Would love to see more mainstream DC lighting options and an updated code to match. I just finished a remodel of my workshop and blew over a hundred bucks on 14/2 for a 15 amp lighting circuit that is unlikely to ever see more than a 1 amps load.

The irony is all the recessed lights I picked out are DC, they all have little AC-DC boxes hanging off them using a proprietary connector. If I hadn't needed to pass a rough-in inspection going all DC would've been trivial.

Not going to happen. For the same reason that the US never converted to a higher domestic voltage even though there are many practical advantages. The transition from one system to another at the consumer level would be terrible, even if there would be some advantage (and I'm not sure the one you list is even valid, you'd get DC-DC converters instead because your consumers typically use a lower voltage than the house distribution network powering your sockets) it would be offset by the cost of maintaining two systems side by side for decades.

You could wire your house for 12, 24 or 48V DC tomorrow and some off-grid dwellers have done just that. But since inverters have become cheap enough such installations are becoming more and more rare. The only place where you still see that is in cars, trucks and vessels.

And if you thought cooking water in a camper on an inverter is tricky wait until you start running things like washing machines and other large appliances off low voltage DC. You'll be using massive cables the cost of which will outweigh any savings.

Well, having spent some time operating a 12VDC system last year when I moved into some shacks, I will say that I find it a lot more convenient to run 120VAC.

I end up converting stuff anyhow, because all my loads run at different voltages- even though I had my lights, vent fan, and heater fans running on 12V I still ended up having to change voltages for most of the loads I wanted to run, or generate a AC to to charge my computer and run a rice cooker.

Not to mention that running anything that draws any real power quickly needs a much thicker wire at 12V. So you're either needing to run higher voltage DC than all your loads for distribution and then lowering the voltage when it gets to the device, or you simply can't draw much power.

Not that you can't have higher voltage DC; with my newer system the line from my solar panels to my charger controller is around 350VDC and I can use 10awg for that... but none of the loads I own that draw much power (saws, instapot, rice cooker, hammond organ, tube guitar amp) take DC :D

The lesser-known instance of this is RV power. When you're running off small batteries and solar, you want to make the best use of the watt-hours you have, and that means avoiding the DC-to-AC-to-DC loop wherever possible. So you run 12V (or in newer models, higher voltage) versions of everything, upconverting as necessary.

Assuming you live in a "large" western home, it's impractical. Remember, Edison's first power grid operated at 110/220v DC to the home. If there was lower voltage (IE, 12 volts) going from the street to your walls, the line loss would be significant. It only works in RVs and shacks because the wires are short.

Thus, even if you had DC in the walls, it would be 100+ volts, and you'd still have conversion down to the lower voltages that electronics use. If you look at the comments in this thread from people who work in telco, they talk about how voltage enters equipment at -48V and is then further lowered.

It's called USB power delivery

home appliances have lower voltage, like 12V or 5V. The wire loss and heat would be a problem.

With modern technologies, that's power over ethernet or USB-C. Other comments in this thread point out that the telephone service also routinely used 48V for the ring signal.

However, higher DC voltage is riskier, and it's not at all standard for electrical and building code reasons. In particular, breaking DC circuits is more difficult because there's no zero-crossing point to naturally extinguish an arc, and 170V (US/120VAC) or 340V (Europe/240VAC) is enough to start a substantial arc under the right circumstances.

Unfortunately for your lighting, it's also both simple and efficient to stack enough LEDs together such that their forward voltage drop is approximately the rectified peak (i.e. targeting that 170/340V peak). That means that the bulb needs only one serial string of LEDs without parallel balancing, making the rest of the circuitry (including voltage regulation, which would still be necessary in DC world) simpler.

> I don't understand why new houses don't just have one high quality AC/DC converter so you can just use LED lighting without every bulb needing its own AC/DC converter.

IEEE 802.3bt can deliver up to 71W at the destination: just pull Cat 5/6 everywhere.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_over_Ethernet#Standard_i...

* https://www.usailighting.com/poe-lighting

Every decent LED would then need … a switching power supply. LEDs are current-driven devices, and you get the best efficiency if you use an actual current-controlled supply. And those ICs are very, very cheap now.

The part that would genuinely be cheaper is avoiding problematic flicker. It takes a reasonably high quality LED driver to avoid 120Hz flicker, but a DC-supplied driver could be simpler and cheaper.

LED light bulbs exist exclusively for compatibility with Edison sockets. Every LED fixture I have seen had a single transformer for the entire fixture; and that transformer was reasonably separate from the LEDs themselves.

What voltage do you use? Most DC stuff wants low voltage (5-48V), but appliances need higher voltage like AC-level to get enough power over existing wiring. The result is DC-DC converters every place that have transformers now.

The gain from DC-DC converters is small and DC devices are small part of usage compared appliances. There is no way will pay back costs of replacing all the appliances.

It wouldn't work. leds need low voltages, meaning massive wires. you can run the voltage change on ac or dc. Ac just needs a few capacters to smooth the wave out.

Do you want your house to burn down? Lower voltages for LED lights mean higher current.

because shorts and voltage loss are a real issue at that scale.

Sure, maybe?

If your house gets 800V DC you're still gonna need "bricks" to convert that to 5VDC of 12VDC (or maybe 19VDC) that most of the things that currently have "bricks" need.

And if your house gets lower voltage DC, you're gonna have the problem of worth-stealing sized wiring to run your stove, water heater, or car charger.

