 50'. The larger vessels seem to be more inclined to support 24v because they have the space for larger battery arrays and more flexibility to support 12v runs for the many accessories that only run on 12v.

      The more run of the mill boats seem to be exclusively 12v because they have less space for battery arrays, their engines are default setup for 12v alternators.

      But even when you get into larger trawler-type cruisers, they may have 24v or even 48v arrays, but that mostly seems to be because almost every appliance they have is 115vac and they're just looking for power efficiency when they're not running off the generator anyway.

    5. Re:This has been played out before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmm, SCRs are fun to replace when they blow faster than the fuses that "protect" them.

    6. Re:This has been played out before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12V wiring is completely infeasible for a home. A laptop, for example, would draw 7 amps at 12V. At 25 feet, the wire in your wall for that outlet would have to be about 12 AWG (larger than most household wiring). And that's for a single laptop. At 25 feet, an electric clothes dryer would draw about 280 amps at 12V. 0 AWG (~1/3" diameter) isn't nearly large enough, exhibting a >12% voltage drop. At those sizes, you're not talking about wires so much as rods....

    7. Re:This has been played out before... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Aren't the fridge, air conditioner, etc on RVs run off of propane? It would just be the lights and fans that would be electrical.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:This has been played out before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many LCD/LED monitors these days convert AC to DC via a wallwart. My PC monitor even runs on 12V. So there would seem to be no reason why consumer TVs of reasonable sizes could not run on 12V. Back in the day people ran small CRT TVs on 12V in RVs and so on.

    9. Re: This has been played out before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the day, the typical 5 tube table radio was called an AC/DC set because it was transformerless (and hot wired!) and could run off either AC or DC at 120 volts. The 120 volts was required because the tube filaments were strung in series and the filament voltage (I.e. the 35 volts for the 35W4 tube) totaled 120.

    10. Re:This has been played out before... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Wire length. For low voltages, the voltage drop is important, which means that a longer cable needs to be thicker. If you replaced the 2 meter long cable from the wallwart to your TV with a 20m cable you would have to have a much bigger cable. RVs are small, so the cables in them are short, letting you get away with low voltage.

    11. Re:This has been played out before... by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I had always wanted a sailboat with an electric auxiliary motor driven boat. But the thought of standing ankle deep in salt water with a large 48-volt battery around scares me, I can't see any way to make it safe. At least with something like a hydrogen fuel cell you can turn it off if you start to take on water.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    12. Re:This has been played out before... by swb · · Score: 1

      The only problem with an electric auxillary motor is that it would take a ton of power and I'm not sure the battery size/weight to get any meaningful runtime out of it would be at all practical.

      One thing that I have seen that seems 'new' and might make an electric motor work are variable-speed diesel DC generators. They feed some kind of DC-DC converter/charge controller to provide a fixed DC voltage that can charge batteries or feed an inverter and could probably supply DC to the motor, too, although I haven't seen the converters for 48vdc.

      Supposedly they're extremely efficient as they have the electrical generation built into the flywheel, so there's no mechanical losses from a belt or shaft driven generator. Because the charge controller is setup to convert a wide range of DC voltage to a fixed voltage, the engine can be run at varying speeds depending on electrical need, rather than requiring a fixed RPM required to generate AC power. Battery charging can happen at low speeds for improved fuel efficiency. I think they also enable the use of very small diesel engines, saving space.

      At least this way you could have one IC engine that does both generation and could act as a power source for a motor. With enough battery, docking and exiting marinas could be done on battery alone. And you'd only need one IC engine for electrical power and auxillary propulsion.

  8. Important Question: WHICH DC? by Diss+Champ · · Score: 3

    It's not like there is one single standard DC voltage that everything runs off of. Switching between different DC voltages incurs a loss just like switching between the current AC standard and a given DC voltage incurs a loss.

    If one were deploying everything from scratch, one could pick a standard. Right now, everyone is going to want to run the stuff they have, and the AC to DC converters on that stuff, even when they are exposed (i.e. wall-warts) instead of embedded in the device, are converting to a variety of different DC values.

    1. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by wiggles · · Score: 1

      Thanks to the advent of using a USB port as a power connector, most everything DC is around 5v, usually less than 1A

    2. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The thing that killed DC in the war of the currents was that step up and step down transformers for AC are easy and cheap to build, but doing the same thing for DC caused a lot more loss (one of the simplest ways of doing it was to convert to AC, do the voltage change, and then convert back to DC). For long hauls on the grid, you want a much higher voltage than in houses. Now, however, it's relatively cheap (both in terms of convertors and in terms of loss) to produce DC-DC converters. USB-C supports 5V (up to 2A), 12V (1.5-5A) and 20V (3-5A). It's fairly easy to imagine 48V between rooms and then a converter in the sockets able to provide USB voltages. You wouldn't want to run a heater or a vacuum cleaner from it, but it would be nice for a lot of consumer electronics.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      Or you could just buy a socket with a built in USB charger and swap them out. For example in the UK you can get these

      http://www.screwfix.com/p/lap-...

      They even retro fit in to 25mm deep back boxes. I can't believe that similar sockets are not available in other countries.

    4. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Call me when you figure out how to run a house air conditioner or full sized refrigerator off of 5v@1A

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Like my car. Oh, wait...

      Oh, like my, um, USB chargers. None of which deliver more than 36W.

      If this is your justification, consider delivering 10-20X the current. It all changes, as numerous posters have already pointed out.

      The Tesla batteries are intended to be storage devices, not an endorsement of the superiority of DC power for the home. When you get AC batteries, this becomes moot.

      And no, I am not expecting AC batteries ever, but it's fun to drive the engineers crazy for a moment. Easy, but fun.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Call me when you figure out how to run a house air conditioner or full sized refrigerator off of 5v@1A

      Therein lies the problem with LVDC in the home. There's a reason why we use high voltage to transmit power - either HVAC or HVDC. You lose a crapload of power at low voltages because losses increase with the square of the current. So double the voltage, halve the current, quarter the losses! (It's called IIR losses). Lower currents also mean your wires can be thinner (though your insulation needs to be thicker - not a problem for transmission lines which are uninsulated).

      Running 5V through a house just to power devices may mean easily having to supply 50-60A of current (that's only 300W!), which makes for wildly thick cables. So unless you want to have 6V close to the supply and 4V at the far end of the house...

      Hell, take a server that consumes 360W, that's 30A at 12V. If we have a rack of 18, that's 540A. People weld stuff using 100A or so. even a 0.01 ohm junction at 540A is dissipating nearly 3kW! If you do it well and get it down to 0.001 ohm (1 milliohm), that's still 300W in heat generated at the junction (which could be a connector, say).

      It's why the battery packs of electric cars run at 400V or higher.

    7. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being familiar with how buck, boost and buck/boost circuits work and having designed several in my day, I would like you please to explain how a DC-DC converter works without first converting it into a form of AC? You can do it at near 97% efficiency, but you're still switching it to AC in the middle. The only way to jump voltages around without AC is to use resistive bridges and diodes, and those are horribly lossy, often giving you efficiency less than 30%.

    8. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by afidel · · Score: 1

      And what is the system efficiency of
      Grid AC -> Battery DC -> House AC -> USB DC?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To add to this an oven, power saw, vacuum cleaner. Pretty much anything that isn't a hand-held electronic device.

    10. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by wiggles · · Score: 1

      Obviously you're right. I'm not advocating for replacing all higher voltage AC for low voltage DC. What I'm saying is, maybe we can do both - each for its own purpose.

    11. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1
    12. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If you connect one of these to the existing AC main, then you're just moving the well wart into the socket. You still have one AC to DC converter for each device, and that particular device can only provide 2.1A at 5V, which is well below what USB-C supports (no charging a MacBook Air from it, for example).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Important Question: WHICH DC? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Now, however, it's relatively cheap (both in terms of convertors and in terms of loss) to produce DC-DC converters.

      There is a reliability issue as well. Converters are more complicated than transformers making them less reliable. If they have to deal with poor power conditions, then they will be less reliable yet. This may be especially pertinent in a home can be expected to last decades before refurbishment.

  9. Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With houses as big as they are, we ( USA ) need to think about going to 220v to save on copper.

    Besides, inverters are easy to build, soon you'll beable to buy a Raseberry Pi kit to run a 10kw inverter.

    1. Re:Bad Idea by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Most homes in the US have split phase 240 with the 240 being used for large loads like environmental control, dryer, range, oven, and now car charging.

  10. Low voltage? by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

    I thought North America already was low voltage. 8P

    230~240VAC FTW!

    1. Re:Low voltage? by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      60 HZ FTW!

      Which raises the question, if we have installing inverters, why not 400 HZ?

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    2. Re:Low voltage? by Fortran+IV · · Score: 1

      Make it 440Hz; then I can tune my piano from it.

      --
      I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
    3. Re:Low voltage? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just because we're all dim bulbs doesn't mean we're low voltage. There is a lot of resistance around here.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Low voltage? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      440hz sounds like a better idea to me, though.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Low voltage? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      North American homes use a split-phase system which means they have both 120v and 240v. Typically high-power appliances use the 240v, such as dryers, large air conditioners, ovens, etc.

    6. Re:Low voltage? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      640Hz should be enough for everybody.

    7. Re: Low voltage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're redesigning home power completely, let's just do it right and go 480 or 600v 3 phase, 60hz.

    8. Re:Low voltage? by Balthisar · · Score: 2

      When I return home to the States from my current assignment, 220 outlets in my kitchen will be a top priority. Sure, I could buy a new kettle and a new coffee maker, but running off of 220 is so much better.

      --
      --Jim (me)
    9. Re:Low voltage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I C what you did there.

    10. Re:Low voltage? by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Should have added this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    11. Re: Low voltage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homes are not feed with that from the power grid

    12. Re:Low voltage? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're coming from Europe, you're going to have other issues, since there's more than just a voltage difference. There's also a frequency difference, with Europe using 50Hz and North America using 60Hz. Things like a kettle probably don't care, though.

    13. Re: Low voltage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer the 'three thousands' system: 1000V, 1000A and 1000Hz. There's not much you can't do with that.

    14. Re:Low voltage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I return home to the States from my current assignment, 220 outlets in my kitchen will be a top priority. Sure, I could buy a new kettle and a new coffee maker, but running off of 220 is so much better.

      You can't just swap outlets. You'd have to swap every outlet on that branch to 220 (I hope there's no lighting on the circuit). You also need to change out the breaker for a double pole, relocate the neutral of the existing circuit to the other pole of the new breaker and use permanent marker all along (from panel entry to breaker) the old neutral. Black or red is typical, but anything other than white or green is valid.

      Alternatively you could run a new 3 conductor (typically non-metallic with red, black, white and bare ground) branch circuit (red and black to double pole breaker, white to neutral bar, ground to ground bar). This allows both 110 and 220 outlets (and lighting) on the same circuit.

    15. Re:Low voltage? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You probably already have 220 in your kitchen if you have an electric oven or range. Dryers, hot water heaters, HVAC compressors, and often electric baseboard heaters are also 220. I have at least half a dozen 220 circuits in my electrical panel. Not exotic at all.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:Low voltage? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Virtually every kitchen in the US should have a 220 outlet for the range.

      If you're hoping to use your overseas-purchased appliances, consider the difference in frequency. Some may not like 60Hz, preferring the 50Hz they were designed for.

      Or not. But I'm betting yeah.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    17. Re:Low voltage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's better about it? I mean, it does the same thing unless extra power is really needed. Not too often you find a coffee maker really struggling.

    18. Re: Low voltage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 phase 400V might be something that is already coming to your apartment building. I have never lived in a detached home, but that high voltage line is mighty useful the moment you want to start running your first professional level washing machine, or a computer system taking significantly over 3 kilowatts of power.

    19. Re:Low voltage? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I would think a kettle would be fine.

      With a motorised applicance it will depend on the type of motor. Universal motors will generally be fine (maybe a bit less powerful due to the higher inductance but the design would have to be pretty marginal for that to be relavent). Motors running off DC supplies (e.g. everything you will find in your PC) will be fine too unless the PSU is very marginal. Induction and synchronous motors are more likely to fail.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    20. Re:Low voltage? by afidel · · Score: 1

      You're going to install a NEMA 14-30 and use a conversion cable to run your European kettle?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    21. Re: Low voltage? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      400 Hz is already an established standard for avionics power distribution, so there's no need to plough any new ground with a different frequency.

    22. Re:Low voltage? by HiThereImBob · · Score: 1

      640Hz should be enough for everybody.

      440hz sounds like a better idea to me, though.

      No need to argue ladies, a DC signal is technically periodic over any interval, so you both win!

    23. Re:Low voltage? by catmistake · · Score: 1

      The Cap'n needed 2600Hz, which was useful once upon a time.

    24. Re:Low voltage? by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Make it 440Hz; then I can tune my piano from it.

      You can try tuning middle A to 480Hz, which is a harmonic of 60Hz... but in practice this does not lower the noise floor when multitracking, and sounds like poop.

    25. Re:Low voltage? by Balthisar · · Score: 1

      As other child post says, it's only really important for motor loads. I currently run a couple of my US appliances on a transformer. While the food processor doesn't bat an eye at 50 Hz, I had to recalibrate the speed control on the stand mixer, and it's a bit slow.

      Coming back, both the kettle and the coffee maker are resistance-only devices, and so line frequency won't matter. Yeah, the coffee maker has its solid state logic, but its power supply negates any frequency effects.

      --
      --Jim (me)
    26. Re:Low voltage? by Balthisar · · Score: 1

      Goodness no! Nema 6-15 or Nema 6-20 will do quite nicely, have pretty consumer-like versions available, and don't look like giant, ugly heavy appliance hookups on my countertops.

      Plugs and/or cables on most appliances are amazingly easy to change, so I won't be using a "conversion" cable or anything. I'll add the proper plug or cable for the outlet.

      (Appliances' cables are Chinese, not European.)

      --
      --Jim (me)
    27. Re:Low voltage? by Balthisar · · Score: 1

      My HVAC was an upgrade, and is running off of its own meter and panel. Everything else is natural gas, except for my oven's 220 circuit that I ran myself (with permit). I'm pretty sure NEC requires a dedicated circuit for the oven, so I'd have to run a new cable from the service panel. It's still the original 1983 panel, so probably 100 to 150 amp service, and I think I'm out of capacity.

      Would I pay an electrician $1500 so I can use my coffee maker? No way; I'm not that type of coffee snob. But I'm a handy person who likes to mold his house to his liking.

      --
      --Jim (me)
    28. Re:Low voltage? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If you haven't already, get some tandem breakers :)

      My service was upgraded to 150, and I have natural gas. My panel is completely full, and that's with tandem breakers (and a sub-panel!). Very few singles left.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    29. Re:Low voltage? by Balthisar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, not a bad idea, and much more economical than upgrading service. I would only have to free up two slots for the new 220 circuit, so a couple of tandems would do it. If my panel supports them. And if my township enforces the right version of NEC. I could hire an electrician, but it seems silly for such a simple change if I can verify the requirements myself.

      (Dear electricians, I have the utmost respect for your profession, and yes, I know when to let you do the work instead of doing it myself!)

      --
      --Jim (me)
    30. Re:Low voltage? by jdschulteis · · Score: 1

      I C what you did there.

      440 Hz is A, not C, AC.

    31. Re:Low voltage? by mirix · · Score: 1

      I imagine he'd just install schuko sockets..? That's what I'd do anyway.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    32. Re:Low voltage? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Those things are great - they sell a 3-gang "tandem" that gives you one 220 and two 110 breakers in 2 slots. Most of my 220 circuits are done this way... can make it more of a challenge when a breaker goes bad, but oh well. Last year my heater circuit went bad and so I had to poach from elsewhere in the house until the online order was delivered. None of the local electrical supply places had my odd combination of 220 and 110V 15 and 20 amp circuits.

      Here's an example of a "triplex" breaker.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    33. Re:Low voltage? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't pass inspection in the US since they're not classified in the NEC.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    34. Re:Low voltage? by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      60 HZ FTW!

      No thanks. I prefer the figure of 0.2 seconds per cycle rather than your 0.1666r seconds per cycle.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    35. Re:Low voltage? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Ah, I had forgotten about 6-15R, whenever we deal with 240V it's always L6-20 or L6-30 twistlock or C13, neither of which would work in a kitchen. I do see you can get 6-15R in GFCI which is good since that's required in kitchens.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    36. Re:Low voltage? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Make it 440Hz; then I can tune my piano from it.

      All the 60 hz hum is annoying enough, please don't make it 440......

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  11. It will come down to economics. by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 1

    Will it be cheaper to buy 20-40% more batteries (or solar panels) or convert all your appliances? I suspect batteries will be far cheaper. But yes, I do know the importance of not converting. We spend a lot of time in the wilderness in our travel trailer and it really matters then. However, don't underestimate the loss with DC over the distance of a house. It won't be 20-40%, but 10% maybe...

    --
    Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
  12. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just Nope.

  13. 20-40%? Rubbish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    20% power loss for AC to DC? Someone is on crack here. A good inverter can hit over 97% efficiency. If there was a 40% loss, my comms room online UPS would have required a much bigger CRAC setup just to deal with that...

    1. Re:20-40%? Rubbish! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Does a good inverter hit 97% efficiency when it's delivering 10% of rated load?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:20-40%? Rubbish! by Agripa · · Score: 1

      They can if that is a design requirement. In most applications there is an assumption that loss at higher power levels is more significant because of cooling requirements; total power lost at lower power levels is always lower even if efficiency drops. The highest power for a given form factor only depends on efficiency at high power.

      Converters can also be designed to operate over wide input ranges but this will sacrifice efficiency or price or both. This mostly impacts universal input power supplies. A 2:1 range of input voltage is common but 4:1 is certainly feasible. That could allow a universal input power supply which operates from 60 to 240 volts AC or 85 to 340 volts DC but that still is not enough range to support 48 volts DC never mind 12 volts DC. The implication is that it will be uneconomical to have a power supply which supports both normal voltage AC and low voltage DC. For similar reasons it may be uneconomical for a power supply or inverter to provide high efficiency at the lower end of its power range.

  14. Current? Fat cables? by Dave500 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Forgive me if I have this wrong, but if we start wiring houses for low voltage DC, won't this mean huge fat copper cables to deal with the current implications of a washing machine or oven pulling tens, even hundreds of amps because of Ohms law?

  15. Lower voltage means higher current by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1
    And so low voltage DC will require more copper in the wiring. Home run wiring (one wire per outlet) will increase the amount of copper required per home. We use (relatively) high voltage for a reason: to cut IR losses.

    I also call shenanigans on the 20%-40% inefficiency number -- a good DC/DC switching converter should be 85-90% efficient.

  16. A niche product in a niche market by Scareduck · · Score: 1

    There just isn't enough lithium in the world to supply Tesla batteries to every US household, let alone the world.

    Worrying about low-voltage appliances is delusional.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:A niche product in a niche market by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      if they desalinate ocean water for drinking purposes, the question is what to do with all that salt

      answer: process it and take out all of the economically important trace elements, not just lithium

      The total lithium content of seawater is very large and is estimated as 230 billion tonnes, where the element exists at a relatively constant concentration of 0.14 to 0.25 parts per million (ppm),[40][41] or 25 micromolar;[42] higher concentrations approaching 7 ppm are found near hydrothermal vents.[41]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      sure, this would put lithium at a high price point, but not that high if the desalination and concentration process is mostly solar powered and on a massive scale for drinking water purposes

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:A niche product in a niche market by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Lithium is relatively rare compared to, say, silicon in the Earth's crust, but we're not going to run out.

      What you mean to say it, we need to develop better techniques to refine lithium out of lower-grade ores.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    3. Re:A niche product in a niche market by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Only an idiot would use lithium batteries in a home today. Lead-acid are much better for the application.

      Of course that could all change.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:A niche product in a niche market by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Someone who overspent on batteries has mod points.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:A niche product in a niche market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel the need to point out that you just recommended boiling the oceans. Stop and think about that for a minute and what the problem with getting all that lithium in the seawater might be.

    6. Re:A niche product in a niche market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're aware that lithium is a rare earth element, right? There's no such thing as lithium ore. You strip mine millions of tons, process it and get a few tons in return.

    7. Re:A niche product in a niche market by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      it's called desalination and it's a common mundane technology

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

      "boiling the oceans" makes me think you have no fucking clue about the kind of scale we're talking about here

      if every nation exerted every single drop of it's GDP building desalination plants, we wouldn't make the tiniest of dents in the oceans genius

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re:A niche product in a niche market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There just isn't enough lithium in the world to supply Tesla batteries to every US household, let alone the world.

      Worrying about low-voltage appliances is delusional.

      Lithium is the 33rd most abundant element on the earth.

      Wikipedia says that the 8 biggest miners (countries) of Lithium produce about 36,000 tonnes per year, and hold reserves of 13,500,000 tonnes.

      So just to exhaust the countries currently producing lithium, would take 375 years at current rates.

      The figure of 13,500,000 tonnes doesn't include some of the largest deposits of lithium rich earth. That also doesn't include the 230,000,000,000 tonnes in the oceans. Obviously you don't want to deplete the ocean of all salts, but it would take some time...

    9. Re:A niche product in a niche market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is currently an oversupply of lithium and there is no shortage now or anticipated in the near future of the material.

    10. Re:A niche product in a niche market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, since there actually is, does that make you delusional.

  17. Save in conversion, pay for copper by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    So you move the cost of losses from the DC to AC conversion to the cost of significant increases in the amount of copper needed to wire a house and the internals of power-hungry appliances.

    .
    Seems to me a better solution would be to research ways to convert from DC to AC more efficiently. Currently there's up to a 40% power loss. That's just begging for some research money....

    1. Re:Save in conversion, pay for copper by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      So you move the cost of losses from the DC to AC conversion to the cost of significant increases in the amount of copper needed to wire a house and the internals of power-hungry appliances.

      Yeah I've been wishing it wasn't so ridiculously hard to change mains voltage. If only we could distribute at 220V, or get 220V feed lines to build 220V circuits. Europe has all these 15 amp appliances like steam irons that you can't get in the US because you'd need 30-35 amps to run them--they're 15A at 220V. Same appliances in America are low-power (1800W), and operate as if they're severely defective.

      High-voltage, low-current is the way to go. We have 20 amp bedroom circuits; we don't need 20V 120A circuits.

    2. Re:Save in conversion, pay for copper by xfade551 · · Score: 1

      You can do a motor-generator set with a shared shaft. They are kind of bulky, but both the motor and generator will have efficiencies in the mid- to high- 90 percentiles, for a 90-95% net.

    3. Re:Save in conversion, pay for copper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every house that I've ever live in all across the us has had 240v. That's usually the way it comes into the house as 2phase. If you look in your fuse box it's wire to use half of the phase to supply 120v connections (ground t0120v). you can get 240v by taking both sides, ie, -120v to 120v.

      My house right now built in 1984 has many 240v outlets (machine tools, wall heaters, AC, water heater, spa, car battery charger).

    4. Re:Save in conversion, pay for copper by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      My vacuum cleaner draws max 13 amps. I don't mind the overrating. Better safe than sorry.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    5. Re:Save in conversion, pay for copper by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      What you just said makes no sense and has nothing to do with safety.

    6. Re: Save in conversion, pay for copper by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      And telling me we don't have steam irons in the US does?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re: Save in conversion, pay for copper by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Steam irons use a heated water reservoir to store steam. US irons use a hot plate through which cold water is injected. A steam iron can produce a constant stream of steam for a good half-hour, and doesn't cool when steaming... except in the US, where it can produce steam for about 10 seconds, then needs 10 more minutes to heat back up.

    8. Re:Save in conversion, pay for copper by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Seems to me a better solution would be to research ways to convert from DC to AC more efficiently. Currently there's up to a 40% power loss. That's just begging for some research money....

      Two stage AC to DC followed by DC to AC power conversion in the kilowatt range and larger is already routinely better than 90% efficiency so the point of diminishing returns has already been reached. The efficiency numbers given in the article are wrong except in the case of low power or low quality equipment.

      Higher efficiency comes at the expense of better and larger parts which adds to the cost and increases the size and weight.

  18. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct, which is why the article is bs. USA needs to upgrade to 240 AC, not downgrade to 5 or 12 VDC.

  19. AC is the standard by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we were starting out then maybe, but there are just so many things that can be plugged into an AC socket. It's pretty amazing that you can take anything from the last 50 years or more that has the right plug on it, shove it into a wall socket, and off it goes. The current system is a very good standard, and it will be hard to change things. Further, one of the original reasons Tesla (Nikola) won out is that the induction motor is an extremely good motor design (safe, reliable, quiet). Lots of things still have AC induction motors (heatpumps, your fridge) and these require, well AC. If you don't have that then you need a motor driver for them (or brushes I suppose) which is just a three-phase inverter anyway.

    Also 20-40% power loss is crazy. More like 5-10% with modern semi-conductors and getting better/cheaper all the time.

    1. Re:AC is the standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you remember when the ice company used a horse drawn wagon to deliver the ice for your icebox?

      How about the coal chute that feed the coal bin in the basement so you could keep the furnace burning?

      My grandparents had these, but my son looks at me like I'm crazy when I talk about them.

      Things change. While centrally generated electricity feed to homes as AC is the current standard, it's not so hard to imagine things changing as decentralized power generation become more common.

    2. Re:AC is the standard by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Electric vehicles use DC for charging. They either have their own rectifier on-board, or for fast charging can take a direct DC input. My Leaf will take 400V/100A DC for charging, for example. So, there are devices that could make use of a direct DC feed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:AC is the standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The semiconductors needed to do 5-10% efficiency on a DC -> AC converter capable of supplying kW of power are not cheap. Maybe you can get 5% in the lab, if you're very ingenious and you have a lot of very expensive power FETs. Practical consumer-level devices do well to hit 20%.

    4. Re:AC is the standard by Megane · · Score: 1

      Except that those weren't built into every wall of a house, and so were easy to replace. Good luck trying to rewire your house for anything that requires a larger gauge of wire or extra wires, if the wires are all behind sheetrock and run through studs on a slab house with no basement. And you'll also have to change all your plug outlets, because no electrical code is going to allow a completely different standard to use the same plug.

      Sure, things change, but some things also don't change. The compact disc (both audio and data) is still with us, over 30 years later. Despite Blu-Ray, DVD is in no danger of dying off. Whatever new electrical standard you think could possibly happen would need to have good enough reasons to justify the time and expense of rewiring. Knob-and-tube wiring went away because of safety (no ground, fire hazard, you may not even be able to get insurance), and it was cheaper to install cables than to nail up a bunch of knobs.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:AC is the standard by afidel · · Score: 1

      Practical consumer-level devices do well to hit 20%.
      No, 80% efficiency is pretty much the bottom of the barrel in switching mode power supplies, 95% from 20-80% of rated load is doable for around $200 for 1kw loads.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:AC is the standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "shove it into a wall socket, and off it goes"

      actually I was hoping for "ON it goes"

  20. Why Low Voltage DC? by PPH · · Score: 1

    IIRC, Tesla Model S batteries are connected in series groups, resulting in a 350 Volt output. If Tesla made a home battery that put out 120 Volts, many resistive loads, universal motors and switched mode power supplies could run directly off battery power.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Why Low Voltage DC? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      With modifications. A lot of things like those motors and LED lighting depends upon inductive current limiting. Give them DC at what seems the right voltage and they'll probably catch fire.

    2. Re:Why Low Voltage DC? by mirix · · Score: 1

      Universal motors have that name for a reason, they're brushed and comfortable with AC or DC. (things like hair driers, angle grinders, food processors, etc. If it's small and noisy as shit, it's probably a universal. Generally for short intermittent uses, as efficiency and life is poor). Induction motors won't work though, as they need AC.(eg. furnace fan motors, compressor motors in your fridge, etc).

      Every LED light I've ever seen has a internal SMPS, it should likely be fine with DC. So will SMPS wallwarts (phone charger) and computer power supplies (well, in 230V countries, or ones with universal input. (older, mostly?) ones with 120/240 switch won't work, as it uses voltage doubler for primary voltage... which doesn't work on DC).

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    3. Re:Why Low Voltage DC? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You've not seen enough Made in China electronics. The dirt-cheap approach is to whack a load of LEDs in series with an inductor that acts as a current limiter.

    4. Re:Why Low Voltage DC? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Most switching power supplies which lack active power factor correction stages expect 120 or 240 volts AC and operate on 340 volts DC internally. They will run fine on 340 volts DC but 120 volts DC would represent a moderate undervoltage condition which could result in catastrophic failure do to their negative resistance input characteristic unless the power supply was designed to operate down to 84 volts AC.

      A switching power supply with active power factor correction might do better but I would not rely on it.

  21. simple alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pair up with your neighbor and pay a midget to flip the switch 50 times a second?

  22. DC by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

    As you know being a RV dweller doing this type of stuff you will have to upgrade the wiring size just to deal with current increase, and circuit break box. The only way would be in new homes.

    While this would integrate well if using wind power and solar as a supplement to your home, those homes just using AC/DC will see high loss in total conversion requirements.

    Unless your talking conversion to like 48VDC throughout house, or something that would just require half wave conversion and then current control on output into a battery bank as both a buffer and filter.

  23. Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W) by Zymergy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not buying it. Voltage x Amperage = Wattage. So long as Wattage stays the same (think 1,800W hair dryers here), your Amperage must proportionately increase if the Voltage drops... This can only be accomplished by using LARGER wires to deliver the Amps... This is why wires on your car battery or golf cart are so large... Imaging the COST of wiring a home with large (lower Voltage) conductors like that... Ask yourself why Europe uses a ~230V/240V electricity in homes and how much cost savings there must be by delivering all the wattage at half the conductor size compared to the North American 120V household standard... Smarter people than us have all thought this stuff through many decades ago... Tesla is trying to push battery tech and if it were affordable and better than a $500 gas generator, we'd already have it installed. Cool technology, way too expensive and I'm not rewiring my house.

  24. Nearly pissed myself laughing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    20 - 40% conversion efficiency, where the fuck did he get that from?

    Also, there's the issue of much larger wire gauges, inability to run far more efficient and durable AC motors, more difficulty in converting between voltages (A DC microwave would be hilarious) the need to re-design every lamp ballast in existence and a host of other reasons why DC is a bad idea outside of data-centres and other niche applications.

    We settled this a century ago.

  25. Lose the bricks? by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

    Question for engineer / mathy types that can do the conversion loss calculations:

    Given:

    1. A lot of things geeks run have power bricks that output DC.
    2. Most of these run on similar voltages.
    3. Quite a lot of them have some "fudge" where they can actually run fine on quite a bit higher or sometimes lower voltage than what their included bricks put out.

    I think:

    1. One big AC-DC converter in the basement that puts out a "good enough" voltage for most of your toys is (much?) more efficient than a myriad of little bricks strewn around the house
    2. DC power transmission losses are negligible in something the size of a single family dwelling.

    Would there be anything substantive to gain by putting in a maybe 10-12v, multi-amp power supply in the basement and running it to the various places you plug things in? Big-ass USB power supply @5v would cover a lot of things, but more stuff like streaming TV players, maybe laptops, and the like might be able to run from a bit higher voltage.

    Granted, the opportunities for shorts, magic blue smoke release, and general safety issues are probably way more problematic than what you'd save in power conversion, and you will still need 110v to run big motors, and the like, but...

    1. Re:Lose the bricks? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Efficiency? Yes, especially if you're running of batteries or solar.

      There are costs though. Low voltage means more current, which means lots of expensive copper.

  26. Manitoba Hydro by Kinthelt · · Score: 1, Informative

    MB is already far ahead, as they actually transmit power from their dams as DC. https://www.hydro.mb.ca/corpor...

    --

    "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

    1. Re:Manitoba Hydro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MB is already far ahead, as they actually transmit power from their dams as DC

      And so do hundreds of other places, and this is done for OTHER REASONS than what TFA is talking about.

      Also, you don't connect 1,000,000V line into your home.

    2. Re:Manitoba Hydro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the hydro power (or any source of power) is not near the load center then HVDC is the logical choice because of stability problems. The transmission and distribution system guys will start to make analogies to a long spring . . . but most people's eyes glaze over at this point.

  27. Poorly researched article by ckthorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a very poorly researched article. They talk about getting 12V from a solar panel. No modern home-scale solar system runs at 12V. The power loss due to resistance is much too high until you use wires that are much too large.

    The real solution would be to standardize on some type of home HVDC distribution in the 150-300VDC range. This would help keep the DC/DC conversion in roughly the 2:1 voltage ration range, which helps efficiency. It would also help keep the wire gauge reasonable. I'm not sure how the article's author envisions running things like a modern HE washing machine with build in heater from, say, 12V. It would take about 100-150 amps and require about 2/0 gauge wire to keep the losses manageable.

    1. Re:Poorly researched article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HVDC comes with a whole host of it's own problems, you need to de-rate switches / breakers / fuses when using DC because once it starts arcing, it doesn't stop. It also has a tendency to cause you to "grab" a conductor if you get a shock, rather than throwing you halfway across the room.

    2. Re:Poorly researched article by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      My house panels are wired to put out 250 to over 300 volts. Poorly researched is an understatement. Not even considered is that modern inverters vary the voltage taken from the panels to optimize for peak power from the panels.

    3. Re:Poorly researched article by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The standard would probably be 48V. Easy to step down, keeps current down to manageable levels, and plenty of 48V equipment is already available.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Poorly researched article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The standard would probably be 48V. Easy to step down, keeps current down to manageable levels, and plenty of 48V equipment is already available.

      P = VI
      V = IR
      P = I*I*R.

      So as you linearly drop the voltage, the current linear increases and the power loss in the wire increases as the square of the increasing current.
      So higher voltages need smaller gauge wires to be safe from overheating.

      That's why higher voltages are better for in home power distribution, where wires of many difference gauges and ages are in place.

  28. AC and DC complement each other by Trachman · · Score: 1

    None of the methods have general and ubiquitous superiority. AC is key for centralized energy manufacturing. DC is instrumental for decentralized electric grids.

    I think that prediction that home appliances will drift to DC is correct in a way that there will be more appliances that will start taking either AC or DC.

    Next question is, however, on what will be the DC home grid voltage? Historic 12V? Electric car 48V? Anything in between?

    If you look around, following voltages are common for DC using appliances:
      - laptop 18V.
      - Telephones, smartphones - 5V Usb
      - I have two radios: one is 6*1.5V= 9V, other is 3 Volts
      - Electric toothbrush: 3Volts
      - Home security adapter - 24V
      - other small appliances 1.5V battery
      - Electric rechargeable drill 18V

    1. Re:AC and DC complement each other by Ketorin · · Score: 1

      Personally, I suspect split 100 or 110 volts vith neutral : close enough to run 48V equipment and also 120V AC equipment that doesn't care much about its voltage.

  29. Suprised it hasn't already happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly I'm surprised this hasn't happened already. Most home devices these days run off of DC voltages (24,12,6,etc) such as LED lighting, computers, TV's, clocks, etc. And there are a LOT of losses running a bunch of small transformers in/around those devices. While I doubt 120AC is going to vanish anytime soon combined DC/AC house wiring with a centralized transformer or pulling straight off of a battery would seem to be a no brainer if a standardized connectors/devices can become commonplace.

  30. lots of copper? by bigmo · · Score: 1

    The higher current draw (if a low voltage DC is used) will require much heavier cables than the typical (for US) 12 guage cable. That can get expensive and there would certainly be the need for DC-DC converters for funky voltages. Maybe it would be standardized over time but that's a long way off.

    Maybe there will in fact be something like a 48V standard that would be some sort of compromise, although I think the Tesla batteries run around 220V to keep the motors relatively small. I don't know if there's any real problem with running higher voltage DC in the home although I'm pretty sure switches would need to be made differently to prevent arcing.

    Seems like maybe more trouble than it's worth.

    1. Re:lots of copper? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      One nice thing about DC-DC converters: Switch modes have a really wide input voltage range.9V-30V is not uncommon. The higher the voltage, the less the current they will need.

    2. Re:lots of copper? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      2:1 input voltage ranges are common but 4:1 input voltage ranges require compromises in converter design; for a given cost they are less efficient or for a given efficiency they cost more.

  31. Some appliances run fine on DC by n1ywb · · Score: 1

    Many appliances run just fine on 120v DC power. Of course it's hard to tell which ones without either taking it apart and examining it or trying it and risking the magic smoke coming out.

    Nothing high-current will ever switch to low voltage DC, I hope. I'm already annoyed at my 120v electric lawn mower; stupid extension cord is way heavier than my in-laws 240v electric lawn mower in Europe. Considering the cost of copper we should be switching to higher voltages, not lower.

    Seems like the batteries could be redesigned to be higher voltage to reduce inverter losses. Just add more cells.

    True sine wave IGBT converters are pretty efficient.

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
  32. A thousand times NO. by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 3

    NO. That will not happen. Power equals voltage times current. To deliver the same power load at a lower voltage would require higher current, and household wiring is already designed to carry as much current as it safely can. Lowering voltage would thus require new, much bulkier wiring, which can't easily be retrofitted in older structures. Conduits would be able to carry far less of it, so those two would have to be overhauled. Last but not least, wireless charging and better batteries will eliminate much of the need for the lower-power wiring in the first place. There are very few things that I can confidently predict about the future, but one of those things is that mains (110-220v) voltage is not going to change drastically anytime soon. I'd be willing to bet every single powered appliance in my home on it.

    1. Re:A thousand times NO. by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      If you were wrong, you'd be trading them in anyway.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
    2. Re:A thousand times NO. by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Agree 100 times over.

      Low voltage DC would still need to convert at the appliance one last time. Running a 600W PC on 12V DC would require battery cable size wire, just as charging your iPhone on 100V DC would be "entertaining". So even if you ran your house on DC you would need DC-DC converters at every end point.

      We already have ever improving efficiency standards on power supplies and inverters. Last I checked the DC-AC inverters on solar arrays are 95+% efficient, and also serve a vital need of outputting a constant AC voltage (varying current) as the cell voltage varies with light intensity. hte 20-40% number is just hysterics, only the lowest power devices are this bad. Most big power hogs with AC to DC conversion (PC's, TV's) all do so very efficiently, like 90+%.

      Another factor is electromigration. DC wires cannot be run with as high of current density as AC lines. Over time hot wires with high current develop thin spots. The fast moving electrons physically displace metal atoms, eventually creating an open (or a fire). AC tends to average out this effect compared to DC. Depending on the material you have to have 5-10x the cross sectional area to have the same wire lifetime. It would not be 5-10x in household wiring due to peak temperature and voltage loss limititations that keep AC lines from being near as this as they could be just for electromigration reasons, but this is a real factor to be worried about once you start looking at the power handling of existing copper (or the cost of running more).

  33. Only luddites use batteries. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern app appers power apps using apps!

    Apps!

  34. I've been planning this for years. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    I design homes as a hobby - how would I build my own? Most of my designs - except for the most "modernly practical" use DC power for at minimum lighting.

    The one thing I need to work out - exactly how do we make a Lava Lamp work efficiently on DC power....

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:I've been planning this for years. by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Lava lamps work about as efficiently as they can, they use the "waste" heat from an incandescent bulb to do something else. Anything else would just be a simulation...

    2. Re:I've been planning this for years. by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      > The one thing I need to work out - exactly how do we make a Lava Lamp work efficiently on DC power....

      You only need a 10-25W bulb for those, so just build a specialized "bulb" that consists of a couple of white LEDs for the light source, and a very small heating element to get the wax moving.

  35. Solar Panel Voltage by necro81 · · Score: 1

    Is it still the case that solar panels are wired to produce 12-V output? As I understand it, this was done historically for the convenience of interfacing with 12-V lead-acid batteries. This historical quirk has made almost everything else about solar more difficult and expensive, because it's a low-voltage, high-current architecture.

    If, on the other hand, solar panels were wired to produce, say, 120 V DC output (i.e., the cells or panels wired more in series than parallel), then lots of things get easier and less expensive. All the wiring can be of much lighter gauge due to the lower current. The losses in the inverter would be lower because of lower resistive losses and more of 1:1 voltage ratio. Some components (capacitors, FETs and IGBTs) may be more expensive because of the higher voltage rating, but that is a relatively small incremental cost compared to the cost of copper.

    It seems to me that a lot, if not the majority, of new residential solar installations are grid-tied with no battery attached. It seems that the system should be designed to make that easier and more efficient, rather than tie ourselves to historical off-the-grid designs. Plus, if Tesla and others are designing new style batteries for this market, they can design them for higher voltage.

    1. Re:Solar Panel Voltage by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Not on mine. My inverter for my grid-tied, no battery system shows me the DC supply voltage being in the 260V range.

    2. Re:Solar Panel Voltage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it still the case that solar panels are wired to produce 12-V output?

      No.

      Well, not all of them, there are 12V panels available, but there are others, 18, 22, 30, 32, 42, 48. (And of course, smaller panels not used for the home can be even lower voltages). With some margin depending.

      I don't know of any that you can buy to output 120V DC directly, but it is possible to wire blocks together, I've seen 60V, so there's no reason you couldn't do 120V. I don't know it's viable economically, but I leave that exercise for somebody who has a system to care about.

    3. Re:Solar Panel Voltage by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      According to the discussion here, http://electronics.stackexchan... ...assuming full, direct sunlight, some panels output up to 20 volts without a load, and 14 or so volts with. Others exist which will output 24 to 36 volts.

    4. Re:Solar Panel Voltage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what your system is producing, not the individual panels themselves.

  36. if, and if, and if, then blog by tomhath · · Score: 2

    if the battery power trend takes off, it must lead to a new paradigm in which homes will be powered more with low voltage wiring than line voltage electrical, according to a blog

    A couple of real big if's there. Battery power is unlikely to take off in all but a few low latitude places where the climate is right and it's heavily subsidized. Even then, there are better alternatives than rewiring a house; and of course solar doesn't work for high density housing like a multi-story apartment building..

  37. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Verdatum · · Score: 1

    3-phase, while we're at it.

  38. So the same as now? by StikyPad · · Score: 0

    Home power is already low voltage... as is anything below 1kV.

    1. Re:So the same as now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Home power is already low voltage... as is anything below 1kV.

      Voltages between 50v and 1kV are called nominal voltage. Less than 50 is low volt.

  39. Replace 110 outlets with cigarette lighter outlets by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    I could use all my camping equipment in the comfort of my own home.

  40. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the whole article is just terrible.

    I'd need thick-ethernet-sized cables to safely power my array of computer gear, hoover, microwave etc. at that sort of voltage.

    And 40% AC-DC conversion loss? My UPS gets much better efficiency than that and it's probably older than this house!

    I don't know what bias or angle the author was aiming for but it doesn't seem to work out.

  41. the real question might be which AC frequency by Locutus · · Score: 1, Informative

    With homes having high load devices with large motors(washing machines, compressors in heat pumps, etc) and the large resistive loads like electric heaters, stoves, etc DC just is not the answer. Even with DC there would be a need for DC-DC converters which work by converting to AC... So given how easy it is to move AC voltages around and up/down I would think the question would be how do we optimize the losses in conversions. Maybe we need 5KHz instead of 50/60Hz.

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    1. Re:the real question might be which AC frequency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, skin effect and line impedances prevent us from working at higher frequencies. Home wiring has up to 500 uH of line impedance. Just the impedance from that inductances would be nearly 16 Ohms for 5 kHz versus 0.2 Ohms for 60 Hz.

    2. Re:the real question might be which AC frequency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skin effect is why the frequency is so low, also antenna effect would cause insane losses at 5 KHz at any appreciable current.... But my stock in that Litz wire company would SOAR!

    3. Re:the real question might be which AC frequency by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      With homes having high load devices with large motors(washing machines, compressors in heat pumps, etc) and the large resistive loads like electric heaters, stoves, etc DC just is not the answer. Even with DC there would be a need for DC-DC converters which work by converting to AC... So given how easy it is to move AC voltages around and up/down I would think the question would be how do we optimize the losses in conversions. Maybe we need 5KHz instead of 50/60Hz.

      Suppose we just have one giant 110 or 220 volt motor in the basement, and route the mechanical power around with a clever set of belts, gears, shafts, etc.? Still thinking outside the box!!!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  42. What about safety? by Dishwasha · · Score: 1

    When my 3yr old sticks a forked prong in my DC electrical outlet, what is the safety factor compared to the current AC plugs?

    1. Re:What about safety? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      exactly

      or fire risk

      dc is less safe for both shock and fire

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:What about safety? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      When my 3yr old sticks a forked prong in my DC electrical outlet, what is the safety factor compared to the current AC plugs?

      That depends entirely on the voltage the DC outlet provides. If it's a USB outlet, it provides 5VDC and your 3 year old feels nothing at all. If it's a USB 3.1 Power Distribution outlet, it provides 5VDC unless you plug in a qualified cable which can negotiate its way up to 48VDC, and again your fork-wielding 3 year old feels nothing.

      If it's the native 400VDC coming off of the Tesla pack, your child dies. High voltage DC tends to make the muscles clench, freezing the victim in place, rather than blowing the victim across the room as high voltage AC does. High voltage anything is dangerous, but low voltage DC requires big fat conductors to power large appliances, and we've lived with high voltage for so long that we're accustomed to the permanent danger. If you have high voltage DC outlets, you want child-resistant designs, exactly as you do for your existing AC outlets.

    3. Re:What about safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DC plug outlets at low voltage, say 12V, are resonably un-dangerous, because 12V won't push current through a person. That's why your car's lighter plug can be this big open thing.

      At higher voltages, a live DC outlet would be spectacularly dangerous; once DC starts to arc, it can persist over much larger distances than AC. Even unplugging a working appliance would be problematic. You'd probably see solutions in which outlets were switched automatically, so they'd be dead until a proper plug goes in. Kinda like USB, which negotiates voltage and current after plug-in. Actually, exactly like that. USB, as it evolves, is the most likely form that standardized USB power plugs will take in the near future, because it keeps voltage conversion on the supply side, rather than forcing the consuming appliance to do DC-to-DC conversion.

      Even switching higher DC voltages is problematic. One of the reasons the automakers backed down from higher voltages was arc damage in switches.

      What would make brilliant sense--which is not to say we'll see it--would be a codified standard for 12 volt LED lighting circuits. Wiring could be just heavy enough to support say 20 or 30 Watts per circuit, and the whole house's lighting could be on one 15-amp breaker, and easily backed up with a battery. Products are on the market now, but I don't think there are interoperability standards, or whole-house best-practices; and current code requires minimum counts of 120-volt switched lights in most rooms, which defeats the potential savings.

  43. Copper wiring. by Xoltri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Low voltage is not going to happen, if only because the costs for copper wire would be astronomical. If you take your standard 1500w electrical outlet, at 120v it only needs #14 gauge wire to run 54 feet @1800watts because it's only 15 amps. If you take that down to 24V, you need #2 gauge wire to run the same distance, and you are only getting 1200watts, at 50 amps! #14 wire is about $0.17 per foot, where as #2 wire is (from what I could find) about $7.50 per foot.

    --
    -Xoltri
    1. Re:Copper wiring. by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Nobody's really suggesting that DC could replace AC completely, but you can run lighting,laptops, and even refrigeration off DC, and it doesn't have to be expensive. You have to run more copper, but with your example, you could install an additional run of #14, or even two or three additional runs per room, to supply 24 VDC lights. Standard domestic AC cable is so cheap, you wouldn't even consider special DC cable. Just make sure that no DC circuit carries more load than the cable is rated for. That shouldn't be a problem if you're only using it for lighting and other small loads like phone and laptop chargers. And if you've got lighting and refrigeration on a supply that can be isolated from the grid, i.e. supplied by a battery, won't it be nice to have that lighting and refrigeration when the grid goes down?

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    2. Re:Copper wiring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My oven is on a circuit rated at 50 amps/240 volts. To get that level of power on a 12-volt circuit, I estimate that you'd need 9/0 wire (diameter: 0.8 inches, and probably not flexible enough to be considered "wire" rather than "bar"). The ten-foot run from the breaker panel to the outlet would cost several hundred dollars, and I don't think I want to know how much a 1KA DC breaker would cost.

  44. High Voltage DC more likely by guruevi · · Score: 2

    If you're going for "low" voltage DC (24V), you're just shifting the losses from the conversion to the wiring. Anyone that has done any home automation, security systems or basic electronics knows that even over a relatively low distance you can have a severe voltage drop which has to be made up with more power draw.

    Electricians do consider anything sub-400V, "low" voltage. To have your home outfitted with DC you wouldn't even need to replace wiring, you might need to replace outlets. IF your outlets are correctly wired, you could simply convert from 110VAC to 150-200VDC and most of your devices that are not inductive would continue to work. Incandescent light bulbs would work, fluorescents would not, LED light bulbs would, computers, phone, laptop chargers etc. all would. Your big apparatus' (laundry, fridge etc) would need some conversion work but would always almost work better with AC (AC motors are more cost efficient and less maintenance than DC motors, that's one of the reason's Tesla won).

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:High Voltage DC more likely by Megane · · Score: 2

      I recommend you go to Youtube and look for videos showing 110 volts AC vs DC with a knife switch to see the important difference. Hint: "zero crossing". You can't just splice your whole house into the same voltage of DC expect anything to work the same. Sure, your incandescent lights would work, but the wall switch wouldn't be able to turn it off, and might even start a fire from the arc. There's a reason that data centers use 48VDC and no higher.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:High Voltage DC more likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you put 150-200V DC in a lightbulb designed for 110, it'd probably blow up. 110V AC RMS would produce the same power dissipation thorough a restive load as 110V DC. That's the entire point of using the RMS value instead of peak innit?

    3. Re:High Voltage DC more likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol no electrician I know considers 400v the demarcation for low/hi voltage. in every encounter I have ever had as a building control expert the demarcation has been 120V

    4. Re:High Voltage DC more likely by mirix · · Score: 1

      Well, the reason datacenters use 48VDC is because that's what central offices used already, so the infrastructure was there, and they made hardware to fit.

      The reason for that, though, is some combination of it being a high enough voltage to reach phones a few miles from the CO, without being so high that it would kill people. Now, why 48V instead of 50V... I guess is that it is an even number of lead acid cells (24, in this case). If you've ever been in a exchange, they've usually got the basement full of 48V batteries. (which is why the phone works when the power goes out).

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    5. Re:High Voltage DC more likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello. Good points.

      About motors though, some of them in the house( laundry washing machines, most of the kitchen stuff, blenders and all that) I think are powered by universal motors, the ones that would work on DC also.
      AC motors are ones for fans, fridges and the outflow pumps on the washing machines ( some shadow pole, some split phase, i think for the fridge and aircon ).

      Another thing, If you come to think about it, many of the AC-DC conversion nowadays are done with switching power supplies, i don't think you can find many cases where you have the good old 50hz transformers with beer can sized capacitors and all that. It seems quite a plausible scenario to have high voltage DC run thru usual gauge wire in the house and wherever one actually needs AC for motors and such( AC power motors are the only thing remotely suitable for domestic use, i don't know what the state of the art is regarding DC brushless motors ) one would couple these via a some sort of DC-AC variable frequency drive or whatever.

      I find this perspective quite interesting.

    6. Re:High Voltage DC more likely by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I recommend you go to Youtube and look for videos showing 110 volts AC vs DC with a knife switch to see the important difference. Hint: "zero crossing". You can't just splice your whole house into the same voltage of DC expect anything to work the same. Sure, your incandescent lights would work, but the wall switch wouldn't be able to turn it off, and might even start a fire from the arc. There's a reason that data centers use 48VDC and no higher.

      Also to go from triac/scr type dimmers to giant rheostats again is not a good step.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  45. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Absolutely correct. 12v is great for low power items. Try running your electric dryer or stove on it.

  46. A lot of inertia by grimmjeeper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure that home batteries will drive a switch to low voltage DC. There's a ton of inertia to overcome. The cost of retrofitting the wiring to handle the higher amperage of using lower voltage alone will be thousands of dollars for every single house, apartment, and office. A simple 20A 120V circuit changed over to 12V will draw 200A. You're going to need to upgrade to 4 or even 2 gauge wire at a minimum to handle that kind of current. And that's a lot of money.

    The switch from AC to DC inside the home might be feasible but there's no way you can convert the entire grid. You'd have to rebuild the whole grid from scratch to convert from AC to DC. The transformers to step the voltages up or down simply don't work unless they're pushing AC so how do you handle industrial level supply being stepped down to household voltages at the neighborhood transformer? And who's going to pay for the switch? And what about the industrial users who don't need to run low voltage DC? How do you satisfy their demand?

    Then you have to deal with how a substantial number of appliances are built. Many are designed for AC current and won't work with DC, regardless of the voltages. Sure, you can swap out the power supply in your desktop PC to take a DC feed without a lot of trouble. And if electronics retailers had a standard DC wall voltage to work with, you'd see most consumer electronics move to those standards. But how do you deal with a cable modem that needs 12V and a home router that takes 9V? Who wants to go out and replace all of their equipment that is running just fine right now? Who has the money to do that?

    And here's the kicker. What real benefit do we gain from a switch over to low voltage DC in the house? Sure, some of the consumer electronics we use won't need that big wall vampire to supply them with power. And sure, we don't really need to run our lights from 120V when 12V can still drive enough light from LEDs without any trouble. But what about the appliances in the house that really draw the bulk of the power in the house? The 240V electric stove or the heat and AC systems? What about your refrigerator and your washer/dryer? Hell, can you imagine the amperage draw trying to recharge your electric car with 12V? And are you going to just skip using those appliances when you're running on battery power?

    So if you're going to have to keep your 120V AC based house wiring for your major appliances, do you really want to spend all the money installing a low voltage subsystem for a few consumer electronic devices to supplement the wiring you already have? I know I wouldn't want to.

    Like everything else that is poised to "fundamentally change the way we do things", the dreamers never consider the practical reality of actually making the change. In reality, I think we're going to have to deal with the inefficiency of converting from DC battery power to 120V AC for the home. There's just too many things to overcome for little to no benefit.

    1. Re:A lot of inertia by Megane · · Score: 1

      Why are you fixated on 12VDC? The only thing special about 12V is 6-cell lead-acid automotive batteries. Data centers use 48VDC, which gives 4 times the wattage over 12VDC (though still less than half of 120VAC), while not needing heavy-duty switches because of arcing. (120VDC is scary with a big knife switch where you can see the arc)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:A lot of inertia by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Can confirm high-voltage DC for scary as fuck

    3. Re:A lot of inertia by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      Did you actually RTFA? The author specifically talked about 12V DC power being the "low voltage" standard that we need to convert to in the home because it's the native battery voltage.

      The article was not about adopting industrial data center voltage standards. It's about using voltages that match the batteries that you are using so you don't have to convert to anything else.

    4. Re:A lot of inertia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about a hybrid system? AC and high voltage for big loads and DC/low voltage for small/med loads? We already do this!

      Example, we retrofit the wiring for a low voltage LED lighting system.... isn't that what goes on when you install a power brick and a LV-LED light system for exterior lights now? Just move the DC power source to a central location in the home, increase the capacity, add some batteries, and rewire all the lights in the home for low voltage at once.

      That's cheaper to maintain, cheaper to install, and cheaper to operate than doing them one-two at a time... or plugging LED lights into existing receptacles. Plus, if you have battery storage, you now have essentially UPS-powered lights. What else would make sense to give this treatment to? Home entertainment? Communication's gear? Some of that already has a UPS... that function would be taken over by the HOME's Battery backed-up DC BUS.

      Think this all the way thru... A lot of homes already have DC distribution systems with point of load regulation, vice site regulation which would be cheaper and more reliable to maintain.

      Choosing 12VDC is attractive now, but 48V is probably more realistic/useful in the long term. (lower chance of getting shocked, but 4x the current capacity of 12V)

    5. Re:A lot of inertia by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Did you actually RTFA? The author specifically talked about 12V DC power being the "low voltage" standard that we need to convert to in the home because it's the native battery voltage.

      But it's not. It's not the native voltage of any battery chemistry. Lead-acid cells are native 2.0VDC. Lithium cells are native 3.0VDC. Carbon-zinc is native 1.5VDC. Nickel-cadmium is native 1.2VDC. Nickel-hydride is native 1.2VDC. Zinc-air is native 1.5VDC.

      All double digit voltages are an artifact of series connection of cells, and the author missed one crucial fact when invoking the Powerwall product: native cell voltage of lithium ion is 3.0VDC, but the Powerwall puts out 400VDC. It is a high voltage product.

    6. Re:A lot of inertia by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      It is the native voltage when you're dumb enough to write your article based on your use of 12V car batteries in your Airstream trailer with 12V solar cells to charge them. Further proof that the guy who wrote the original article has no idea what he's talking about and the article is complete bunk.

      But this pedantic bickering about the specific voltage is all a side distraction over semantics and doesn't really have anything to do with the point I'm trying to make.

      It doesn't matter what the voltage really is in the end. It could be any array of batteries providing any level of "low voltage" power. Using battery packs in your home along with solar in an effort to reduce your consumption from the grid is not going to drive anyone to do large scale replacement of 120VAC (or 240VAC where it is used outside the US) in the home. We as a society are not going to rewire our homes and replace all of our electrical devices to make the switch. There's too much inertia in the system to make a change that nets us no real gain. Using batteries directly in the house just isn't going to happen. They're going to have to go through an inverter to supply the needs of the average house because that's cheaper and easier than reconfiguring your house to use DC at any voltage.

    7. Re:A lot of inertia by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Actually I dream, but the other way - making the power higher. Who knows what kind of devices we could have if 480v was common.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    8. Re:A lot of inertia by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      I wish we could get three phase power in a residential area. I could get a welder that was easier to fine tune and better machine tools for metal working.

    9. Re:A lot of inertia by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      And this would make the testing of my Oscillation Overthruster version 2 prototype in my basement so much easier.

      Right now having to hot-wire to the medium-voltage side of the pole-top transformer is such a pain.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    10. Re:A lot of inertia by aralin · · Score: 1

      Why does it all have to be either / or. Why cannot I have two circuits, one AC for the standard outlets and run a second set of DC outlets on the 24V for my computers, etc. Maybe run them along with the ethernet cables around the house. Then I don't need a UPS, I'll just use the Tesla battery for that and in case of power outage I'll turn off the heavy duty AC circuits. Lights can be wired on DC probably just as well...

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    11. Re:A lot of inertia by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The article was not about adopting industrial data center voltage standards. It's about using voltages that match the batteries that you are using so you don't have to convert to anything else.

      Only the smallest of solar/battery systems run at 12V.

      It's quite clear to me that the author of the article is clueless.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    12. Re:A lot of inertia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In The Netherlands, you can get an upgrade to a three-phase 400V connection in any residential home. For new buildings, it has been standard for a while. Not that it is used much, but it is nice to have the option.

    13. Re:A lot of inertia by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      It's not either/or because wiring two complete sets of circuits in your house costs a lot of money and doesn't really give you any real net benefit. It's far cheaper and easier to wire with one standards and use plug-in adapters where you need them. It's even cheaper and easier to setup your whole house battery backup to power only a subset of your outlets so you don't have the big devices drain your batteries.

  47. Re:Current? Fat cables? by wiggles · · Score: 1

    We already have 240V AC. We just have a split-phase system to provide it for the few special cases (dryers and ovens) that require it.

  48. Silly article by MpVpRb · · Score: 2

    Lots of devices, like AC motors require AC to run. This includes air conditioning systems and refrigerators, which are the biggest power users in a typical home

    Modern AC-DC power supplies are much more efficient than the article claims

    But, the biggest reason this is silly is the ENORMOUSLY HUGE number of existing devices that run on AC

    Maybe, maybe it might make sense for a VERY small number of VERY specialized devices in new construction

    1. Re:Silly article by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Lots of devices, like AC motors require AC to run. This includes air conditioning systems and refrigerators, which are the biggest power users in a typical home

      Replacing this inefficient crap with electronically commutated motors over time as they die out is a huge win for all.

    2. Re:Silly article by ickleberry · · Score: 1

      DC motors are quite expensive once you go past a couple 100 watts, even below that they cost more than the AC equivalent and there isn't much efficiency gain worth mentioning. Don't think any heavy appliances are going DC any time soon, even Tesla cars have an AC inverter and motor in them. If you never use any corded power tools, never wash your own clothes, never hoover or use one of those silly robot things, never run any pumps, compressors, saws, kitchen appliances, industrial milling machines you can get away with using DC only. When you think about it though that is probably a lot of people although most in the USA will want air conditioning.

  49. Wait... What?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Less voltage = less eff. More voltage = more eff.

    0.o

    I think Tesla needs to go back to school. At low voltage, you can only push so many Watts before you run into resistance and heat issues. The higher the voltage, the more Watts you can push through the same size wire. This is why the car industry is moving towards 24 volt systems, because 12 volt systems max out at about 1.5KW's An ex. At 12 volts, my whats-a-ma-giger wants to consume 500 watts. for that much power, I will need to push ~"42" AMPS! Ho boy! Now that's an instant electrical fire! Now lets say my device runs on 110 volts and still consumes 500 watts. That's roughly about 5 amps we need to push (pull) down the line. Perfectly safe with standard house hold wiring.

    And a second thing. DC requires MUCH THICKER CABLING at the same voltages and amperage than AC does. This is because you don't push the electrons in only one direction with AC, you push them back and forth and they never have to run all the way down the line leading to less long distance loss, and loss as heat. That is why we use AC. Could anyone imagine the size a DC cable would need to be at those high voltages?!

    This Tesla company, there seem to be a bunch of "special" people working there. Just wow. lol

    1. Re:Wait... What?!? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Less voltage = less eff. More voltage = more eff.

      0.o

      I think Tesla needs to go back to school. At low voltage, you can only push so many Watts before you run into resistance and heat issues. The higher the voltage, the more Watts you can push through the same size wire. This is why the car industry is moving towards 24 volt systems, because 12 volt systems max out at about 1.5KW's An ex. At 12 volts, my whats-a-ma-giger wants to consume 500 watts. for that much power, I will need to push ~"42" AMPS! Ho boy! Now that's an instant electrical fire! Now lets say my device runs on 110 volts and still consumes 500 watts. That's roughly about 5 amps we need to push (pull) down the line. Perfectly safe with standard house hold wiring.

      So far, so good... Your understanding of electricity is fine so far...

      And a second thing. DC requires MUCH THICKER CABLING at the same voltages and amperage than AC does. This is because you don't push the electrons in only one direction with AC, you push them back and forth and they never have to run all the way down the line leading to less long distance loss, and loss as heat. That is why we use AC. Could anyone imagine the size a DC cable would need to be at those high voltages?!

      Um.. Not exactly true. DC requires thicker cabling because it is usually lower voltage and higher current (as you stated above). The flow of electrons changing directions is NOT an issue. The average current flow for the same power is the same, and it doesn't matter if it's AC or DC. In fact, AC might be argued to be a bit less efficient because you have to add all the reactive components to the AC current flow. Induction motors present high inductive (current lagging) loads, which means that there is actually MORE current flowing for the same power transfer in AC. Electrical engineers call this the "power factor" and it describes why Volts X Amps doesn't always equal power transferred (In fact it rarely does for anything but pure resistive loads.) So AC wires end up a bit larger for the same load...

      Now what IS a problem for DC is protection of circuits. DC has a tendency to arc over when you try and turn it off, where AC doesn't do this as much by virtue of the fact that it's actually OFF (zero voltage and current) 120 times a second. There is a certain amount of inductance in any DC circuit that can sustain the current by generating some high voltage spikes as the magnetic field collapses. This increased arcing causes switch contacts to wear out faster and sometimes can be enough to sustain the circuit's current, though it's been turned off. Arcs are really hot too, so they can cause fires. But there are ways to deal with this (separating contacts by greater distances and opening them faster, or arresting the arc using capacitors).

      So you are on the right track, but not correct on that last bit..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Wait... What?!? by bledri · · Score: 1

      ...I think Tesla needs to go back to school. ...This Tesla company, there seem to be a bunch of "special" people working there. Just wow. lol

      I think you need to learn the difference between Tesla and journalists that quote "Industry consultants" making crappy predictions (that will benefit their industry) and use Tesla's name for clickbait.

      Industry consultant claims the advent of solar power and home batteries from companies like Tesla will force the reinvention of home wiring from primarily AC high voltage to DC home-run low voltage to reduce power conversion loss.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  50. Re:Current? Fat cables? by xfade551 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The USA is running on 220-250V AC for residential (exact voltage varies per locale). It's single-phase with a center-tap neutral, sometimes called "split phase"; Typically, a neighborhood will be on one phase of three-phase distribution system. Split phase allows one get two half-phases of about 120V (typical U.S. receptacle, a.k.a. "power outlet"), but you still have 240V available for large appliances: electric stoves/ranges, furnaces, installed heaters (baseboard or in-wall), clothes dryers, and/or sometimes a welding receptacle in the garage.

    Split phase is occasionally incorrectly referred to as "two phase", which actually only exists with one old electrical distribution system near Niagra.

  51. Not a bad idea? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

    Having lived in an older home with aluminum wiring along with millions of others, this is not a bad thing esp as lighting transitions to LED's and PC's and TV's lower their power footprint. This could be the catalyst that has these older homes replace the sub par wiring to something more safe. Soon you may only have dedicated lines of AC voltage to things like HVAC systems, water softeners, hot tubs, electric stoves, but even these could be pushed over to DC.

  52. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. This sounds ridiculous. I wired up an inverter for a bar fridge in my trailer. The inverter has an 85% efficiency. The fridge draws 500 watts when the compressor first starts (measured with a Kill-A-Watt). When connected to just one battery with a 6 AWG cable (PLENTY to safely supply the 50 Amps I calculated), the voltage sags from 13.6 volts (full charge) to 10 volts and the inverter would cut out (3.6 volts loss at 120 volts doesn't matter, and it's still safe, so of course the electrical code was happy, but it does make a difference for a 12 volt system!). After connecting another THREE 6 AWG cables in parallel, giving me an effective ~2 AWG cable (Rated for 115 Amps by electrical code!), the voltage sag was negligible and everything ran well.

    An 1800 watt hairdrier would be getting into the kcmil range to work reliably. When I worked installing wire at a factory, the largest pull I had to deal with was 500 kcmil. The puller machine bent the roof of the factory trying to get it around two 90s. Homeowners have never seen that. Cables the size of your toilet drain. Just a foot of that copper is a day's wages.

    Keep in mind 2 AWG cable will cost you somewhere around $5 (or more) per foot and requires the sorts of holes in your studs you'd normally run drain pipes through. 14 AWG cable (the minimum allowed by code for a 120 VAC circuit here) costs about $1 per foot. The power whip for the fridge itself is 18 AWG (about $0.50 per foot).

    Europe goes all the way with copper savings by permitting ring circuits.

  53. Premature by Spazmania · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems premature to me. An awful lot of things have to work out just right for whole-home battery systems to make much sense.

    Even then low-voltage DC plants don't make much sense. Your microwave oven consumes 1100+ watts. Know what amperage that is at 5 volts DC? You'd barely be able to wrap your hand around the power cord.

    Even at 48 volts DC, the power plant in a telephone company central office is really something to behold.

    Also, AC/DC conversion isn't as dire as stated. Sloppy cheap converters do indeed operate at around 75% effeciency with the remaining 25% lost as heat. But look at the "80+" computer power supply standards. The "80+ platinum" standard requires 95% efficiency. Those power cost twice as much but "pure science" does not prevent their operation. They work as promised.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:Premature by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Yes, and if you want examples of low voltage DC, you can look at the RV industry. Having recently bought a tiny RV wired in 12V, I saw how difficult it is to find, not equipment, but quality equipment for it. Power devices like hair dryer, vacuum cleaner, etc, simply don't work well. Not enough power.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    2. Re: Premature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You described AC-to-DC conversion, but we're talking about DC-to-AC conversion; from the DC battery to AC appliances. The solar panels are also working on DC.

    3. Re:Premature by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      I'd hate to think of just how much extra copper I'd need in my walls to distribute ample power throughout my house and not suffer resistive losses. A 15A 110V circuit would become a 330A 5V circuit. The wire that carries the 15A @ 110V circuit is about the thickness of a pencil lead (about 1/10"). The wire required to carry 330A would have conductors the size of a garden hose (about 1/2"). (Note: The table linked above only goes up to 302A with a thickness of 0.46"; 330A would be larger still.)

    4. Re:Premature by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      There are some good cordless vacuum cleaners and hair dryers. No problem recharging their batteries over 12VDC.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    5. Re:Premature by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Use what makes sense for the application. I'd never try to run my *entire* house on DC. But between my modem, router, access point and VOIP box I have 5 separate 120V -> 12V rectifiers. I would love if I could just plug them into a separate 12V plug.

      I have a 8 port USB charger to charge all the different things in my house that run on 5V. I've replaced a few outlets in my house with 4-Port USB outlets. I've seen bars and restaurants put them in because people charge things with 5V these days.

      I'd say half of my house could run on DC without a problem. AC Generation->AC->DC->Use is still more efficient than AC Generation->AC->DC->AC->DC-> Use. And for people off grid you can get by with DC Generation-> Use

    6. Re:Premature by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Actually it would be worse. For 220V AC the wiring is usually sized so it does not melt under full load (full load results in a specified temperature increase), which means that you can use the same size wire for a 1m or a 20m required.length. For low voltage (12V and especially 5V) the wire would have to be much bigger than the "don't melt" requirement since now the voltage drop would be more important. Also, a 20m wire would need to be thicker than a 1m wire.

    7. Re:Premature by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Use what makes sense for the application. I'd never try to run my *entire* house on DC. But between my modem, router, access point and VOIP box I have 5 separate 120V -> 12V rectifiers. I would love if I could just plug them into a separate 12V plug.

      The common buck converter circuit that reduces 12VDC to 5 VDC is as inefficient if not more inefficient than the common transform/rectify/smooth wall wart that drops 120VAC to 5 VDC. That's another problem with running a low voltage DC circuit through the house: whatever voltage we standardized on, every dang thing you plugged in to it will still need buck/boost circuits that are no better than the AC to DC circuits we're using now.

      And it probably would be 12 volts (actually, 13.6). There's too much obvious value in matching what car electronics run on.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    8. Re:Premature by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      I see what you mean. Let's put some numbers to that for everyone's benefit.

      According to the table I linked previously, the OOOO gauge wire is 0.16072 ohms per 1000m. So, for a 20m run, that's about 0.00321 ohms. The voltage drop incurred by 330A across that resistance would be just over 1.06 volts.

      For a 5V run, that's pretty significant, really. And you'd be dissipating over 350W in that wire alone. Yow! At 330A, you'd be burning 20% of your power just in that cable if you used OOOO gauge cabling.

      Now the same numbers for 10 gauge wire, 15A, 110V, 20m. That's 3.276392 ohms per 1000m, or 0.0655 ohms for 20m. Voltage drop at 15A is 0.983V. Peak power dissipated in the wire is 15A * 0.983V = 14.7W. (RMS power is only ~10W.)

    9. Re: Premature by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Except we're not talking about off-grid systems, we're talking about Tesla's grid-tie application where power is stored from both off-peak grid delivery and adjunct DC systems and then supplements household usage during grid peak pricing.

      When living completely off grid, you move most of the high-wattage equipment to propane. No electric stove or hot water heater. And you use an ammonia-cycle refrigerator. But that always will be a niche market, even if Tesla's dream comes true.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    10. Re:Premature by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      It's batteries all the way down..

    11. Re:Premature by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      There are no current 95% efficient PC power supplies. 80 Plus Platinum only requires 89% efficiency at full load. In ONE case, dell/delta make a 80 Plus Titanium power supply that can hit 96% efficiency... but it's a dual-redundant power supply, and only if it's under 50% load, but 90% at 10% load, and 91% at 100% load.. Both of which are more likely scenarios -- My servers are either fairly idle, or running hard.

    12. Re:Premature by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      More sense is 240 AC for appliances, and 12V or 48V for everything else. DC-DC stepping in the wall jack isn't hard. So you go to the jack at 48V, and there to 5V for your wall-wart voltages. With some for 12V or 48V for higher powered things.

      If it were me, I'd design a mechanical switch in the plug that activated the circuit, so it would have zero loss when not used, unlike current wall warts. We use 110 VAC because it's what we've always used, not because it's a good voltage or current type.

    13. Re:Premature by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      I used 5v as an example as the linked article spoke specifically of running 5V and 12V everywhere. I agree that you really want a higher voltage for distribution. 48V goes a long way, although it still requires quite a lot more copper than 110V or 240V for the same power carrying capacity. (About 5x if I did my math correctly.)

      Now, if those in-wall adaptors could store some charge locally (small capacitor bank), and you didn't have to wire for peak current, only sustained current, maybe you could get away with smaller wiring that way. I'm skeptical.

    14. Re:Premature by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Also, AC/DC conversion isn't as dire as stated. Sloppy cheap converters do indeed operate at around 75% effeciency with the remaining 25% lost as heat. But look at the "80+" computer power supply standards. The "80+ platinum" standard requires 95% efficiency. Those power cost twice as much but "pure science" does not prevent their operation. They work as promised.

      The article's efficiency numbers are so far off that I cannot consider the author credible.

      Stepping power up and down from AC to DC and vice-versa wastes energy, about 20 percent is lost in the conversion. Some converters do a better job than others, but resolving this 20 percent loss is very important when working on a battery stored energy supply.

      That is off by a factor of 2 or more; online UPSes, which do both conversions in series in the same device, regularly have better than 90% efficiency.

  54. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. And 1000 W appliance will draw 100 A. There is a reason why high voltage is needed.

  55. Better inverters needed by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is strange. "20 to 40% power loss" seems to be an awfully poor inverter; existing inverters are 4-8 % loss.

    Rather than rewire every house in America, wouldn't it make more sense to just design better inverters?

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Better inverters needed by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Designing better inverters is easy. Giving manufacturers a reason to use them is another matter. Very few customers are going to look up the efficiency of their appliance power supply before purchase, so why waste dollars on it?

    2. Re:Better inverters needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe he's referring to the inverter inside the Tesla batteries. More efficient inverters result in more useable capacity and probably also more efficient chargind.

    3. Re:Better inverters needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably taking into account the charging of the batteries. A typical solar install usually will use 40-50% power loss as an estimate for the power created from a solar array, charged to the battery, and taken out by the inverter and used.

      Also, keep in mind batteries are not a fixed unit, the slower you discharge the battery the more total power you can get out of a battery. A hypothetical made up example, pull 100 amps at 48 volts for 5 hours (24kw) or pull 10 amps at 48 volt for 70hours (33.6kwh). Part of it is internal battery resistance. Just because the inverter is 92% efficient (find a 96% efficient Pure sine wave inverter) does not mean the battery is 100% efficient in either charging or discharging. That is why batteries are typically rated on a C20 rating, ie the maximum Amphours a battery can sustain for 20 hours before empty. THe C20 rating is a standard so you can compare different batteries.

    4. Re:Better inverters needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is only true of the 'inverter stage'...

      The DC-link is often a DC-DC converter with 80-90% efficiency... Line Conditioners often do that conversion twice...

      typical commercial inverter is a DC-Link and an inverter (either with or without a transformer for isolation) So, while your inverter is 95%+ efficient, your DC link is probably where most of your losses are occuring... due to the usually high-current on the DC/input side....

      For Example, if you have an inverter in your car running a 100W light at 120V rms, it outputs (100W/120V=) 0.833A. Even at 100% efficiency, for your 14.4V DC input... that is going to be (100W/14.4V=) 6.944A. Look at the wires for our little inverter... the resistance of the wires is not going to be insignificant, and since there is probably a transformer in that inverter.... there is alot of tiny wire that the electrons have to pass thru.

    5. Re:Better inverters needed by Wing_Zero · · Score: 1

      The tesla battery is just that, a battery. you need to add a inverter and charger yourself

    6. Re:Better inverters needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if the alternative is to rewire the entire house in low voltage DC, with the ridiculously thick wires that would be needed to deliver the required currents, a high-efficiency inverter is the cheap option.

  56. Existing infrastructure vs no batteries installed by Chas · · Score: 1

    Ah. I kinda don't see this happening anytime soon.

    There are millions (perhaps tens of millions) of buildings across the country. All running AC.

    Tesla's batteries are somewhat attractive, but still a *VERY* niche product.

    I really don't see them gaining a realistically large enough foothold to force this sort of transition and the type of power system infrastructure changes it would require.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  57. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by jabuzz · · Score: 1

    Add in to the mix that there is not enough copper in the world to give 7 billion people a first world lifestyle using 110V, and some US idiot thinks low voltage DC is the way to go.

  58. No. HVDC maybe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Low voltage needs big wires. 40A 240V (stove outlet) would be 400A @ 24V, anything higher is no longer "low voltage" by code. No.

    HVDC (240/300VDC) may be useful, but it needs different connectors and switches (Intel has done great work on that) because a DC arc doesn't self-extinguish (every outlet is a stick welder). A lot of things (except non-universal motors) would work OK on 120VDC or 240VDC because almost nobody uses big transformers anymore so the input section on most electronics is AC->400VDC->HiFreq transformer->Power, but every switch and outlet would need to be replaced.

  59. I call BS by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    lower voltages mean much higher wiring losses or much more expensive wiring (or likely a combination of both). DC at a given voltage is substantially more dangerous than AC because it is prone to arcing.

    20% conversion efficiency is pretty shit by modern standards

    http://www.apcmedia.com/salest... is an interesting read, it's aimed at datacenter UPS systems but many of the arguments would apply equally to a house battery system.

    As for the posters mention of living in a caravan a house is much bigger than a caravan (though admittedly smaller than a datacenter). So the wiring losses are less of an issue.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  60. fantasy by rch7 · · Score: 1

    This sounds like fantasy from people who don't understand Ohm's law. Tesla's Powerwall voltage is around 400V. You have nothing to do with such voltage in the house, it is too dangerous. You need DC-DC or DC-AC converter to reduce voltage first, and you already have DC-AC for grid connection, and it is simpler.
    Low voltage DC is used for lightning sometimes, like older halogen bulbs or outdoors. It may be nice to have extra sockets around the house for low power electronics, but there are no widespread standards for it, and it would be just waste of money for extra lines and outlets. You would need much more copper for low voltage/high amperage lines.

  61. higher AC please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who likes tea, and uses a kettle a lot, I'd rather North America move from 120V AC to 230V (given the same amp restrictions).

  62. Its funny, I was expecting the opposite.... by responsibleusername · · Score: 1

    I haven't been able to find voltage specifics about the tesla battery system, but I've been expecting it will be more likely to lean towards AC. I would like to get the 10kwh pack for my off-grid system, but I don't yet know how to charge the tesla battery bank. Since they are clearly targeting the residential on-grid market, I expect AC charging to be more common. I wouldn't be surprised if I end up going the microinverter route with PC->AC going into the house and charging the battery bank, with an inverter. Has anyone found detailed installation specifics like this? I spent a good half hour looking after the price breakdown came out and couldn't find anything but a massive low-information media circlejerk.

  63. with so many people responding so strongly... by dAzED1 · · Score: 2

    I'm buying a massive house that is 1/3 the price it should be (ie, very good shape structurally, but is still half the price of per/square of "poor" quality; very high quality home, just hasn't been remodeled in many decades. Brand new roof though...heh). I'll be removing most of the sheetrock and replacing half of the wiring already, and am installing solar. I can't find a solar company that seems comfortable with DC circuits, low-voltage or otherwise. Coming off the solar it will be already DC; converting from DC to AC just to convert back to DC is likely why they claim the 20-40% loss - you're not losing in conversion just once, right? So then I just need some sort of power stabilizing factor - such as running through a battery or whatnot - thus why I clicked on this article at all. Any already know of a good book or resource with which I could inform myself before spending a good deal of money?

    1. Re:with so many people responding so strongly... by Vesvvi · · Score: 1

      Sure, the NEC: http://catalog.nfpa.org/NFPA-7...

      If you don't want to buy it, you can probably go to your local electrical supply company, who should have at least one desk copy. They probably won't mind if you sit there and read it and take notes.

      Note that it will only tell you what you can do, not what you should do. There are also no guarantees that your local regulatory agency doesn't have slightly modified or more restrictive rules about what can be done, or who can do it.

    2. Re:with so many people responding so strongly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So here is the deal with the nay sayers.
      They are largely right.
      Also it's not really that big of a loss on both ends... going from DC to AC is hard... you have to generate a sign wave, and then apply that to your DC power... it's a mess. Going from AC to DC is easy... efficiency on AC to DC rectifiers is in the range of 95-98% efficient at 12v. (higher at higher voltages) also inverters generally run around 90% efficiency.

      Low voltage has it's place, and you CAN tap off of it for plenty of household applications.
      Lighting for example... a bright LED bulb will pull ~36W, at 12v that's 3 amps. Easy to wire up, small wires will work fine for you there, and you won't have any loss going to AC and back to DC.
      But when you start looking at motors for thinks like compressors in refrigerators or air conditioners, and ceiling fans, and washers/driers then you want AC motors... The Tesla electric cars all have AC motors, with DC batteries on board... think about that they find it more efficient to use AC motors than DC motors...

      So when you are wiring your house, go ahead and build the most efficient lighting scheme you can, you can keep it all low voltage, and as an added bonus you can use regular AC led bulbs (though maybe not dimmable ones) and they'll work fine since the rectifier in the bulb base is just going to pass the DC power right through... You can have all the electronics and lights on DC that you want, and so long as none of them have a crazy high draw you'll be fine. You might even get away with heating elements that are DC... though if you have AC power you'll probably want to use that instead.

      But when you want to move something (freon, or air, or clothing) you'll be looking for a high efficiency inverter. Your air conditioner, washer, dryer, refrigerator, dishwasher, fans, etc. they'll all want AC power to operate most efficiently, and you'll want to give it to them even with the 10% losses (real life) or the 40% losses (imaginary numbers, or crappy equipment) because it will still be more efficient.

    3. Re:with so many people responding so strongly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any already know of a good book or resource with which I could inform myself before spending a good deal of money?

      There's some forums you should visit that have discussion on making your own solar panels, your own inverters, and getting RV appliances and equipment.

      Basically, DIY people.

      I'm not surprised the solar company doesn't want to get outside of its comfort zones. That's something they don't know about, that's something they can't claim to have followed the rules installing, and if something goes back when they fuck things up, they can't know how much they'll pay.

    4. Re:with so many people responding so strongly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any reasonable DC/AC inverter will have 95% efficiency, and these are 200W inverters. 5KW or 10KW inverters would be 98% or more. So you will not be loosing much with conversion from AC/DC/AC.

      However, you would loose quite a bit if you supplied low voltage DC to stove or other power hungry device. I would recommend to stay with current AC wiring.

    5. Re:with so many people responding so strongly... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      So, you will not want to use any device that has a line frequency transformer in it (like, say, some audio gear or pretty much every old device).
      Or any device that has an AC induction motor (AC, fridge, table fan).
      Also, you are willing to modify the power supply of your PC to work on DC (so the PFC circuit no longer needs not only AC but AC that is similar to a sine wave).
      Also, you are willing to use much bigger switches and circuit breakers (to safely disconnect 120 or 240V DC) or much bigger wires (for lower voltage) and modifying your devices to work on low voltage.

    6. Re:with so many people responding so strongly... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I'm buying a massive house that is 1/3 the price it should be (ie, very good shape structurally, but is still half the price of per/square of "poor" quality; very high quality home, just hasn't been remodeled in many decades. Brand new roof though...heh). I'll be removing most of the sheetrock and replacing half of the wiring already, and am installing solar. I can't find a solar company that seems comfortable with DC circuits, low-voltage or otherwise. Coming off the solar it will be already DC; converting from DC to AC just to convert back to DC is likely why they claim the 20-40% loss - you're not losing in conversion just once, right? So then I just need some sort of power stabilizing factor - such as running through a battery or whatnot - thus why I clicked on this article at all. Any already know of a good book or resource with which I could inform myself before spending a good deal of money?

      OK, just thinking outside the box here; produce AC directly from the solar cells by having them on two sides of a rotating plane thing, hooked up in opposite polarity, then spinning it at 60 rps!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  64. High-grade home security will be needed by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    The extra copper needed for low voltage wiring will lead to home invasions just to strip copper from houses. Better get South Africa style home defense systems, which of course will mean still more copper.

  65. Duh, Just use Dino Juice by jimmifett · · Score: 1

    This is so stupid. Telsa cars are a waste for a majority of the nation, as we like to drive beyond our city, or commute long distance. You know what's more efficient than wasting all this money on home electrical conversion and expensive batteries...? Gasoline. Super efficient means of moving energy from one place to another and lighter than a big nasty caustic battery, and I don't have to reconfigure my house to use gasoline.

    And thats before even getting into the electrical merits pointed out by others.

  66. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Ask yourself why Europe uses a ~230V/240V electricity

    Apart from the economical reasons as outlined by yourself, I always assumed it was a safety issue. I was taught that current kills not Voltage. A static shock has huge tension but non-existent current whereas a toaster in the bathtub has (relatively) low voltage and high current.

    Can a sparky weigh in on this for me?

    Not that I'd go licking the sockets in any country.

  67. More like 2-5% loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some additional to the copper is expensive arguments:

    The Tesla Powerwall battery runs at 350-450V DC. So the home wiring will go low voltage because the battery itself is high voltage??

    The Tesla Powerwall is only a battery. The inverter/battery charger will be (amongst others) Fronius Symo Hybrid (german, pdf). This neat little device combines a solar inverter/battery charger/battery inverter! DC-AC or AC-DC efficiency: 95-98%.

    This must be the most idiotic technology prediction I ever read on slashdot!

    1. Re:More like 2-5% loss by rwiggers · · Score: 1

      Indeed. As power increases, the efficiency easily goes over 98%.

  68. not much of an engineer . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    AirStream user you may be, but an engineer you are NOT. Even with the conversion losses, it is MUCH cheaper to wire a facility for high-voltage, low-current usage - to provide the power to the appliance WITHOUT the concurrent IR-losses associated with low voltage power sources. A simple 0.1 ohm wire will lose (drop - dissipate - produce HEAT instead of usable power) more than 8 volts to power a 1KW device, providing only 4 volts to the appliance, which would then necissitate an additional current of 250 amps to provide the kilowatt of power - leading to additional IR losses - and effectively being totally unusable as a power source. With the same 0.1 ohm wire, @ 110 volts, @ 1000 watts, only 1 volt is lost (dissipated) by the wiring. THIS is a BEST-CASE model, since most house wiring approaches the 1 ohm level, hence the flicker / drop in brightness in kitchen lighting when the microwave kicks in, producing a 10 volt (or so) drop in the voltage to that particular circuit. The ONLY reason automotive systems are 12v-powered is because of the massive support industry of the 12-volt battery. MANY of the projected development systems for the near-future (10 years or so) are focussing on 48-volt systems, due to the increasing power consumption of the vehicle, and, for the SAME REASONING I JUST STATED - - - low voltage results in massively more LOST power through the conducting wiring than does HIGH(er) voltage. Hell, even 50 years ago, the commercial bus industry was using twinned, series batteries for 24-volt operation.

  69. Re:Current? Fat cables? by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

    You keep repeating that. You continue to be wrong. You get two of three hot phases in home wiring, 120 degrees out of phase.

    If they were the same phase you would get zero volts between them.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  70. The Tesla power wall IS NOT good for Solar! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    The Tesla Powerwall IS not that big of a deal and not the solution for Solar!
    The 10kwh Powerwall is only good for 50 cycles a year! It is more of a house size UPS. The 7 will work for daily use but it is more expensive per kwh than the 10 and even Solar City is not going to sell the 7.
    The Tesla power wall battery still sucks. It does suck less than other battery packs but only a little. The big improvment is one of packaging and frankly hype.
    I know that this is going to go counter to the Church of Tesla's teachings but even the Model S really does not count. It is a 100K car for the very rich. Another fact is the simple truth that the Tesla car company is not successful car company yet. It has yet to make a profit.

    No we do not need to move to low voltage wiring in our homes because of the "success" of the Powerwall. The Powerwall is the the solution to the solar production/demand problem. And frankly in most homes the biggest power users are things like AC, Hot water heaters, dryers, stoves, refrigerators, and so on. All of which work just fine on AC and I for one do not want to have to have a bus bar the size of my arm running to my dryer so it can work on 12 volts.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  71. Author has BA in Journalism by ahoffer0 · · Score: 1

    According to CE Pro Website, author of article is Jason Knott. According to LinkedIn, Jason Knott, Editor at CE Pro/EH Publishing, has a BA in Journalism from USC (1984). Also, from CE Pro's "About the Author" section: "Jason has covered low-voltage electronics as an editor since 1990. He joined EH Publishing in 2000, and before that served as publisher and editor of Security Sales, a leading magazine for the security industry." If The Onion wrote this article, the title might be:

              "Area man parlays journalism degree into low-voltage DC career, then hypes low-voltage DC".

    On the plus side, marine systems will likely stay DC for the foreseeable future. Perhaps Tesla batteries will be a boon to yacht owners? At the very least, it would make for a better article.

  72. Trash what you have and buy more! by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

    Here's the latest gimick to get us to buy new appliances! Throw away everything you have - washing machine, dryer, oven, cooktop, TV, and stereo. Buy new ones; you don't need the old, outmoded units. Hurry, be the first on your block! Err. By the way, how are they going to send the power cross-country to keep all these batteries charged?

  73. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by sribe · · Score: 1

    I was taught that current kills not Voltage. A static shock has huge tension but non-existent current whereas a toaster in the bathtub has (relatively) low voltage and high current.

    True.

    Can a sparky weigh in on this for me?

    Sure. The amperage coming through a 230V home outlet is still orders of magnitude higher than what's required to be lethal. The reduction by 1/2 from our 120V service has nothing to do with making it safe to stick a fork in the outlet ;-)

  74. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Current kills, yes. However, voltage provides the potential to get that current through your body. European homes still have more than enough current available to kill (in fact, those wimpy DC adapters everyone uses that aren't insulated at the connector also have enough current).

    However, the reason that your DC adapter doesn't shock you is it takes more than 5 volts to push that current through your body. The standard is usually 48 volts, however, you WILL feel a very unpleasant shock at that voltage. Typical skin resistance means that 24 volts and under is not likely to cause any sensation. However, if you were to piece your skin, that 5 volt adapter could easily kill you because it is the current that kills, and once you are past the high resistance barrier (skin) and into low resistance areas (bloodstream) you don't need that potential to push the current through your body.

    120 vac and 240 vac are both easily going to kill you from standard outlets, as there's way more than 100 mA available from them. 120 vac, however, is *less* likely to kill (but entirely still probable) since it hasn't got the potential as 240 vac to push the current through you. ie: Maybe at 120 vac you will get lucky and your shoes can insulate you enough.

    To get to the point of "safe" high voltage (like a VanDegraaff generator), we would be looking at trying to keep the current low, say, 5 mA. That would require about 1 million volts to power your stove. At that voltage, other very odd things start to happen (eg: It will just arc through almost any sort of normal insulation and start fires).

  75. Missing the point, many things ARE low voltage by clifwlkr · · Score: 1

    I think the article is also talking about the fact that so many things are running low voltage today (and low amperage) that we are constantly throwing away energy in a solar situation to convert them back and forth. I have an off grid cabin where there are zero power lines as an option. Everything was originally designed for a generator. When I first put solar in, an inverter was a must to run a lot of things. My efficiency sucked, and I would have to budget power all of the time. Since then, I have switched to all LED bulbs. I put in a 12v dc stereo, and a 12v dc tv/dvd player. Additionally, I installed a car 12v DC to multi port USB charger. All of my music and movies run off a windows tablet running XBMC off of that USB hub. The fridge is 12v DC. The water is run off a 12v RV pump. Basically, I can do everything with no conversion from DC to AC to DC. There was an amazing amount of stuff that was either doing this through wall warts or internally in the device itself. That is all wasted electricity. The net result, I can run all of the stuff, all of the time, with the same number of panels. Amazing returns. I don't think anyone should be talking about switching high amperage devices over to DC. I left an AC line (and the inverter) in for that. But instead I have parallel low voltage AND low amperage DC lines for all of the stuff we use day to day. That would be the big gain in a solar home.

  76. No it won't. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Getting 1500 watts out of 12 volts DC is WAY more dangerous than 1500 watts from 120 AC, by an order of magnitude.
    1500w @15v == 100 amps. That means all your in home wiring would need to be ATLEAST 6 gauge wire to be able to carry the current, more likely its going to be 4
    gauge wire, and its STILL GOING TO GET HOT.

    At just 100 watts, you know, like a high powered light bulb, thats STILL 10 amps, which requires AT LEAST 10 gauge wire ... when most homes are wired with 12 or even 14 gauge!

    We're not going to design homes around the Tesla charger and charging our iPhones, we're going to design it around our fridge, microwave, washer and dryer, and air-conditioning.

    This entire article is stupid. The conversion losses are nothing compared to the resistive losses from carrying 10 or 100 amps across the wire, even only a 100 feet or so in your home.

    I have several 3000 watt devices in my home, which is FILLED with 100 watt light bulbs. In the real world, this shit won't fly.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  77. Use High voltage DC stupid... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We need to use HIGH voltage DC at about the same voltage as your house is now, forget about going "low voltage" DC. MOST things in your home will run JUST FINE on DC with a few notable exceptions. AC induction motors will NOT work, nor will anything that involves an old fashioned transformer, but most modern electronics with switching power supplies work great on anywhere between about 90V to 200V DC without modification. Most switching power supplies just convert the AC into DC right up front and won't know the difference. So, all you do is provide inverters for the things you cannot easily change (like for your appliances) and just feed DC to the rest of the stuff that doesn't care. What you DON'T do is go to low voltage DC and suggesting this is just crazy talk. Why?

    1. Most stuff just works on high voltage DC as discussed above. Most switching power supplies simply don't know or care about AC or DC and due to their efficiency switching power supplies are used in almost everything electronic.

    2. It's easier (and more efficient) to use high voltage DC for charging the batteries. All you need is a rectifier to convert that 220 into about 250V DC and charge the batteries, which is about as simple and efficient as it comes.

    3. It's easer (and more efficient) to make an inverter that uses high voltage DC as input. It's pretty easy to just flip the current one way then the other to get AC sufficient to run most induction motors and transformer powered devices.

    4. It's more efficient to use higher voltage in terms of wire size because IxR losses are less for the same power transfer. Chances are the same wires you have now will be fine, but if you go to low voltage (say 13.8V like in your car) you are going to need bigger conductors to avoid the voltage drops over long high current runs. Use higher voltage and lower current, and stick with the wires you have.

    5. Current battery technology for EV's and hybrids uses about 200V DC to start with, so there are less modifications to the technology when adapting to a home use. If we stick with a common battery pack voltage it will increase the economies of scale in their production and allow the use of old automobile packs that have reduced capacity as power storage in homes where the size and weight of the battery is less important. If you go low voltage, you either have to convert the 200V down to 12 or 48 (and incur the conversion loss) or modify the battery pack to operate at the lower voltage.

    I know that traditional DC systems run at multiples of 12 Volts because they are usually built on Lead-Acid batteries and that much equipment is commercially available that uses 12 and 48 volts based on this. But going to 12 or 48 volts is not the right answer. It's really just the traditional solution based on past thinking and limitations. Running 200V DC is a more viable and long term solution that will work fine with a lot of existing AC equipment, plus is compatible with a ready source of batteries which are commercially available (and if purchased used, pretty cheap).

    So, NO, we DON'T want to start using low voltage DC... We want to use HIGH voltage DC.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Use High voltage DC stupid... by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We need to use HIGH voltage DC at about the same voltage as your house is now, forget about going "low voltage" DC.

      No, we don't.

      120v AC will kick you off of it if you touch exposed wires.

      120v DC will cause you to clamp down if you grab onto a wire or device that electrocutes you, and worse still, it'll kill you at much lower voltages than AC.

      On that alone, HVDC is stupid in the home.

      Thats ignoring things like how circuit breakers and switches behave under DC verses AC.

      AC has a ridiculous number of safety advantages that are not present in DC, which is why you RARELY see high voltage DC.

      Couple in the resistive losses of DC and HVDC suddenly looks really stupid to anyone with a clue.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Use High voltage DC stupid... by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Heh I should have read your whole post before replying to the first line, but let me pick you apart in another one instead.

      1. Most stuff just works on high voltage DC as discussed above. Most switching power supplies simply don't know or care about AC or DC and due to their efficiency switching power supplies are used in almost everything electronic.

      Absolutely wrong. The first thing most power supplies do is step down from high voltage AC to something in the general range of whats needed on the highest output value. They step down with a transformer. That transformer only works with AC, if you put DC in it, you're just going to burn it up as it turns into a magnet carrying more current (because its not AC, so the there is no inductive resistance, so there is more current). Please don't give anyone advice on electricity. Ever.

      2. It's easier (and more efficient) to use high voltage DC for charging the batteries. All you need is a rectifier to convert that 220 into about 250V DC and charge the batteries, which is about as simple and efficient as it comes.

      ... You do realize those batteries you're referring to are actually made up of a bunch of smaller batteries right? There is no single cell at 200v. You aren't charging one 200v batter, you're charging a handful of 12v batteries that you're just blissfully ignorant of.

      3. It's easer (and more efficient) to make an inverter that uses high voltage DC as input. It's pretty easy to just flip the current one way then the other to get AC sufficient to run most induction motors and transformer powered devices.

      You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The conversion from DC to AC is THE BIGGEST LOSS in the inverters you're referring to. The actual transformer itself is pretty damn efficient if designed properly. Dealing with high voltage DC is extremely dangerous. It ARCs over distances that AC won't. You can put 200v AC traces on a circuit board with little space between them. Do the same thing with the same DC voltage and the board is going to randomly arc all over itself.

      4. It's more efficient to use higher voltage in terms of wire size because IxR losses are less for the same power transfer. Chances are the same wires you have now will be fine, but if you go to low voltage (say 13.8V like in your car) you are going to need bigger conductors to avoid the voltage drops over long high current runs. Use higher voltage and lower current, and stick with the wires you have.

      The first part is true, larger wires are better for lower current loss. The rest of this is false. DC has different properties than AC. Insulators, wire spacing, and load will behave differently at 200v AC versus DC. You CAN NOT use the same wiring unless you want to burn the building down. Please don't ever tell people anything about electrical wiring, you're going to get someone killed.

      The rest of your post is pretty much factually incorrect in everyway as well, but I'm tired of pointing out how little you seem to know about the subject. Again, please stop trying to tell people things like this, its fraking dangerous and people could die from this ignorance.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Use High voltage DC stupid... by bobbied · · Score: 2

      We need to use HIGH voltage DC at about the same voltage as your house is now, forget about going "low voltage" DC.

      No, we don't.

      120v AC will kick you off of it if you touch exposed wires.

      120v DC will cause you to clamp down if you grab onto a wire or device that electrocutes you, and worse still, it'll kill you at much lower voltages than AC.

      Um, no, it's exactly the opposite situation. Both AC and DC can shock and kill at high enough voltages, but AC is what you cannot let go of and DC is what usually bumps you off. DC induces all your muscles to contract at the same time all at once which cause a quick jerk which often disconnects the victim, AC has the effect of pulsating all the muscles, which incapacitates the victim but not inducing one big jerk. The rule of thumb is that AC is about twice as lethal at the same current/voltage over DC.

      I understand your confusion though. Most DC people are exposed to runs in the 5-48 volt range because this is what modern electronics usually use internally. Officially 48 volts is "dangerous" and "lethal" but in reality is not usually going to hurt you if you happen to cross it. However, the real dangerous stuff that is DC usually runs in the thousands of volts (A Tube TV 9K to 25K) or a radio amplifier (600V to 2.5Kv) which will kill you pretty quick if you become the path to ground. Normal 110V in your home usually takes awhile to kill you.

      It's kind of amusing though to go back though the history of Edison/Westinghouse (DC/AC) debate. Edison used this problem of AC "grabbing" people over DC's safety to his advantage. He called electrocution "being Westinghoused" for a reason and electrocuted an elephant in a now famous film to make his point. Brilliant PR move, but a bad idea for electricity distribution.

      Where there are increased dangers of using DC over AC, electrocution is actually one of the dangers that is reduced.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Use High voltage DC stupid... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Heh I should have read your whole post before replying to the first line, but let me pick you apart in another one instead.

      1. Most stuff just works on high voltage DC as discussed above. Most switching power supplies simply don't know or care about AC or DC and due to their efficiency switching power supplies are used in almost everything electronic.

      Absolutely wrong. The first thing most power supplies do is step down from high voltage AC to something in the general range of whats needed on the highest output value. They step down with a transformer. That transformer only works with AC, if you put DC in it, you're just going to burn it up as it turns into a magnet carrying more current (because its not AC, so the there is no inductive resistance, so there is more current). Please don't give anyone advice on electricity. Ever.

      You are living in the past on this one. Most modern electronic equipment utilize switching power supplies because they are cheaper to make, lighter and more efficient. Modern switching supplies almost invariably just rectify the AC into DC as the first step, usually using a full wave rectifier. Full wave rectifiers don't care if you feed them with AC or DC, you get DC out either way and as long as you have the right DC voltage range coming out of the rectifier, the switching power supply will work just as well on AC as DC. Where this is not UNIVERSALLY true (you CAN damage some stuff doing this), it is generally true.

      Now, I want to point out to you that I did say there where exceptions. Devices that employ transformers and induction motors will NOT work on DC. That includes CFL's, Ceiling Fans, some Wall warts, most major appliances and the like, but it's pretty obvious they won't run on 12 V DC either...

      2. It's easier (and more efficient) to use high voltage DC for charging the batteries. All you need is a rectifier to convert that 220 into about 250V DC and charge the batteries, which is about as simple and efficient as it comes.

      ... You do realize those batteries you're referring to are actually made up of a bunch of smaller batteries right? There is no single cell at 200v. You aren't charging one 200v batter, you're charging a handful of 12v batteries that you're just blissfully ignorant of.

      And you seem to be ignoring the fact that that 12V (aka 13.8V) battery *really* is just a number of 2.3 Volt cells (like 6) strung into a series to get you up to 12 V. So we put 100 in series and get a working voltage of about 230V DC? How's that an issue of ignorance? Or, parish the thought, we just take 10 of your standard 12V batteries and connect them in series to get 120 (138) Working voltage?

      It's all for naught anyway because different battery chemistry gives you different cell voltages. But no mater what the battery chemistry, you just string enough cells in series to get you up to the desired working voltage... Or that's what electrical engineers had been designing a long time before I got my EE degree..

      3. It's easer (and more efficient) to make an inverter that uses high voltage DC as input. It's pretty easy to just flip the current one way then the other to get AC sufficient to run most induction motors and transformer powered devices.

      You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The conversion from DC to AC is THE BIGGEST LOSS in the inverters you're referring to. The actual transformer itself is pretty damn efficient if designed properly. Dealing with high voltage DC is extremely dangerous. It ARCs over distances that AC won't. You can put 200v AC traces on a circuit board with little space between them. Do the same thing with the same DC voltage and the board is going to randomly arc all over itself.

      So are you claiming that YOUR design where you use a transformer to step down to 12 V THEN rectify it (which is the classi

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Use High voltage DC stupid... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Heh I should have read your whole post before replying to the first line, but let me pick you apart in another one instead.

      Naw... This EE recognizes when there isn't enough understanding on the other end to make it worth the argument. I've responded in another post, but I'll summarize here for those who don't want to wade though the technical details.... It is you who doesn't understand very much beyond basic circuits. It may have been 25 years since I got my BSEE, but I'm pretty sure the principles we are discussing here haven't changed all that much. However, the state of the art in power supply design HAS changed, and it's changed ALOT in that 25 years. We don't use the traditional power transformer to change voltages for electronic equipment anymore, we use "switchers", which truth be told really have transformers buried inside them, only not ones that transform 60 Cycle current from one voltage to another, but ones that transform AC in the Kilohertz range from one voltage to another. ALL switchers really run on DC and almost without fail the FIRST thing that happens in the design is you rectify the AC coming in to make DC out of it. This is state of the art today.

      Now I'm not a power supply designer, but a software engineer, but that doesn't mean I don't keep up with my Electrical Engineering roots. I'm a ham radio operator and use my training on a regular basis in my hobby. I also assist with the design and implementation of Solar powered "off grid" power systems for a non-profit missionary organization so I'm not totally out of touch, even if my professional experience is pretty much just software.

      SO, good day to you young one... You really need to brush up on your electronics in practice and spend some time looking at modern electronic equipment designs and do a bit of reading where your assumptions don't really match reality...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Use High voltage DC stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're wrong and the parent is right. An SMPS has no transformer at the input precisely to avoid the great bulk and weight of transformers needed to work at 50/60Hz. The rectify the mains and then use that to power an oscillator at 20-250kHz that can be PWM modulated for regulation.In down-conversion generally that is passed through a dinky little ferrite cored transformer and rectified to produce DC. The DC voltage is fed back to the PWM gubbins to get regulation of the output voltage.

      If you open any SMPS I can guarantee you won't see a chunky iron-cored transformer on the mains input. That would be stupid and defeat one of the primary advantages of SMPS's, ie light wieght and compact size.

  78. Uh, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see a wonderful opportunity to separate lighting from power circuits. Expand the NEC to include some form of low-voltage low-power standard for lighting, and a much smaller solar/wind generation/storage solution could cover all needs. Your lighting always draws from the DC system, which is either fed from your locally charged battery system, or draws from a converter sitting on a standard AC grid circuit when necessary. Bonus: built-in battery backup for emergency (all) lighting when the power goes out for any reason. There is already low-voltage electrical wiring available and I bet most people reading this have some - cat5 cable. How hard would it be to standardize on some cable for lighting that draws 30-50w? Just take PoE and beef it up a little. It doesn't need to be as tiny as 22ga wire.

    Pie-in-the-sky 100%+ generation at home is a nice dream, but this is a small cheap system that anybody could afford and save money/energy now. Seriously, a small 100W panel with maybe 2 car batteries would be enough that I'd rarely if ever need the AC/DC converter to contribute to my home lighting needs now that I switched to LED bulbs. Who needs multi-kW systems when all you are doing is picking the low-hanging fruit?

  79. Re:Current? Fat cables? by russotto · · Score: 1

    Yes, the whole premise is idiotic. Losses due to resistance would dwarf conversion losses; AC to DC conversion and DC to DC conversion are actually very efficient nowadays (if you care to spend the money; it's still cheaper to do it inefficiently)

  80. Never happen by sjbe · · Score: 1

    With houses as big as they are, we ( USA ) need to think about going to 220v to save on copper.

    Will never happen. Retrofit costs are far too high and I shudder to imagine the technical support nightmare that would cause.

  81. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A center-tapped transformer, fed with one of the three phases from power generation, yields two sine waves which are 180 degrees out of phase. As a whole, the output coil is in phase with the single input phase, but the two output sections give opposite voltage with respect to the common central tap.

  82. Even if you go DC, stay at 120V by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is strange. "20 to 40% power loss" seems to be an awfully poor inverter; existing inverters are 4-8 % loss.

    Rather than rewire every house in America, wouldn't it make more sense to just design better inverters?

    Or just run at 120V DC, as renewable energy systems did (and occasionally still do) before so many appliances were AC-only that it made sense to use an inverter.

    Dropping voltage means you have to replace the copper wiring with MUCH HEAVIER wiring - by a square law - to carry a given amount of power with the same loss - and thus wiring heating inside the walls, where it can set the house of fire.

    Switching to 120V just means using DC-capable appliances and replacing the breakers (DC is harder to interrupt) and must-be-GFCI outlets (normal GFCI devices use a transformer to sense unbalanced load).

    The 48V standard was about having a voltage that was low enough that touching it was typically survivable, so working on or near it is (relatively) safe. The boundary between the hard part and the easy, "low-voltage", part of the electrical code is 50V (BECAUSE of phone companies B-) ). Medium power (>1KW) home Renewable Energy systems tend to be at 48V so much of the wiring falls under the easier part of the code, and because of the availability of

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Even if you go DC, stay at 120V by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

      (Continuing after brushing the touchpad posted it for me. B-b) ... equipment at that voltage. (Small systems are often 12V due to the availability of 12V appliances.)

      But back to inverters:

      Current inverter and switching regulator (they're pretty much the same stuff) technology is SO efficient that large PC boards in computing and networking equipment may run the power through as many as THREE DC-DC converters, because you lose less power to heat as losses in the inverters than you would to resistance running it a few inches through a printed circuit board power plane.

      So the '"20-40% loss" number seems to me to be utterly bogus.

      (Consider this: A Tesla automobile IS AC motors driven by inverters from batteries. A horsepower is almost exactly 750 watts. If they had 20-40% losses in the inverters, how do you keep the car from being on fire after a jackrabbit start? Let alone recover enough power on braking to reuse on acceleration to make a substantial difference?) If ANYBODY knows how to handle inverters it's Tesla. B-) )

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:Even if you go DC, stay at 120V by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      98.5% efficiency is the gold standard: http://sroeco.com/solar/inverter/

    3. Re:Even if you go DC, stay at 120V by maestroX · · Score: 1

      (Consider this: A Tesla automobile IS AC motors driven by inverters from batteries.

      S-sh-h-hht. Inside the batteries are actually weighted flywheels spinning at 50Hz. That's why you "need" to brake as advertised, it really is to keep the car going.

    4. Re:Even if you go DC, stay at 120V by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      If you run 120 VDC in your existing home, you'll have a house fire before too long.

      Everything from your wall switches to your wires will cause you never ending problems.

      Even if you replace your wall switches and outlets, your wires will degrade over time and develop holes and other blemishes that will cause a fire.

    5. Re:Even if you go DC, stay at 120V by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      A down-stepping DC-DC converter is not an inverter?

    6. Re:Even if you go DC, stay at 120V by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      A down-stepping DC-DC converter is not an inverter?

      Nope. But the pieces of the implementations are similar enough in function that it's close.

      A typical DC/DC down converter involves two switches, an inductor, and both input and output filter capacitors, plus control circuitry to sense the output voltage and time the switches. (There may also be a VERY small resistor in series with the inductor to sample the output current if current regulation is necessary, but it's omitted for high efficiency if that's not an issue.) One end of the inductor is hooked to the output cap, the other through the switches to the input cap and to ground.

      The pull-up switch is always active (typically a transistor). The control circuitry turns it on and the current in the inductor ramps up, charging the output capacitor at an increasing rate. After a while the pull-up switch is turned off and the pull down switch is turned on. The current through the inductor ramps down, but before it goes through a stop and reverses the pull-up switch is turned back on and the pull-down turned off. The pull-down switch may be a diode, which switches on as needed automatically, but for high efficiency it's usually another transistor, because it has a lower voltage drop and thus is more efficient.

      The control circuitry varies the percent of pull-up versus pull-down time to keep the average output voltage at the desired level. The frequency may be controlled or may be allowed to vary somewhat.

      So the waveform in the inductor is a sawtooth, and the current never reverses. An "inverter" by definition,

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    7. Re:Even if you go DC, stay at 120V by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      (DANG this stupid touchpad... )

      An "inverter", by definition, actually has alternating voltage as a substantial output, or at least somewhere in the circuitry. A switching regulator has a cycling voltage, but it isn't an AC output, or even an AC intermediate.

      But they're very similar.

      (Also: I was going to mention, above, that the current supplied through the pull-down (or clamp-at-ground) switch is where the extra output current comes from, compensating for the lowered voltage with higher current for similar amounts of power. If the switches, inductors, capacitors, and wiring were all ideal, the driver and sensor circuitry didn't eat any power, and no energy was radiated away as radio noise, efficiency would be 100%.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    8. Re:Even if you go DC, stay at 120V by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Everything from your wall switches to your wires will cause you never ending problems.

      Mechanical wall switches are still rated for DC. Houses USED to be wired for DC a lot. You only have to replace the stuff that was designed after AC was pervasive and wasn't engineered to handle DC.

      (I forgot to mention that you'll also have to replace the light dimmers, too, along with most other electronic, rather than mechanical, switches. They usually use a current-zero-crossing turnoff device, and DC won't cross zero unless you force it to do so.)

      Even if you replace your wall switches and outlets, your wires will degrade over time and develop holes and other blemishes that will cause a fire.

      No they won't - unless they're wet (in which case you have bigger problems than galvanic corrosion). Electromigration at the current densities involved in house wiring is not an issue, nor is insulation breakdown. The wires and fittings will be just fine.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    9. Re:Even if you go DC, stay at 120V by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea how bloody dangerous 120V DC is? You will hold that wire a long time before you die.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    10. Re:Even if you go DC, stay at 120V by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Or just run at 120V DC, as renewable energy systems did (and occasionally still do) before so many appliances were AC-only that it made sense to use an inverter.

      Doing this creates an interesting problem. While 120V DC would be fine for resistive loads like incandescent lamps, resistive heaters, and universal motors, switching power supplies without active power factor correction and a universal input range are expecting 340V DC and may destructively fail at low voltages do to their negative input characteristic.

  83. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by fatboy · · Score: 1

    >Ask yourself why Europe uses a ~230V/240V electricity

    Apart from the economical reasons as outlined by yourself, I always assumed it was a safety issue. I was taught that current kills not Voltage. A static shock has huge tension but non-existent current whereas a toaster in the bathtub has (relatively) low voltage and high current.

    Can a sparky weigh in on this for me?

    Not that I'd go licking the sockets in any country.

    Increase the voltage (EMF) presented across a load, and your current increases.

    I=E/R

    So, no, it isn't safer. (Assuming Europeans have roughly the same electrical resistance of their skin as Americans)

    The reason electrostatic charge is not normally harmful is because of how quickly the charge is dissipated. (usually microseconds)

    --
    --fatboy
  84. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my neighborhood, the power lines are attached to a box in my house which distributes one phase to some rooms and the other phase to the other rooms, and some high-power appliances are attached to both phases.

    These phases are 180 degrees out of phase. The three-phase power grid is converted to split phase at some point between the substation up the street and my house.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-phase_electric_power#North_America

  85. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But delta or wye?

  86. Main use of household current is high-voltage A/C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is silly. The article itself says that air conditioners, electric hot water heaters, and ovens/stoves run off of high-voltage A/C. Those items use at least 80% of a houses electricity. If you have a swimming pool, the pump also uses a lot of power and has, guess what, a high-voltage A/C motor.

    I don't think it's cost-effective to re-wire a house for a 20% savings on 20% of the electricity. That's a 4% savings for the cost of a whole lot of copper and labor.

  87. Re:Current? Fat cables? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    "We just have a split-phase system to provide it for the few special cases (dryers and ovens) that benefit from it."

    My 1HP pool pump motor can be wired for 110v or 220v, depending on the circumstances. Since it is about 60 ft from the service, it's wired for 220v to better accommodate the length of the wiring. Ranges and dryers in the US are rarely wired for 100v due to the current needs.

    Surprisingly, US electrical design is not entirely illogical or dysfunctional. Different choices.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  88. conversion loss vs Joule loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To pump the same power at low voltages you must by necessity pump larger currents.
    So for a low voltage DC circuit, you need bigger copper (expensive) wires or your Joule heating losses as the square of the current. (Power dissipated in the resistor = I^2 * R.

    Higher voltages from AC grids pass less current so less is lost to resistive heating.

  89. Re:Current? Fat cables? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    The example you were looking for was car-jumper-cable-sized...

    Thick Ethernet has a big jacket, but inside is that tiny little center conductor. I thought that was a lousy analogy, but few people know what's going on inside coaxial cable, so what the heck.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  90. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At low voltages the current would be very high to run even moderately sized appliances. 220-240V was chosen, since many appliances would need very thick cables, and 60A+ fuses otherwise. There would also be the issue that conversion losses would just be moved elsewhere. Having a huge transformer that is underutilised most of the time would certainly not be efficient, and transmitting DC or low voltage over the grid is impractical for obvious reasons.

  91. Re:Current? Fat cables? by russotto · · Score: 1

    You typically do not get two of three hot phases. You get one phase, center tapped with the center tied to ground; the two hots are 180 degrees out of phase with respect to each other. You get two phases in some commercial circuits -- e.g. a lighting circuit might be two phases of a 3-phase wye with 208V between phases (120V between phase and center).

  92. Monster Cables by trevc · · Score: 0

    We'll need Monster Cables to make it all work.

  93. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At low loads even switchmode downconverters are routinely 80% or worse. You only see 90%+ when the loading on the converter is higher... a situation that is easy to arrange when you only charge a battery pack (say a tesla wall thingy) and shut down the charger/converter when not needed. Then use the DC from the wall thingy to run individual loads... it wouldn't make sense to run something like a 5ton Air Condidtioning unit from the DC system, so you'd just keep your 240AC feed to the residence.

    That'd let you do away with all the little power bricks that are waiting to burn your house down. You'd now have smaller/cheaper and more efficient DC/DC only converters (98%+ efficiency since they don't need an input rectifier anymore), or nothing at all and power your stuff directly from the household battery bus.

    Overall it'd probably be a net 3%-5% savings on consumption that'd probably NEVER pay for itself on its own... but if you could then run cheaper LED lights and other small loads (computer power supplies could be cheaper if they were just supplied with 12vDC only, etc...) you may be able to offset the battery replacements a little.

    What it would do is let the power companies get by with fewer new power plants and that makes this similar to the reason behind phasing out incandescent lights in the home here in the States--Conserving Power/Energy as our population increases so infrastructure and the tree huggers can hammer out where all the new power we are demanding is going to come from.

  94. This article is incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please go read the Tesla battery whitepaper - it clearly states the "Powerwall" battery is installed on the high voltage DC output of your PV array: http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall

    This operates at 350-350VDC and for good reason - copper losses.

    PV inverters routinely meet 95-98% efficiency. Downstream AC-DC converters are capable of whatever efficiency you choose to pay for.

    1. Re:This article is incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      edit: 350-450VDC.

  95. Not anytime soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are still millions of houses with hob and nail two wire... Most houses have some abhorrent mix of two wire and modern 3 wire.

    It's gonna be a while before we through out that wiring entirely, and all the appliances built to use it (including appliances which could really use more power, but are artificially constrained by bad US wiring - like vacuums). Compared to power loss for a few pieces of disposable electronics my appliances are *very very very* expensive. And the cost to redo wiring is higher than that.

    Maybe someday though. Wouldn't it be cool if anything that used power had to first request it similar to how it's done in USB. And the circuit breaker could also manage that to make sure that the last appliance that would require more than the allowed amount would be rejected.

    1. Re:Not anytime soon by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be cool if anything that used power had to first request it similar to how it's done in USB

      No. The USB spec is already a PITA for stuff like battery chargers or power supplies (though I guess just requesting the max power available works). Also, quite a few USB devices do not meet that particular spec, just having the power pins connected (since it's cheaper that way).

      What if the device requested low power but used more power?

      Also, what about all current devices or DIY stuff? Will they all need to be connected using a converter? Why? The current way the circuit breaker works (too much current = disconnect) is good enough.

  96. Re:Current? Fat cables? by xfade551 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I do this for a living as an facilities electrical engineer who works closely with electricians. The phase between lines on the primary side of a single-phase stepdown transformer is irrelevant to the secondary side. Indeed, sometimes the distribution lines are Y configuration rather than delta, so the inputs to the single-phase transformer is sometimes line-neutral instead of line-line. In most systems worldwide the single-phase transformer has two poles on the secondary side, one of which is grounded locally and is connected to the neutral conductor, the other pole is connected to the "hot" conductor or "line voltage". There is typically about 240V between hot on neutral. A main electrical panel for residential will have 2 bus bars in this case.

    In the U.S., the transformer is typically has a three-pole secondary with a center-tap connected to the center of the secondary coil. The center tap is connected to local ground as well as the neutral conductor, and the other two poles at opposite ends are each hot conductors. Since there is only one coil on the transformer secondary this results in two hots that while measured against neutral are 120V, but each 180 degrees out of phase with the other for a result of 240V between lines. A main electrical panel will have 3 bus bars in this case. You can confirm this with a voltmeter. (If they were 120-degrees out of phase, you would measure a SQRT(3) ratio of V_lineline/V_lineneutral.

    Occasionally in a commercial or industrial facility, you may find a 2-pole electrical panel that is a sub-circuit to a three-phase Y-configured panel (120/208V Typical configuration). These tend to be remodel conversions from when the building mains were swapped from single-phase to three-phase. In this one case, you will get the 120-degree difference between lines. When this is the case you have to be extra careful when connecting loads to the subpanel, because the difference in line-line voltage is less than what you would expect at first glance, and some equipment may fail to operate, or operate in a degraded state, because of that.

  97. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use silver, better conductivity.

  98. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You keep repeating that. You continue to be wrong. You get two of three hot phases in home wiring, 120 degrees out of phase.

    If they were the same phase you would get zero volts between them.

    He's not wrong. A simple Google search will support his statements. You are not using "phase" in the correct sense. On a generator with three windings, you will have three phases of electricity. If you center tap one of those windings, you achieve 1/2 the voltage. Combine the two halfs, and you have the full voltage of that ONE phase.

  99. Wrong. Tesla batteries are 350-450 volts by k2backhoe · · Score: 2

    This article is wrong on so many levels it's not funny. Go to http://www.teslamotors.com/pow... and you will see that the Tesla home batteries are NOT low voltage. Efficient inverters are way cheaper than rewiring and relamping a house. Silly story.

  100. Already done by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    When I installed solar panels, I did not connect the system to the grid because I was primarily after fault tolerance rather than lower costs or "greenness". Sine wave inverters (necessary to run motors, like in refrigerators) are expensive, and it made more sense to run a parallel 12 volt circuit to run things that are ok with 12 volts, than try to run an entire 110 - oriented house on 12 volts. Most non-motor appliances step 110 down to a low DC voltage anyway, and it seems wasteful to me to step up 12 DC to 110 AC and then back to 5 or 6 volts DC at the appliance end.

    It turns out that there are a plethora of 12 volt choices at the local RV store. Even 12 volt CFLs. Any portable appliance can be run off a car adapter, and even appliances that aren't meant to be portable can be run off 12 volts with careful selection of the right adapter. (Voltage, noise, and current are important.)

    Who knows, maybe some day we'll see major appliances with built-in inverters designed to plug right into a 12 volt circuit. Or maybe appliances with DC motors? Not really my area.

    The only thing that worries me a little is the current requirements. Approx 1/10 the voltage, it seems to me, would mean 10X the nominal current for the same power, and I don't see running car-starter-cable gauge wire through the house. I'll have to do some measurements. For CFLs and electronics, it hasn't been an issue so far.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  101. rewire the home? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    something not addressed in the comments so far, why would you need to rewire a home to accommodate DC? You'd prolly need to upgrade the circuit breaker, and upgrade the end appliances, but otherwise it's just copper, right?

    1. Re:rewire the home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on the voltage, you'd need much thicker wire to support the higher current needed for low-voltage operation.

  102. I'd like to see real HVAC in the US... by jwdb · · Score: 1

    Screw DC wiring, I'd much prefer high-power AC in the US. I've got the same model (but different power rating) electric grill both in Europe and in the US, and you can tell the difference between a standard wall socket on US 110V 15/20A vs EU 220V/16A when you're trying to grill a dozen things at once. And if you need it, you can then get 2-phase 380V power - bad for the utility bill but great for a high-power induction range.

    Trying to get that kind of power out of a DC circuit on home wiring is gonna be like trying to suck an elephant through a straw. I guess the upside is that you won't have to heat your house, however, as you can just rely on the waste heat from the cable losses.

  103. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    Apart from the economical reasons as outlined by yourself, I always assumed it was a safety issue. I was taught that current kills not Voltage.

    That is a common saying but highly misleading and therefore dangerous.

    What kills is current through the heart and to some extent the duration of that current. Since we can't really be sure what path current will take through the body during a fault we have to consider current through the body. That current is determined by

    1: the impedance of the source
    2: the open circuit voltage of the source
    3: the impedance of the body

    A very high impedance source or a source with minimal total energy available can have a very high open circuit voltage and yet not present a hazard. This is what we see with static electricity.

    However when we are talking about shocks off the mains the impedance of the source is negligable. So the important factors are the voltage of the supply and the impedance of the body. A 230V supply is more likely to deliver a fatal shock than a 120V one. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that things like shuttered sockets and plug cavities/pin insulation are the norm in much of the EU.

    The advantages of the higher voltage are efficiency and lower fire risk.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  104. Low voltage DC for distribution is silly by craighansen · · Score: 1

    Low-voltage DC needs 10x more copper for the same power, and extending power runs to "home run" makes the wires even longer. Unless you pay for that extra copper, wiring losses will eat your savings. The big issue with ACDC conversion is that the AC is 60/50 Hz, which means energy storage of 8-10ms x wattage for efficient conversion is required. Better efficiency and lower wiring costs would come from using higher voltage DC and/or higher frequency AC. Aviation, submarines, spacecraft, trains and some industrial tools use 400 Hz AC - which allows for smaller transformers and motors. DCDC converters essentially have internal oscillators to perform the voltage conversion, and can choose an even higher frequency to minimize energy storage time. The reason we're still using 60/50 Hz is because it's the way things always were, just like train gauges are a good match to two horses side-to-side, and perhaps because 60/50Hz hum is less annoying than 400Hz hum - but hum just means that you're losing power to the environment, so it's power efficient to eliminate that anyway.

    That being said, when retrofitting incandescent lighting systems with lower-power lighting, it could make sense to use existing wiring at a lower voltage AND LOWER POWER LEVEL. That way the power/voltage conversion could be grouped together in one or a few places so that higher-efficiency converters can be used, but still kept close to the points of use to minimize wiring loss. Unfortunately, the retrofit market is going for power conversion in individual lighting fixtures so one fixture at a time can be changed out.

  105. Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our revolutionary, world changing technology requires the world to change in order to work properly.

  106. lithium is an alkali metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're aware that lithium is a rare earth element, right?

    lithium is an alkali metal, not rare earth element.

    The rare earth elements are the lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium.

  107. Ores [Re:A niche product in a niche market] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    You're aware that lithium is a rare earth element, right?

    First, lithium is not a rare earth element.

    http://www.rareelementresource...

    Second, you do know that the rare earth elements are not actually "rare," right? They are roughly the same abundance as copper.

    There's no such thing as lithium ore.

    Sure there are. "Ore" is just a word meaning "a mineral deposit containing a desired substance in economically recoverable concentrations." Lithium ores are typically lithium-containing phyllosilicate minerals, often in the form of evaporite deposits.

    You strip mine millions of tons, process it and get a few tons in return.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  108. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? Where? You can't be talking about the US. You get two single phase 115 VAC "legs" to any home not paying a premium for three phase service, which, as xfade551 noted, is directly from a center-tapped transformer. The neutral, which is tied to the white wire going to every 115 V outlet, is tied to the ground (green wire) as well as earth ground at the service entrance (and only at the the service entrance). I think in most neighborhoods you'll find three phase service and three phase transformers, with each house on a single phase and its own tap from a transformer. Nowhere that I've been will you find a residence connected to two of three phases, and I'll be surprised if anyone can document an example of that type of distribution.

    I'm aware of some high-end residential neighborhoods where three phase service is common in the Phoenix area, primarily because of the economics associated with air conditioning 8000 square feet of floor space in a desert. Folks who can afford those houses don't generally have to worry about the higher base cost of three phase service.

  109. USB Power Delivery spec: Good for in-house wiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new type-C connector (although not required), updated cables, and USB Power Delivery specification may provide an improvement over "dumb" in-home 12V systems for convenient switchable low-voltage DC power distribution. Each device would need a chip that spoke the protocol in order to select the right voltage, but microcontrollers implementing this protocol will be very cheap. For legacy device support, an adaptor containing the smarts could be fashioned.

    The spec (now at version 2.0 / Dec 2014) offers 5 useful profiles:

    1: 5V @ 2A = 10W
    2: 12V @ 1.5A = 18W
    3: 12V @ 3A = 36W
    4: 20V @ 3A = 60W (limit for micro-B connector)
    5: 12V @ 5A / 20V @ 5A = 60W / 100W

    For more see:
    * http://www.usb.org/developers/powerdelivery/
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_Power_Delivery

    I'm not sure how efficiently one can convert Tesla battery pack voltage (somewhere around 375 volts) to the 21 volts or so that you'd want in home wiring for USB PD. Also you'd want relatively thick copper cables, maybe AWG 4 or even 2 I'd guess without looking.

  110. Never happen by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Had the USA not had a power grid, but, each home had its own independent "power plant", the USA would have been on DC long ago. But, back then, it was decided, that it was better to have power generation done from a central location, and have it "piped" to the homes. Of course it became a business, & I seriously doubt the powers that be, will NOT allow home owners to have their own source of power, without some sort of BS tax. They will throw a ton of money at politicians, which do their bidding, and not the people.

  111. 40% coversion loss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like something built out of junk box parts.

  112. Re:USB Power Delivery spec: Good for in-house wiri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine this as a more efficient complement to AC systems and certainly not as a replacement. As others have pointed out, for high power and _many_ motors and appliances, you really need the AC and its associated benefits. But for computing, lighting, and entertainment, a complementary DC system may help improve efficiency for the solar collected power.

  113. Efficiency is much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just picking one brand, the nominal efficiency is 88 per cent (12 per cent loss) and the "line mode" efficiency is >95 per cent (http://www.theinverterstore.com/12000-watt-48-volt-low-frequency-inverter-charger.html#

    small inverters have horrid losses, but once you get to house needs sizing they get better.

    AC versus DC danger ... AC you jerk free of the wire, DC your muscles clamp. I've taken a 3000V AC hit when much younger through a green branch or I'd be likely dead anyway ... And I've taken a short impulse DC 800 volt hit from a large storage capacitor. I'll take the 3000 VAC through a tree branch thank you. Oh, and I've been hit by lightening (through contact with a wet building near its electrical feed, while walking to my nice safe Ford Faraday cage) and that is just no fun for anyone. Alas no super electrical powers or ESP or other comic book worth manifestations from it all.

  114. OPM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's awfully easy to find reasons to confiscate other people's money.

  115. a few steps skipped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first, Tesla has to actually *complete* their "Gigafactory". Then they actually have to *sell* a whole lot of these power systems, enough to convince people that a LV system makes sense. Only then will these batteries "force" anything.

    There are at least two assumed carts, before the horse here.

  116. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't get zero volts if you split your phase into two legs by using a center-tapped transformer.

    Suppose that you number the connections to the secondary winding of the transformer from 1 to 3, with the center tap being number 2.

    The waveform; let's call it "A"; found between connections 1 and 3, is exactly the same waveform you would get if there wasn't a center tap. If you didn't have a center tap, you would probably reference one of the two legs to ground to make a neutral, but that does not alter the waveform.

    The waveform found between connections 2 and 3 is in phase with "A", but has half the amplitude.
    The waveform found between connections 1 and 2 is also in phase with "A", and it also has half the amplitude.

    In practice, the center tap is tied to ground to make a neutral. This has the effect of defining a polarity for the 120V circuits. As such, you would normally end up measuring one of these two wave forms with the opposite polarity to the other, resulting in it being 180 degrees out of phase to the first measurement. So, rather than measuring the waveform between 2 and 3, you would probably measure between 3 and 2 instead. It's the same waveform, but reversing the polarity makes it 180 degrees out of phase with "A".

  117. Re:Main use of household current is high-voltage A by bobbied · · Score: 1

    You'd think that most of the "heating" devices in your home would work fine on DC with only a few modifications. Especially that water heater and ALL of the incandescent light bulbs in the house...

    Did you know that a lot of your electronic devices work great on about 100V DC and wouldn't require any modifications? Most modern switching power supplies really don't care if it's AC or DC on the input, they work just the same either way. Don't just go out and hook up your expensive flat screen to the Prius battery (it can damage stuff sometimes) but chances are it would work... My Laptop charger, a PC desktop and LCD display along with a 30A 12VDC switching supply for my radios all worked just fine...

    Personally, I think we should go with HIGH voltage DC, use it where it makes sense, and not freak out about having to convert it to AC when the need arises.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  118. 20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To avoid the 20% to 40% power loss when converting from DC to AC

    ...they're doing it wrong. DC to AC conversion is easily achieved in the high 90% range. For instance, a typical solar inverter is around 95% efficient. And you can do better, it just gets more expensive (although that's a one-time cost, whereas energy loss is a constant concern.)

    Someone is pushing some other agenda here.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re: 20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the 20 - 40% loss is unsupported. whoever published the original article should know better.

    2. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This

      As frequency converters are essentially ac=>dc=>ac converters, no MW+ sized converter could ever be built with 40% efficiency loss. I believe those efficiencies are more in the 99.9+ range

    3. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by willy_me · · Score: 2

      While you are correct, the article is likely talking about all conversions when powering common DC powered appliances. So 24VDC -> 120VAC -> 5VDC. In this scenario, the 20% to 40% could be realized. It all depends on how crappy the other power supplies are. By minimizing the change in voltage you allow the cheap DCDC converters to work more efficiently.

    4. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With solar cell and battery prices falling sharply and battery tech improving, I don't see conversion inefficency as a big problem. Just add 10% more solar cells to cover up for the conversion losses. As solar becomes more common, hi efficiency inverter pricees will probably also drop.

      Another idea would be to place the converter in the warm water heater and recover the "lost" 5% as heat.

    5. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by TheRecklessWanderer · · Score: 1

      It's probably Sears who wants us to go and buy all new DC appliances.

      --
      Mean what you say...say what you mean.
    6. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      All the inefficiencies stack up. 90% DC -> AC, say 80% for a crummy cheap appliance AC -> DC. You are suddenly down to 72% efficiency or 28% loss. Exactly what the article said.

    7. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but still dc dc is more expensive than ac to dc and more loss. and you eill still have to have 24v dc to 12, 9 and 5v dc not to forget how many amps you eill pull so thick wires in the wall. micro wave 1kw is 40 amps a stove at 2kw is around 80 amps. i would not like to pay to replace my wiring to handel 80amps

    8. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By minimizing the change in voltage you allow the cheap DCDC converters to work more efficiently.

      It's not the voltage difference that's the problem - an unregulated 12V to regulated 12V switch mode converter is still going to max out at around 90-95% efficiency. The limit is due to core losses in the transformers used. You can reduce it by using more expensive transformer cores, and by shielding the transformers to increase flux containment, but it usually adds far more cost than the effiency gains would warrant.

      In the real world most of the efficiency issues in DC-DC, DC-AC and AC-DC converters are due to the Cost Accountants trying to save dollars and cents per unit so as to increase profits for shareholders. A lower retail price doesn't hurt to make something more appealing to consumers as well.

    9. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. If you are generating DC on site, and not a huge amount of it, then it makes sense to have DC appliances since there are so many of them around these days. It only stops making sense when you need a bit of distance, a lot of current, or AC motors.
      So for a house, not bad, for a large building, not such a good idea since you'd need great big copper busbars to carry current.

    10. Re: 20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Simple linear regulators (eg 78xx series) are still pretty common, so regulation loss is proportional to voltage drop squared. Example: 7805 generating 1 amp with minimum voltage drop (2 volts) means 5 watts delivered to load, 2 watts lost, so efficiency is 5/7... roughly 70% efficient. More realistically you would have a 3-4 volt drop to allow for variation on mains and ripple from the rectifier, which drops efficiency to the 55-60% range. (note that efficiency is actually independent of current... 1 amp was selected to simplify calculation).

      Mind you, unless the dc is really smooth and exactly the right voltage for your device (12v? 5v? 3.3v? 13.8v?) nothing much will change. You'll still need a regulator, and linear regulators will still be used for laziness or simplicity.

    11. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      switch mode would be a buck-boost convertor and would use a single toroidal inductor rather than a transformer. Since it is switch mode, it's not operating in the inefficient linear region of the transistor either. (or of the diodes, which matter a great deal in these types of power circuits)

    12. Re: 20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      linear regulators really suck, this is the 21st century. You ought to be using switch mode convertors, especially now that they are small enough to fit inside a cell phone and cheap enough to be part of a $5 micro-USB 5V 2.1A wall wart.

    13. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Pallas+Athena · · Score: 1

      Sure, you can save a lot of losses in this 24VDC -> 120VAC -> 5VDC cycle. But just how relevant is that? All electronic devices and LED-lighting run internally on low voltage DC - but the household appliances that really impact your electricity bill run on 120/230 V AC. Which leaves us at the 95% efficiency the GP mentioned. These appliances could be designed to run on low voltage DC - but whether that would make them any more efficient remains to be seen. Not mentioning the cabling cost - powering your 2000 W oven on 24V DC will require 5 (US) to 10 (EU) times more Ampere - and thus much thicker copper wires. And that is not exactly free these days.

    14. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does NO ONE ELSE see the irony in the guy behind "Tesla" the car company, PUSHING DC?!?!?!? I think the estate, NT's closest living relatives, or whoever, should SUE Musk to force him to stop using the greater genius' name for his DC-based bullshit.

      AC RULES! DC DROOLS... and does so slowly while requiring fat conductors because it's a STUPID way to transmit any real amount of energy any real distance.

    15. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by aurizon · · Score: 2

      With the advent of power FETs, we were able to get rid of the 0.7 volt drop x two = 1.4 volts lost on bridge rectification. Even Germanium and Shottky diodes had 0.3- 0.4 x two = 0.6 to 0.8 volts wasted in rectification. With 12 Volts AC this is a high loss.

      Now they use FETs as switches for "synchronous rectification", a very old concept from the dawn of electricity and used in switching power supplies, with toroidally wound coils which allows for efficiency in the 97%+ range. Look here for data http://bit.ly/1HX5Zea

      Now mobile homes went to 12 volts, and earlier to 6 Volts, due to the car voltages used in those days.
      Now many mobiles are 24 volts.

      with losses well under 5% you can free yourself from many limitations.

      The most powerful reason for the use of 24 volts or less in homes and trailer light and power is the ability to avoid many grid laws and license restrictions that are linked to safety and the 120/240 Volt grid.

      You can operate off-grid quite well at 24 volts. You can use high order home insulation methods to reduce heating and air conditioning loads.
      You can buy many appliances that run on 24V DC - or use 24 volts inverters for each 120 volts appliance of the correct size for each appliance to operate at the 97% efficiency range. Freezer and refrigerators can also be bought with high efficiency insulation to save heat and cold more efficienctly

    16. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by siliconsmiley · · Score: 1

      It's actually more than that. Solar panel -> ac wires -> dc battery -> ac wires -> dc appliances.

    17. Re: 20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by darkarena9789 · · Score: 1

      Wes, I believe it's talking about the full conversion DC-AC-DC. And whoever said that power INVERSION is efficient needs to be shot. Converting DC to AC with a voltage boost is very inefficient. Converting AC back to DC, much better. Still, the point is that you loose some 30% - 40% of your battery power vs. going straight DC.

    18. Re: 20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by billdale · · Score: 1

      It's not an either/or. DC and AC can be wired into the same house w/out issues... low-voltage DC could be fine for lights and small stuff such as phone chargers, laptops, electronics... but the energy losses from low-voltage DC would still make larger appliances such as refrigerators, washing machines, microwaves and hair dryers more efficient to do it as we have been doing it since Tesla (the ORIGINAL Tesla) showed us a century ago. Low-voltage DC still does have its place, though, since it's what LEDs and much of our gadgetry relies on, and is less efficient when a conversion must be negotiated. Also, it's not just Tesla chargers and Tesla cars that are going to make such changes inevitable. There are thousands of solar installers (including Tesla's sister company, Solar City) who are driving the trend to decentralized power, less reliance on The Grid, a more robust infrastructure, and a complex but more practical means of living. Elon Musk is not the only one driving the agenda forward, but no one can deny he has been the most influential single individual in this space.

    19. Re: 20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an electrician and to be honest I don't want to pull #6and larger wires in the walls. The cost of copper alone makes the idea in this article absurd.

    20. Re: 20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of switch mode converters are RFI nightmares. Just FYI. It can be a problem in some installations.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    21. Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The entire article is sensationalism spouted by people who don't know jack about electricity. Its worthless like the rest of slashdot now. Bye.

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  119. Powerwall is 450 Volts DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are so many bogus claims in that article that it's hard to know where to start. But one good place would be the simple fact that the Powerwall is 450 volts DC.

    It's got to be HIGH VOLTAGE because you're freaking trying to pull kilowatts out of it.

    P = I * V

    You want to run at 12 volts? Good, then you'll pull 10 times more current than running at 120 volts. That's going to require much thicker wiring. Think about those big fat cables coming off your car batter (or jumper cables) -- yeah, that's what you'll need to replace your current 120 volt AC wiring.

    Other stupid thinks that the author claims:

    -- Solar panels produce low voltage DC. No, the individual CELLS in a solar panel are low voltage. But the CELLS are stacked so that they create high voltage. Solar panels deliver HIGH VOLTAGE DC to the inverters because it's much less expensive than low voltage. It's much less expensive because the P=IV. IOW, HIGH VOLTAGE means that your cables are much smaller.

    -- Power Inverters have a 20% efficiency loss. That's total nonsense. More like 2% than 20%.

    That article is embarrassingly bad. The fact that it's featured on Slashdot is pretty sad.

  120. DC to AC losses are on the order of 5% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DC to AC losses are on the order of 5%, not 20 to 40%.

  121. Skin effect: DC more deadly at same voltage by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Because you can't electrocute people with DC?

    Actually it is easier to electrocute someone with DC the reason it rarely, if ever, happens is because most DC sources are very low voltage and cannot drive enough current through a human body to be a problem. A high frequency, alternating current is actually relatively safe because of something called the skin effect where only the outer surface of the object conducts the current. For a human this confines the current to your skin and away from vital organs like your heart. It is the reason why Tesla himself could discharge lightning bolts from his fingers without being electrocuted. However you do have to be careful since where the spark leaves your body can get burnt due to the heat of the plasma created.

    1. Re:Skin effect: DC more deadly at same voltage by skids · · Score: 1

      Another special way DC is dangerous is because, while AC will cause your muscles to jerk around, DC will cause them to clench in one direction. Which makes it kinda hard to let go of the wire.

    2. Re:Skin effect: DC more deadly at same voltage by beaubell · · Score: 1

      Skin effect is only that when the media has a uniform impedance. The human body is anything but uniform when it comes to electrical propagation. AC is considered a greater shock hazard to humans because of it's ability to overcome the bodies natural resistance with a lower magnitude (voltage) than DC.

    3. Re:Skin effect: DC more deadly at same voltage by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      Like someone else posted, I don't think it's the "skin effect" that causes this. That's a little different. But everything else is pretty spot on.

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  122. FAT wires! by jtara · · Score: 1

    You beat me to it. FAT wires. Just sayin'. It'll work just fine, so long as you live in a castle, and have one hell of a drill bit to install the wires in the wall.

  123. Too low: don't forget the power requirements! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can see AC to the doorstep a big efficient whole house power supply that has 12vdc and 48vdc rails that are distributed thorough the house and battery backed, and few 220v "appliance circuits" off the AC.

    48V and 12V lines are far too low to be sage and/or sensible. Remember that the power used is equal to the voltage times the current and that the heating of the wire carrying the current goes as the square of that current. Typical house wiring is good for ~30A of current and supplies several plugs in a room typically. With a 12V circuit you limit the power of all the devices connected to this circuit to 360W vs. the 6.6kW you get now (or 3.3kW if you live in North America). Even with a 48V circuit you only get 1.44 kW.

    The result is that either you need to rewire the entire house with massively thick, and therefore expensive, cables to carry the far higher currents or you need to use a higher voltage for transmission. Even the factor of two reduction between Europe and Canada/US is noticeable for some devices: electric heaters are far punier than their European counterparts, kettles take far longer to boil, and Electric lawnmowers are practically useless etc. If you drop the voltage by another factor of 2-10 below even Canada/US then almost all devices will be impacted.

    1. Re:Too low: don't forget the power requirements! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Retro-fitting a house would be expensive, but new houses wouldn't cost a great deal extra. My place was dual-wired with the same cabling (see post above). It's the design that's important - don't let any DC circuit carry more current than the cable is rated for, i.e. 10 amps. Sure, you've got to run more circuits, perhaps a single circuit can't service more than 3 lights, but standard AC cabling is CHEAP, vs. dedicated low voltage cable.

      The low voltage circuit isn't regulated, so it varies throughout the day from 24 - 30 volts, but halogen and LED lights are pretty tolerant, and the fridge doesn't seem to care - it's been running on variable voltage for >20 years. I *could* install some gear to regulate the circuit to ~25 volts, but I don't think it's necessary.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    2. Re:Too low: don't forget the power requirements! by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Typical house wiring is good for ~30A of current

      Top tier household wiring is only good for 20Amp. "Typical" household wiring is only good for 15Amp (or 10Amp for older houses). The situation is worse in Europe where 230Volt is the norm, and the wiring is only speced for half the current of the 100Volt systems. Far too often you see people trying to pull far more current through their in-wall wires than they are rated for, and putting a bigger breaker in the box to stop the breaker from tripping every 5 minutes. These are the same people you see on the evening news, homeless because they burned their house down by running a microwave and refrigerator off a circuit that was install 50 years ago with using lamp cord.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    3. Re:Too low: don't forget the power requirements! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      The situation is worse in Europe where 230Volt is the norm

      Actually not true. The UK has plugs rated for 13 amps per socket with a fuse in the plug itself. Since you have at least two sockets on a circuit you have at least wiring capable of at least 26 amps at 230V.

    4. Re:Too low: don't forget the power requirements! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Standard household wiring (2.5mm^2) is deemed safe for up to 20A when connected to a circuit breaker or 16A when connected to an old-style fuse, while household electric installation groups are almost always connected to a 16A circuit breaker. Wires narrower than 2.5mm^2 are usually only used for the phase wire between light switches and ceiling lamps (typically 1.5mm^2, which is thought to be safe up to 10A with a fuse and 16A with a circuit breaker).

      Special high-current circuit groups, as well as the wiring between the meter and the RCD. This is usually 6mm^2, which is rated up to 40A.

    5. Re:Too low: don't forget the power requirements! by DaChesserCat · · Score: 1

      I tend to think agree that 12 VDC or 48 VDC is too low.

      I'm in favor of 500 VDC . The existing household wiring can handle it; if anything, it will be carrying LOWER amounts of current. Making high-efficiency step-down DC-DC converters is pretty easy (simpler and cheaper than step-up converters). Ditto for inverters; if the peak voltage (RMS AC voltage times sqrt(2)) is < the supplied DC voltage, it is MUCH simpler, easier and cheaper to make an efficient inverter. 500 VDC would let you make up to 355 VAC.

      And 500 VDC is the top voltage for DC-based CHAdeMO high-speed electric vehicle chargers. Tesla's SuperCharger stations run at 480 VDC, but Tesla does offer an adapter to let your Model S charge from a different model charger.

      Put some kind of small, step-up converter, with Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT), on any solar panels so they distribute 500 VDC (similar to microinverters currently available). Make battery controllers which deal with whatever voltage the batteries use (lead-acid and Tesla's Lithium-based PowerWall are going to be different voltages) but accept/distribute 500 VDC. Distribute 500 VDC everywhere in the house. Convert as needed at point-of-use.

      --
      ... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
    6. Re:Too low: don't forget the power requirements! by Ketorin · · Score: 1

      Actually, us Europeans hardly ever use bigger than 16 A breakers for single circuit. If it's a major appliance, it will have three phase supply, with 16 A three-phase breakers (some circuits may opt to 10A, due main breaker "overbooking" rules). Usual house fuse size these days is 35A, I believe apartments have 25A.

      In the bad old times you might have seen stuff like 25 A main fuses for electrically heated home, or two 10 A circuits with ton of branches overbooked from a single 16 A main fuse in an apartment.

    7. Re:Too low: don't forget the power requirements! by Ketorin · · Score: 1

      And what I meant to say before getting carried away was that 16 A breaker is rated for about 3.8 kW and 10 A for 2.2 kW.

    8. Re:Too low: don't forget the power requirements! by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I can see AC to the doorstep a big efficient whole house power supply that has 12vdc and 48vdc rails that are distributed thorough the house and battery backed, and few 220v "appliance circuits" off the AC.

      48V and 12V lines are far too low to be sage and/or sensible. Remember that the power used is equal to the voltage times the current and that the heating of the wire carrying the current goes as the square of that current. Typical house wiring is good for ~30A of current and supplies several plugs in a room typically. With a 12V circuit you limit the power of all the devices connected to this circuit to 360W vs. the 6.6kW you get now (or 3.3kW if you live in North America). Even with a 48V circuit you only get 1.44 kW. The result is that either you need to rewire the entire house with massively thick, and therefore expensive, cables to carry the far higher currents or you need to use a higher voltage for transmission. Even the factor of two reduction between Europe and Canada/US is noticeable for some devices: electric heaters are far punier than their European counterparts, kettles take far longer to boil, and Electric lawnmowers are practically useless etc. If you drop the voltage by another factor of 2-10 below even Canada/US then almost all devices will be impacted.

      Basically, time to split the union of lighting and motor power that made Edison's vision possible, and go to low voltage LED lighting while leaving the 110 volts for everything that needs more than some tens of watts. Also a network of data ports that supply USB voltage/currents for our computerized needs.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  124. Not such a good idea by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    AC has it's advantages.
    Mechanical switches for AC can run higher voltages and currents. Breaking the connection doesn't have to break a potential arc, since the voltages always goes down to zero. High voltage DC is dangerous and more difficult to switch.
    Circuit breakers can too.
    High power appliances need high voltages, the higher the voltage, the lower the current. High current means larger cables or more losses.
    It's really easy to step up or down an AC voltage with a transformer.
    You yanks already suffer boiling water with your 110V 1600W kettles. It's much quicker in 240V countries where 2400W appliances are common. The house wiring is only rated and fused for 16A for an entire circuit, since each outlet only supplies 10A.

  125. High voltage!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_voltage
    High voltage (supply system) > 1000 Vrms > 1500 V electrical arcing

    110V is low voltage.

  126. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't the US just keep to a single 240V for all power outlets, rather than complicate things unnecessarily?

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  127. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  128. It will never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the stupidest thing I've read on /. in a long time. Those of you who understand things know why. Those of you who don't, never will.

  129. HVDC by lfp98 · · Score: 1

    Seems to me the author is understating his own argument, and missing the point, to some extent. The devices he excludes ("Appliances like electric ovens, electric water heaters, and air conditioners will [still] require 110VAC") are precisely the ones that take most of the power, probably 80% in aggregate. So, if you want significant savings, those would have to be DC as well, but it would have to be 220VDC or at least 110VDC, because for 12 volts you would need at least finger-sized copper bus running all through the house. In fact, the most efficient new air conditioners / heat pumps (e.g. Daikin Altherma) run on DC, i.e., they convert the AC to DC which then powers inverter-controlled synchronous motors. A water heater, even an existing one, could just as easily run on 110/220 VDC, you'd just need to replace the control unit. What you'd probably want is a system with at least 2 voltages, say 24V and 220V, each with its own battery charged by its own solar array, so you don't need to do DC/DC voltage conversion (which also has losses though probably not as much as an inverter). Most of the house would only have 24VDC wiring, 220VDC would only go to the kitchen and utility room, just as it does now in AC systems.

  130. Re:Current? Fat cables? by sjames · · Score: 1

    You may be thinking of commercial 3phase wiring where you get 110V phase to neutral and 208v phase to phase. In residential wiring, the final transformer coil is center tapped so you get 110 phase to neutral (center tap) and 220 phase to phase. Note that the two split phases are inverted with respect to each other because the neutral is a center tap.

  131. Total BS by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    "To avoid the 20% to 40% power loss when converting from DC to AC"

    The original author, Self, has exactly zero idea what he is talking about.

    The power loss in a modern inverter like the one in the PowerWall is about 2%. On the panel side, efficiency of 95% is no longer considered competitive. The numbers he's quoting are decades out of date.

  132. DC means heavier cabling and switchgear. by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 1

    This article completely ignores the fact that the DC wiring, for any decent distance, will need to be far thicker than AC wiring. More copper means more expense. Far cheaper to have a SMPS or transformer and rectifier at the points you need DC (which happens to be the present system).

    When you're talking about 12Vdc then voltage drop is going to be a massive hit on any distance that needs to be run. Sure you can run higher DC voltages, but this article is focused on low voltage DC. If you do end up using higher voltage DC, then you will have to use a flyback converter to step the voltage down. You will get the same kind of losses in this case as if you had inverted to mains AC in the beginning.

    On top of that DC switchgear will be far heavier to stop arcing and as the current will be higher. AC doesn't need as heavy switchgear as twice during a cycle the current is zero, making an interruption much easier to perform and with less chance of arcing. If you find a switch rated for both AC and DC, take a look at it: the rated DC voltage will be far lower than the rated AC voltage.

    Sure HVDC is used in some places, but that is typically long distance transmission, especially underwater. Under water, the EMF causes the water surrounding the cables to ionise. If they used AC, the water ionisation would cause significant impedance when the current flows in the opposite direction. Over long runs, these losses are massive, hence they rectify to HVDC. DC doesn't have that impedance issue. Anyway, that is rather irrelevant to a residential situation.

  133. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HornWumpus read above or get a much better education before you slam someone!

    I also am an Electrical Engineer; As xfade551 stated quite clearly standard residential is derived off on a single phase of a 3 phase distribution system. Your home gets its 120 VAC RMS from a centered tapped transformer where the neutral and ground are connected to the center of the transformer windings. This gives you 120 VAC RMS from each side of the transformer output to neutral/ground and 240 VAC RMS from each output terminal of the transformer. It has been this way for a hundred years; so you really should be able to find a lot of good reference material on this.

    Strange name for a web site, but a good basic overview, with a transformer diagram:

    http://www.beananimal.com/arti...

    Note: voltages may vary depending on your local municipality.

    One other issue I haven't seen discussed. Hi-Energy DC has switching issues as there is no voltage/current zero-crossing. Arc suppression becomes a real issue here with some real interesting failure modes!

  134. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by HiThereImBob · · Score: 1
    Teslas costs are also very high compared to whats out there. They want $3,000 for a 10KW battery. Sure it's pretty and doesn't require much space, but you can buy 6V 230AH golf cart batteries for $105, something like this: http://sunelec.com/batteries/s... .

    6V*230AH = 1380 watts per battery. 10KW / 1.38 = 7.25 batteries I need to match their energy storage capacity. At $105 per battery that only costs $760. So, do you want to pay $3,000, or $760?

    I could build the entire system, with an inverter, battery charger, and a couple solar panels for what they charge for just the battery.

  135. The author missed an important detail. by FirstOne · · Score: 1

    The Tesla Powerwall battery packs is wired for a 350-400 volt range, and come bare bones except for some equalization circuitry, (no charger nor inverter). Any modifications to the battery pack itself would likely void the warranty. How ever adding a low voltage circuit does have it merits, but the Powerwall will not be a factor.

    I have considered running a solar/battery backed up 32-35 volt DC supply into the house, and use a number of 5-pack LM2596S stepdown inverters. The adjustable nature of these DC buck converters can power DC fans, Security system, DVRs, Antenna amps, Sat boxes, night lights, laptops, LCD monitor, door bell, automation system, charging stations, etc. The higher distribution voltage keeps losses to a minimum while providing uninterrupted power.

    .

  136. It's over by slew · · Score: 1

    Ironically, Tesla (the new one) and Edison are on the same side this time... DC for the win ;^)

  137. we need a standard for lighting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the advent of leds, we need a new standard for lighting. Conventional phase cut dimmers dont work properly and 14awg wiring is way overkill now. Decide on a dc voltage, wire size and conductor count. Do we want smart switches where we encode control over the power leads for less conductors?
    Also with leds wean alter the color temp if the units have multiple drivers in them. That control could be considered as well

  138. 220, guys! by AndyCanfield · · Score: 1

    eventually eliminate the need for high-voltage 110V electrical wiring.

    Slashdot is so American it's pitiful. Ninety percent of the world runs on 220 volt 50 cycle power.

    - Andy (Thailand)

  139. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few years ago I owned a condo, and we got a letter that told us that if an outlet went out in the dining room, that we should not replace it ourselves, and that we should hire an electrician. That got me curious of course, so I got out a voltmeter, and measured 208V between the top and bottom hot wires in the outlet. As in, the top and bottom half of the outlet were on different circuits and on different phases.

  140. We're planning a 24V DC hybrid system by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    We will have solar panels but lots of partial-array shading so no series-strings for us thus no high DC voltage and sadly, no Tesla Powerwall.

    Instead, we'll go for a large 24V LiFePO4 of LiYFePO4 battery pack, and re-use some of our existing house circuits for 24 V DC for LED lights and 24V fridge and freezer. The 24V or 48V RV/Yacht fridges/freezers available are 5 to 10 times more energy efficient than standard "Energy Star" AC fridges.

    Then we'll run a cheap DC/AC inverter or two for running laptops from the DC system.

    Laptops, lights, (beer) fridge. In summer, what else do you need really?

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:We're planning a 24V DC hybrid system by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Sounds good. I thought our system would be compromised by high trees in the west, but an audit showed otherwise. The auditor used a special data logger - place it face up on the center of the panel array, it logs lat and long, then uses a small fisheye lens to take a picture of the sky from the panels' perspective. It then processes the data in the picture to calculate an efficiency rating. I think it considers blue sky and cloud as a plus, and anything dark, such as a tree, to be a minus. It also takes into account that daily insolation forms a bell-curve or sine-wave shape due to the changing angle of the sun's rays across the flat plane of the panels, so that an obstruction near the eastern or western horizons isn't nearly as important as an obstruction in the northern horizon (that's for the southern hemisphere - if you live in the northern hemisphere you'd be wanting to remove obstructions in the southern skyline). Our situation was given a 94% efficiency rating.

      BTW, what sort of compressors are in your fridges/freezers? The Danfoss 24VDC compressors are great.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  141. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are not wrong at all. the whole thing was written like someone just starting out. on a 12v system your highest regular charge controller is 80a, around about 1kw, on a 48v system you can do 4x more solar input on the same cables and controller. i use this online calculator alot - http://www.solar-wind.co.uk/cable-sizing-DC-cables.html

    as it shows a 2kw kettle, with 1m of DC cables, would have to be 70mm2 cable to have little loss. or 16mm2 (still pretty expensive and large) for a 5% voltage loss. however, if you accept 5% loss but if your kettle is 5 metres away you're back to needing 70mm2.

    using AC is not all about the appliances, it is mainly about the distribution - you can't possibly keep everything (inverter, batteries, fuse boards etc) all within the same space. also you can buy 3 chinese all-in-one inverter chargers for the price of a small DC fridge.

  142. Safety Notice - Read the Instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Generally commercial electricians are not familiar with DC power distribution, unless they are in the regular business of solar power installation, or work in an an industrial plant that still has some ancient DC distribution dating from the early 1900's.

    Anyone thinking about using 120 volt DC needs to understand how equipment is rated, and the special wiring arrangements needed to ensure DC rated equipment will not explode when switched. Eaton sells one of the several lines of circuit breakers able to handle 120V DC. These are expensive compared to regular panel board breakers, and must be wired per the technical documents, or they tend to fail spectacularly (this is due to physics so this requirement to read the instructions applies to ALL brands).General DC Circuit Breakers

  143. Lava lamp by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    Such a small heating source could come from a soldering iron, and 12VDC soldering irons are not difficult to find.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  144. dead wrong and clueless poster by luther349 · · Score: 1

    someone hear was clueless when he posted this a good ac inverter can be as good as 98% and make a better sine wave then the power company can provide meaning your power is even cleaner then grid. if you wired something like a house for dc thousands of square feet you would lose even more power from dc falloff then running a good ac inverted system. small system like rvs and cabins are only a few feet meaning running full dc is simply cheaper and those power lose is around the same.

  145. Re:Wrong. Tesla batteries are 350-450 volts by luther349 · · Score: 1

    yea that's way to hi no panel or charge controller goes that hi to charge the battery they need to wires these in a 12 to 48v option. granted with enough panels in serise you might get that voltage but no controller to charge not to mention none are program for lithium battery's the rest of the green world needs to catch up before the tesla wall is usefull..

  146. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Occasionally in a commercial or industrial facility, you may find a 2-pole electrical panel that is a sub-circuit to a three-phase Y-configured panel (120/208V Typical configuration)"

    Occasionally? Really? This is the common set up in nearly every urban area. If you live downtown you probably have 120/208V and you are probably in a networked area (the utility uses network protectors which sense a revers current flow to detect faults, the network protector opens and the electricity flows around, not through the damaged portion of the distribution system).

    Now I can understand why you might think that 120/208V is rare if you are living in your Mom's basement in the suburbs...you might want to get out more.

  147. Remember when AC/DC was electricity? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine rented an old Victorian house in downtown San Jose (Silicon Valley for the geographically challenged) that had 12V DC outlets. The wiring still worked. He plugged his CB radio by sticking the red and black wires directly into the outlet.

  148. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks so much for this explanation. I studied as an electrical engineer, but we always stayed way out in theory land, and never once covered the concepts of how a house is wired, or where the 120/240 volt difference comes from. I've google enough that I finally figured it out, but your simple explanation still cleared some things up for me. Thanks!

  149. Alternate Forms of Wiring? by Westie1 · · Score: 1

    Pretend that we could make graphene wire or ribbons in long lengths. Would this change the situation for home wiring (either retrofitting or new construction)?

  150. I've been thinking about this for a LONG time by storkus · · Score: 1

    A few facts that, for some reason, haven't been stated in this discussion:

    1. EMI/RFI--AC systems radiate a lot of noise. Some come from lines discharging through a natural diode and the rest is the lower frequency 50/60 cycle AC and its harmonics. Even discounting the EMI-sensitive people out there (whether you believe them or not), there's no question that it affects receivers and some other electronics, and occasionally magnetics like a credit card. DC normally shouldn't have this problem.

    2. Outside of motors and other heavy loads, most loads outside of factories and such are light loads, thus 48-60 volts with light gauge wiring might be sufficient for short (household or small business) distances.

    3. A *BIG* safety issue no one has talked about is the increasing danger with voltage and going DC. This is a 2 pronged problem:

    A. with AC the voltage goes down to zero every half-cycle, which is why switches can be made relatively simple under that 400 volts mentioned. But this disappears at DC and an arc or spark that fires WILL *STAY* FIRED as long as the power remains applied! I learned this at a GM discussion for mechanics when they were discussing the (new then) Chevy EV1 and its competition from Honda and Toyota when they talked about why they chose 36 volts for that car: its the highest voltage that won't carry a stable arc. The speaker pointed out that a pin hole, which would self-heal and not normally cause a problem on normal 12 volt circuit, would cause a self-maintaining arc at 48 volts if the hole came into contact with the frame. Of course, we all know what happened: the car failed due to lack of range (using lead acid!) and power (ohmic loss). But the safety issues remain, even on modern cars with high voltage DC battery packs, even though they seem to be solved...

    B. Above 400 volts or so flash danger becomes a real threat, as lots of Youtube videos attest. Going to DC this could be a lot worse, I would think, as the arcs wouldn't self-extinguish. Combine this with heating inside the cells due to internal resistance and you could see a big BOOM!

  151. ever tried powering AC or an oven over 12 volt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you power a few lights, fine.

    If you want to power something in the range of 2000-3000 watts, like an oven or an AC, you either have huge losses and overheated cables, or you will need cables that cost about $100 per meter. And they're heavy, and you'll need lots of copper too.

    Also the article states th solar panels provide 12 volt. Most home solar systems operate in the 100-600 volt range. Again, the cables would be really expensive if you did this differently.

    The guy writing the source article has no idea what he is talking about.

  152. Back to the future by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    In the 1940's, my grandfather ran his rural house and dairy farm on 12 volts DC, because utility power hadn't yet reached his location. Now we have utility power everywhere, but we don't like it any more, so we're going back to batteries. Funny how things go in cycles.

  153. capacitance loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's also capacitance loss. The two conductors constitute a capacitor. With AC that has to be discharged then recharged in the opposite polarity, for every cycle. This loss is negligible if the conductors are far apart as in a typical high voltage line, or short as in a building. But if the conductors are close together, or buried, or undersea, it's a big loss. So DC is useful especially for buried or undersea lines.

    1. Re:capacitance loss by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Capacitors store energy, they don't dissipate it. Likewise with inductors.

      Transmission lines represent both capacitive and inductive loads simultaneously. The capacitance, inductance, resistance of the transmission line together combine to form the characteristic impedance of the line. (Ok, there's one additional term: the conductance of the dielectric between the conductors. But, for high voltage transmission lines that are widely separated, this term is effectively 0.)

      The characteristic impedance of a transmission line is of primary importance for determining the ideal load impedance for the line. In an impedance matched system, the maximum power will be transmitted to the load with no reflections.

      Reflections can cause a phase shift between voltage and current, making a transmission line effectively look reactive or inductive. (See surge impedance loading.) This can be corrected for in the same ways as reactive or inductive loads by adding capacitance or inductance elsewhere.

      If the load itself is reactive or inductive then you can get reactive power transfer. Reactive vs. inductive is in some sense a matter of sign; in one, current leads voltage, in the other current lags voltage. In both cases, current is out of phase with voltage and that's the problem to be solved.

      Reactive power doesn't transmit any actual power to the load, but it still sends current through the system. Current is subject to ohmic losses (thanks to our friend I*I*R). Sending current without delivering real power subjects you to losses without any benefits.

      In general, the capacitance of the transmission line itself isn't the culprit on its own. Rather, if you have a reactive load (either capacitive or inductive), or you have imperfect impedance matching between the load and the transmission line, you can get current flowing through your wires that isn't driving a load. That excess current incurs plain ol' resistive losses.

      There is one way high capacitance can cause real problems for transmission line management, though. The rate of propagation of waves through a conductor slows in proportion to the square root of the product of the inductance and the capacitance. So, for a highly capacitive line, reflections move slowly through the system, and it becomes more difficult to compensate for transients. That seems to be the real bugbear for buried high-capacitance lines. Again, you're not losing to the capacitance directly, but rather to the knock on effects that lead to poorly compensated reflections and reactive power transfer in the system.

      (Dr. Jetton, if you're reading this... EE305 may have been 20 years ago for me, but I haven't completely forgotten it. And Dr. Schertz... I didn't completely forget my T-line theory either. I wouldn't be surprised if either of you would point out flaws in my summary above.)

  154. 240V is the standard in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Yeah, pretty much. Mains voltage in Oz is 240v AC for similar reasons, we can run a 2400w Clothes Dryer from a single phase, standard 10A outlet. IN the US this requires 2 phases IIRC.

    Nope.

    Residential service in the US is 240V single phase that get's split into two 120V 'legs'. That's why most people think that they have 120V service and two phases.

    Your distribution box has two power busses, one bus is connect to leg-1 and one is connected to leg-2. If you want a 120V circuit then you use a connect to only one bus (through a circuit breaker of course). If you want 240V, you use a circuit breaker that connect across both busses.

    As a rule, we don't do multi-phase residential service. You can get it but it's very uncommon.

  155. Standard residential service IS 240V in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've already got 240V service. That's the US standard.

    Standard US residential service is single phase 240V. That's what shows up inside your distribution box.

    The distribution box has two bus bars. Each one is connected to one leg of the 240V service.

    When you want a 120V circuit you install a 120V circuit breaker. That circuit breaker draws power from only one leg.

    When you want a 240V circuit you install a 240V circuit breaker. That circuit breaker draws power from both legs. Some people think that a 240V circuit is a 'two phase' circuit. That's not correct.

    Most of the circuits are 120V but you'll have 240V for any device that pulls a large amount of current.

    1. Re:Standard residential service IS 240V in the US by jwdb · · Score: 1

      No, that is two-phase power, and I know what I'm talking about because I have the textbook that covers it. If you have two 120 V lines (or legs, as you call them), the only way you'd get 240 V between them is if they're out of phase, which is by definition a two-phase system. Put them in phase and the voltage difference is zero, and you get nothing whatsoever out of them.

      By your logic Europe has 380 V service because they get 240 V off of a single line.

      I'll give you a point for knowing that connecting between a line and neutral vs between two lines gives you a different voltage, but you need to go reread the section on terminology and why it works that way.

  156. 110 volts AC as high voltage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > high-voltage 110V electrical wiring.

    What, 110 volts as high voltage? Europe uses 230V / 50Hz AC.

    I think US people are primarily afraid of AC in homes and offices because of the suspicion it causes brain tumors via EM fields. Some allege the doubly higher amperages used in american home wiring (due to only 110V /60Hz AC tension) are responsible for the discrepancy versus Europe (230V AC).

    Some allege the some problem can be observed in Japan (I think they uses 100 volts 60Hz AC). Since japanese people are generally long-lived and eat healthy, cancer problems are easier to spot among them.

  157. Diodes by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    Even with switching power supplies, 12v is not optimal because of the losses in the diodes. Even Schottky diodes have a voltage drop of 0.3v or so.

    I think it would be a good idea to standardize on something in the 40-50 volt range for the DC grid in the house, with some leeway for adjusting the actual charging voltage to what is convenient for the battery.
    A 42-volt electrical system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42-volt_electrical_system#Choice_of_voltage) comes to mind. Even if it did not really take off the first time around.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
    1. Re:Diodes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the voltage is not particularly important if you are totally FET-based instead of using diodes. what would you do with the diodes if you aren't rectifying AC? my own switched designs are totally MOSFET based and don't need any schottky diodes. Feeding that toaster oven or microwave 100A at 12V becomes less troublesome if you aren't taking a half volt drop over your power supply components.

  158. Dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, Lets rewire all houses known to exist.

    the quality of these articles has now reached a new low. GJ DICE.

    *double facepalm*

  159. Costs too much! by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Low voltage means high currents to get the same load...and higher currents means bigger losses in the cables that all need to get replaced to not burn up under the higher current. That proposal can come only from people who never wired anything. Dumb idea!

  160. $$$ will determine who wins in the long run by servant · · Score: 1
    If using high-power DC needs to go over a few feet, then AC will win IMHO. AC can travel longer distances over smaller wire (meaning, lower cost wire due to reduced copper needed) with the same losses.

    .

    Calculate your DC requirement to have bigger battery (by 20%) if running AC, vs cost of 'new' appliances and larger wire needed for the same power in DC. Whoever wins in that equation should (and in the long run will, IMHO) win.

    This is true for solar panels and power from them to the battery charge circuits too. The further the DC power needs to go, the more it costs in losses of power or cost of wire.

    --
    ... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
  161. Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W by Ketorin · · Score: 1

    The real win of the 400V system, btw is that you can travel about 4 kms from the transformer, which gives much more freedom designing the medium voltage network. The transformers are all three phase to keep the inbalance off from the medium voltage side (much less transformers, less chance to do blancing there).

  162. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the US, that 3 phase Y is referred to as 208 3 phase. Each leg is 120 to neutral and 208 between any of the 3 phases. The low voltage referenced is the difference between 240V for a single phase 2 leg panel and a 3 phase panel of 208. A 240 Volt appliance will see 32 volts less than it was designed for. Ovens will be slower. Single phase window air conditioners will be running in a constant brown out condition and may stall, or draw excess current and burn out early.

  163. Re:Current? Fat cables? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Forgive me if I have this wrong, but if we start wiring houses for low voltage DC, won't this mean huge fat copper cables to deal with the current implications of a washing machine or oven pulling tens, even hundreds of amps because of Ohms law?

    We can use copper girders instead of studs in the walls, and let them carry the current. Just thinking outside the box.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  164. Re:Current? Fat cables? by Agripa · · Score: 1

    We took advantage of this at one place where I lived. We had an electric dryer but the house was built for a gas dryer so initially instead of running a 240 volt circuit, we rewired one of the outlets in the room with the dryer to use the other phase and plugged the dryer in using two 120V plugs with hot and neutral going to one and the other hot going to the other. The dryer was also modified to halve the power drawn by the heating element to keep the current reasonable.

  165. Skin is the insulator by DrYak · · Score: 1

    That could very well happen.

    The voltage and the current from a test meter are both insignificant.

    The reason why low voltage isn't dangerous usually, is because the skin is a damn good insulator requiring voltage above 100v to break (one of the argument invoked by countries using 100volts, whereas the rest is 220v).

    The Darwin Award example did stick needle-like pointy ends of the probe *through* the skin. The skin's high insulation/resistance wasn't there any more to shield against "insignificant voltage". The serum of the blood isn't distilled water but is filled with electrolyte. Quite conducting mix. It also runs through the hearth. The rest of the fuilds inside a body are all rich with electrolytes too. That means that the *inside* of a body can conduct electricity quite well, and the hearth can easily get in its path (specially if you put each electrode pole at opposite side).
    (one of the reason why it's not a bright idea to swim during a storm. the inside of your body is a *better* conductor that the water around you in the swimming pool, the skin is the only thing in the way blocking the electricity).

    The actual delta-V needed for a muscle cell or a nerve to react is quite low (a few dozens of mili-volts are needed to rise above the threshold and cause contraction or impulse propagation). So with the skin barrier removed, it's quite likely that the remaining salty fuilds (mostly blood, but also extra-cellular fluids) can carry enough to cause a jolt to the hearth, enough to disrupt the normal rhythm.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Skin is the insulator by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      Then why doesn't it happen more often?

    2. Re:Skin is the insulator by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      Actually a healthy heart will regain rhythm easily.

    3. Re:Skin is the insulator by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      I do wish Slashdot would let you edit posts, then I wouldn't have to reply three times! I've had quite a few jolts from 240 volt mains from one hand to the other. Explain why I'm not dead.

  166. Answers. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    I do wish Slashdot would let you edit posts, then I wouldn't have to reply three times!

    I'll group the answers.

    Then why doesn't it happen more often?

    Well, you need to stick needles into the body quite big and deep to have a good contact (the probes mentioned in this Darwin award). And apply a sufficient voltage to them, for a long enough time. That's quite a convoluted way that doesn't happen in every day life.
    (I hardly see example how it could happen, except deliberately as in the example).

    Actually a healthy heart will regain rhythm easily.

    Generally speaking, yes, I agree. A healthy heart should restart.
    That's in fact the principle which is used by defibrillators:
    - a firbillation: is a big electrical mess where the cells a completely desynchronised and are firing mostly at random each triggered by the mostly random fires of their neighbours. Electrically, the heart gives a signal that looks like white noise. Mecanically, the heart isn't beating in a coordinated manner, but instead its surface is more or less kind of "vibrating" making tons of small uncoordinated local micro-contraction (that's what fibrillation means).
    - fire a charge a the heart
    - the charge cause all the muscle cells (and the specialized muscle cells that serve as the heart's equivalent of nerves) to contract at the same time and stay contracted for the short duration of the charge.
    - after the shock, most of the cell are more or less at the same position in the cycle. (and thus none will start miss firing due to other nearby miss-fires). They are more or less in "waiting state".
    - natural rhythm generator generates impulse as usual, and now all the cell should follow the same impulse travelling along the heart (and its nerve-like specialised fibers).
    - heart should contract in a coordinated manner and beat as it should.

    BUT....
    In the Darwin awards example, the current is constant. Which doesn't cause a "resync" as the single pulse that a defibrillator's shock is. Also, given the low resistance of the salty water medium, the current is probably quite high which is dangerous. (I mean relatively speaking).
    There's a much higher risk of the heart going into fibrillation in this case.

    Of course adding some heart disease could increase the likely hood of dying.
    But the absence of disease isn't a definite guarantee to die from such shocks.

    I've had quite a few jolts from 240 volt mains from one hand to the other. Explain why I'm not dead.

    Basically: you got lucky.

    Probably the shocks where short. Or by luck the travel path of the current didn't happen to reach the heart (I've once had a thunder struck patient that survived exactly because of that: the heart wasn't touched).
    The fact that you survived previous shock and the fact that you don't have a heart disease doesn't necessarily make you immortal and doesn't guarantee that you won't die next time.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Answers. by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      I've had quite a few jolts from 240 volt mains from one hand to the other. Explain why I'm not dead.

      Shocks affect different people differently. Some people can handle this. Some can't. It is enough to grab you and not let you go. That usually means your hand has to be grasping live metal for you to "not let go" Like the darwin awards, low voltage (below 2400) shocks are only fatal if they get you for long enough to damage the heart. A quick jolt here and there does very little.

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  167. Force? Seriously? by janerules · · Score: 1

    No one is forcing anything. Low Voltage is what all the high end reliable equipment for homes is sold in. People are speaking with their wallets and building better homes. I have Tesla charging stations on order for several homes and I've already received a request for a Powerwall. The best equipment for home automation is low voltage. Change is good, nowadays....

  168. DarinBob = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject "Forrest" & this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...