Fixing the NEC

jim dungar said:
Constructing a new home has almost always been more expensive than buying an existing home.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons why property insurance policies are often for replacement value, not a set amount.

Birken Vogt said:
There are so many things needlessly driving up prices and other costs. I live in California so my list may not apply to you
Click to expand...
[list omitted]
I shouldn't have to say this, but there's a large difference in the prices/costs of new construction vs replacement, and the replacement cost recovery varies a lot with location. Still have that 1970's freezer? (see below)

There are also indirect effects of what you buy and use, like, say, cleaner air (I remember the 70's, often when you couldn't see Mt Wilson at all from Colorado Blvd)) or less need for new electric transmission lines. As the old man would say "'tain't all about you."


And if we're going to talk about older appliances, at least read the abstract which I've partially quoted-
www.sciencedirect.com

Impact of aging on the energy efficiency of household refrigerating appliances

The parameters required to calculate the energy efficiency of household refrigerating appliances (i.e. refrigerators, freezers and their combinations)…
www.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com
Eleven new appliances are examined under standard measurement conditions. After just two years of operation, an additional energy consumption of up to 11% is determined. Furthermore, 21 older appliances that had previously been measured in new condition are tested again after up to 21 years of operation. For these older appliances, an average increase of energy consumption of 28% is found. For individual appliances, the maximum increase is 36%. An aging model is developed on the basis of these measurement results, which may help to predict the aging-related increase of energy consumption of household refrigerating appliances. This model shows an average increase in energy consumption of 27% for an appliance age of 16 years.
Click to expand...
 
zbang said:
One of the reasons why property insurance policies are often for replacement value, not a set amount.


[list omitted]
I shouldn't have to say this, but there's a large difference in the prices/costs of new construction vs replacement, and the replacement cost recovery varies a lot with location. Still have that 1970's freezer? (see below)

There are also indirect effects of what you buy and use, like, say, cleaner air (I remember the 70's, often when you couldn't see Mt Wilson at all from Colorado Blvd)) or less need for new electric transmission lines. As the old man would say "'tain't all about you."


And if we're going to talk about older appliances, at least read the abstract which I've partially quoted-
www.sciencedirect.com

Impact of aging on the energy efficiency of household refrigerating appliances

The parameters required to calculate the energy efficiency of household refrigerating appliances (i.e. refrigerators, freezers and their combinations)…
www.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com
Click to expand...
I’ll have to read that, but does it take into account the manufacturing that takes for all these new appliances that only last 10 years vs older more energy consuming items that have been around since the 70’s yes they use more energy compared but does that include all the other variables or are they cherry picking information.
Thrown away three washers vs the old school one I also use— the gas and my time to throw those away to me seem to cost more than the extra few bucks that washer cost to run..

Now can manufacturers make a product that last just as long as old units while saving energy probably- but then they sell less- but that’s a different argument
 
Read it- only talked about energy savings but does not account for other savings that you get from older units- so it’s only good for showing the savings on running the unit
 
Birken Vogt said:
There are so many things needlessly driving up prices and other costs. I live in California so my list may not apply to you

1. Residential fire sprinklers. Fire chiefs went on record saying unnecessary, but that was after the law was taking effect. Nobody asked them.
2. Energy efficiency standards for gas furnaces. You will never see payback on a condensing furnace because one breakdown will cancel all savings and an early major replacement event will put you way behind an 80% model.
3. Heat pump water heaters: see above
4. Various building efficiency standards: never see payback.
5. Fancy appliances that break and get replaced within 10 years, meanwhile I still run my 2002 refrigerators and my 1970s freezer that I have done minor repairs to once every 15 years or so
6. All sorts of construction standards that make every car look like a jelly bean SUV, meanwhile I still drive and actively use my 200x vehicles mainly because I know how to fix them.
Click to expand...
I'll add automatic receptacle control (nobody wants it, they'll plug into the non-controlled circuit and the things that are controlled don't save enough to justify the cost of adding all this control) and even automatic lighting control in general (once we switched to LED, the savings on adding a whole bunch of occupancy/vacancy sensors went away).
 
going_commando said:
8,000,000 stickers that say electricity is dangerous is stupid, because people who work on electricity know it's dangerous, and people who don't know it's dangerous are going to ignore the stickers
Click to expand...
I must say that the knob & tube I've inspected was crafted to a high level,
and almost totally perfect, by guild trained electricians.

These days we've "lowered the bar" on knowledge with "safer and safer" products that
also lower the bar on which dude at Home Depot can install them, collect the check and drive far enough away before they fail.
Not good.
 
Last edited:
going_commando said:
11. Get rid of the separate barrier rule for multi-gang meter packs. Anyone dumb enough to go flailing around in a live meter pack should feel pain for it. Stop making stuff more expensive because someone was a moron 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
Yes please. All these rules have been biggering all the equipment, so it just literally does not fit in retrofit situations.

Making equipment too idiot proof just convinces idiots that they should be installing electrical equipment.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
For example the supply breakers for a 3 phase multiwire branch circuit are 1, 16, and 29. How is the worker to know that is a multiwire circuit and understand the hazards of working on the neutral of such a circuit when there is no indication that it is a multiwire circuit.
Click to expand...
So target 3-phase only in the code.
And are we past the point where training is possible -- if they so misunderstand a MWBC what other horrors will they do?
 
Master Nater said:
this is why i ask, what good did performing our fault current calculations actually do?
Click to expand...
Elect117 said:
how do you select your PPE?
Click to expand...
PPE is selected for incident energy, which available fault current is only a part of the equation to figure that out. On top of that I'm willing to bet most available fault current labels placed to comply with NEC only are not accurate enough to get reliable incident energy, but are good enough to determine if SCCR or AIC rating of equipment is sufficient as many likely are factoring in worst case possible for fault current level.

High fault current but for shorter time can still have less incident energy than low fault current with longer duration and require higher level of PPE. The SCCR/AIC of a piece of equipment can be suitable for either situation though.
 
brycenesbitt said:
So target 3-phase only in the code.
Click to expand...
The same thing can happen in a single phase panel. For example breakers 1 and 19, or 9 and 12, or any number of other combinations. The handle tie rule makes us install the breakers for a multiwire circuit next to each other.
brycenesbitt said:
And are we past the point where training is possible -- if they so misunderstand a MWBC what other horrors will they do?
Click to expand...
pretty much..no one has time for training!! just make it work, does not matter if it is correct as long as it works!
 
Submit a PI to add to Art 100 that unless you are trained and qualified you work on electrical systems at your own risk. So, they can leave out all the idiot proof stuff everywhere else. If you don't know what you are doing, you have no business doing it. If you or other people get dead, it's because of your stupidity.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
Submit a PI to add to Art 100 that unless you are trained and qualified you work on electrical systems at your own risk.
Click to expand...
And who does the training and qualifications? How long do they last?

I remember a journeyman union worker who had 25 years of experience in industrial systems up to 15kV. He had know idea how to put a new service on his hunting cabin. He last worked on residential when he was an apprentice.
 
hbiss said:
Submit a PI to add to Art 100 that unless you are trained and qualified you work on electrical systems at your own risk. So, they can leave out all the idiot proof stuff everywhere else. If you don't know what you are doing, you have no business doing it. If you or other people get dead, it's because of your stupidity.

-Hal
Click to expand...
There are lots of "qualified person" rules in the NEC and in the real world, there is absolutely no way to enforce those rules. The AHJ has no way to determine if you are a qualified person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top