I reckon it'd be nice to have USB C PD ports everywhere I have a 220VAC power point, but 5 years ago that'd have been a USB type A port - and even now those'd be getting close to useless. We use a Type I (AS/NZS 2112) power point plug here - and that hasn't needed to change in probably a century. I doubt there's ever been a low voltage DC plug/socket standard that's lasted in use for anything like that long - probably the old "car cigarette lighter" 12DC thing? I'm glad I don't have a house full of those.

Something to consider, and something I got a vivid demonstration of while playing with solar panels, DC arcs aren't self-extinguishing, unlike AC arcs. At one point I stuck a voltage probe in, and the arc stuck with it as I pulled the probe away. It also vaporized the metal tip of the probe.

My understanding is that DC breakers are somewhat prone to fires for this reason, too.

I've worked overseas a lot and one thing that's really different from 2 decades ago is that I simply don't need a step-down transformer anymore because every single thing I plug in converts to DC (or otherwise accepts dual-voltage) anyways. So I have a giant collection of physical plug adapters because every device I use just needs to fit into the socket and takes care of it from there.

(My stand mixer is the lone sad exception)

I've had discussed with people familiar with the matter, and they convinced me its really not worth it for many reasons, the main one being safety - DC arcs are self sustaining - AC voltage constantly goes to zero, so if an arc were to form, it gets auto extinguished when the voltage drops. With DC this never happens, meaing every switch or plug socket can create this nice long arcs and is a potential fire hazard.

That’s actually a recent phenomenon. Before the age of electronics most household appliances either worked with AC or DC equally well (like incandescent bulbs) or worked well with AC only given the technology at the time (think anything with a motor, fans, HVAC compressors etc).

There are niches where DC makes sense - low-voltage lighting, USB/LED ecosystems.

Once you get into higher power (laptops and up), switching and distribution get harder, so the advantages fade.

For bigger appliances (fridge, etc), AC is fine + practical.

I'm renovating a house, and have been considering 24V or 48V DC outlets in a few rooms. Semiconductors become more expensive above ~32V, so 24V might be the sweetspot.

However, there's also PoE (24 or 48V!), so maybe that's the right approach. It's not like each outlet is going to run a heater anyway.

Having a single big DC converter at a home would help a lot with power factor (LED lamps connected directly to AC have terrible power factor).

Modern bricks really aren’t that inefficient though. An Apple charger is like 90% efficient. A DC to DC converter is about that efficient or worse.

AC is less efficient than DC at a given voltage. The advantage of AC is that voltage switching is cheap, easy and efficient. Switching DC voltage is way harder, more expensive, and less efficient. However the switching costs are O(1) and the transmission losses are O(n) so for some distance (currently somewhere around 500 km) it's worth paying the switching cost to get super high voltage DC. The big thing that's changed in the last ~30 years is a ton of research into high voltage transistors, and fast enough computers to do computer controlled mhz switching of giant high power transistors. These new super fancy switching technologies brought the switching costs down from ludicrous to annoyingly high.

The primary benefit of AC is it's really easy to change the voltage of AC up or down.

The transmission efficiency of AC comes from the fact that you can pretty trivially make a 1 megavolt AC line. The higher the voltage, the lower the current has to be to provide the same amount of power. And lower current means less power in line loss due to how electricity be.

But that really is the only advantage of AC. DC at the same voltage as AC will ultimately be more efficient, especially if it's humid or the line is underwater. Due to how electricy be, a change in the current of a line will induce a current into conductive materials. A portion of AC power is being drained simply by the fact that the current on the line is constantly alternating. DC doesn't alternate, so it doesn't ever lose power from that alternation.

Another key benefit of DC is can work to bridge grids. The thing causing a problem with grids being interconnected is entirely due to the nature of AC power. AC has a frequency and a phase. If two grids don't share a frequency (happens in the EU) or a phase (happens everywhere, particularly the grids in the US) they cannot be connected. Otherwise the power generators end up fighting each other rather than providing power to a load.

In short, AC won because it it was cheap and easy to make high voltage AC. DC is comming back because it's only somewhat recently been affordable to make similar transformations on DC from High to low and low to high voltages. DC carries further benefits that AC does not.

Important factor is that AC at given nominal voltage V swings between 1.41V and -1.41V, so it requires let's say 40% better/thicker insulation than the equivalent V volts DC line. This is OK for overhead lines (just space the wires more) but is a pain for buried or undersea transmission lines; for that reason, they tend to use DC nowadays.

BTW, megavolt DC DC converters are a sign to behold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pole_2_Thyristor_Valve.jp...

> I always thought AC’s primary benefit was its transmission efficiency??

There are many factors involved, and "efficiency" is only one. Cost is the real driver, as with everything.

AC is effective when you need to step down frequently. Think transformers on poles everywhere. Stepping down AC using transformers means you can use smaller, cheaper conductors to get from high voltage transmission, lower voltage distribution and, finally lower voltage consumers. Without this, you need massive conductors and/or high voltages and all the costs that go with them.

AC is less effective, for instance, when transmitting high power over long, uninterrupted distances or feeding high density DC loads. Here, the reactive[1] power penalty of AC begins to dominate. This is a far less common problem, and so "Tesla won" is the widely held mental shortcut. Physics doesn't care, however; the DC case remains and is applied when necessary to reduce cost.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance