Wiring new residences to take advantage of ‘smart’ things
In contemplating the electrical portion of an upcoming project building two new residences (townhome style), one of which I’ll live in, I’m faced with a conundrum of how to best think about wiring everything.
Here’s why: these days, you can buy wifi-connected light bulbs/fixtures pretty much anywhere. With these fancy (yet completely affordable) light bulbs and their requisite apps, you could create ‘scenes’ (i.e. “cooking,” or “entertaining,” or “sleep time.”). A given room theoretically (but for code issues?) doesn’t even need a wired light switch to light it: there are dozens of connected switches that communicate with the home’s lighting hub: these switches are easily (re)locatable, operate efficiently with battery power, and would eliminate my need to figure out where switches are most needed. It’d be like the analogy of defining a garden path: wait a few weeks/months and see where the grass dies back to figure out the best path, rather than guessing ahead of time. This way I wait til the place is built, and how movement works through the space, to figure out where to put my switches.
Hopefully you get the drift? So, high-tech electricians out there (or those w/experience in this matter): what say you? Hide all the physical light switches in a closet somewhere (does one actually -need- physical switches by code) and go wireless for the ‘real’ switches? It seems like this could potentially help save on the electrical portion of my project if I could do away with physical switches altogether and install the wireless stuff myself…
Obvious tangents here would allow for wireless motion sensors to trigger lighting events (i.e. dimly lighting hallway and bathroom lights at night when triggered, etc.), computer-scheduled outdoor lighting, and more…
Thanks!
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
I would aim for a no-regrets strategy--install conventional switches even if you don't plan to use them. You can leave them on and just use the wireless controls. Then if the wireless system loses its appeal and you want switches again, you've got them. If you want, you could omit the switches and just have junction boxes with the wires you'd use for the switches in them, and then be able to install the switches if and when you want them. (You'd have to have a blank cover plate there--you can't bury them behind drywall.)
Some of the reasons you might want conventional switches:
1) Anything controlled wirelessly draws some power even when it's off, to keep the wireless receiver on. that draw could be very low, but if the manufacturer isn't providing data, a good guess is that it's not something they are proud to say in public. And it could add up for all the dozens of bulbs throughout a house.
I just got a new outdoor light, and got a high performance 4 W LED bulb for it, which provides plenty of outdoor light for out needs. It's manually switched right now, and sometimes we accidentally leave it on longer than needed. I'm considering putting a timer on it, but I'm not confident that doing so will save energy. What if the timer draws 2 W 24/7, in addition to the energy the bulb uses when on? That could add up to more than we use now.
2) There are many things one might want in a light bulb. Some of the features available now include different color temperatures (warm vs. cool colors), various degrees of good color rendering, low energy use, particular light distributions and spectra that help set our biological clocks, as well as wireless control. Right now, the wireless control is what sounds exciting. But perhaps in a few years, one of those other features, or a new one, will excite you, and who knows whether the best bulb for that other feature will be compatible with your wireless system.
I admit that it seems comical to use wires and switches good for 15 A for an LED light that uses 0.1 A or so. But even if that's overkill, it's not going to be obsolete very soon.
Jonathan-I think placement of lights may be more important and require more thought than where switches go. Most switch locations are obvious, think bathroom light switches, always just inside the door, etc.
Personally, I think it could be a major annoyance to have either multiple remotes scattered around the house or just a couple. ("Honey, where's the remote for the lights?") I'd also be concerned that the system is not intuitive enough. Do the controllers allow for logical labeling, so someone who may be a visitor to your home can pick it up and turn on the lights?
My 2009 pickup has simple, logical controls. You could get in it and with no trouble at all, start it, find your favorite radio station, adjust heat or A/C, etc. My wife's 2008 German car still baffles me, because I rarely drive it. You would not be able to start it, let alone figure out the climate control system, radio, cruise control, etc. without referring to the giant owner's manual. There is something to be said for keeping stuff simple.
Typical light switches work fine. I'm with Charlie-at least install them.
Agree with your thought process, but... what happens if your WiFi router fails in the middle of the night? or an electrical storm de-programs everything? Or 10 years from now WiFi doesn't exist / isn't backwards compatible with new systems, you would be forced to replace everything
Also from a future home sales or renter/tenant perspective, I could see many people getting very worried and turned off if you would walk into a house without regular switches.
Also the semi-retired 65 year old electrical inspector in my town would never approve that either, codes are pretty clear where switches need to be located to control wired lights
Thanks for the answers.
Charlie, re: draw -- I'll tell you that CREE connected bulbs, for one example, use 300mW in standby mode, so that's a pretty small draw I wouldn't be too worried about, personally. As for feature set, yes, this is a conundrum: as far as I've seen, there is not a single killer bulb that does it all, and of course I want it all. But I hold hope this might change in the next 10 months before my project is built out...
Stephen, re: switch placement -- I'm not sure I was clear. My thought was to use 'real-looking' switches that interface w/the control system and control a group of lights wirelessly. Said switches would be obviously-located (i.e. just inside the bedroom door), but in my mind would allow me the option to place another switch at each bedside location, for example, without paying the electrician to run two more switches plus traveller circuits, etc. This wouldn't be quite as feasible if traditionally-wired (the on/off switch would need to be on in order for the bedside wireless switches to function).
Jonathan, re: router failing: this is probably the most compelling answer of the bunch, personally speaking. That would be pretty annoying, and of course code issues I haven't even really thought about just yet.
Thanks all.
Company I co-founded started in the business of "smart things" (also known as IoT). Do you want to know how many connected switches or light bulbs I have in my house? Zero. Unless you are willing to spend money on Lutron switches and controllers, spend the money on good Romex, LED bulbs with highest per watt lumens, and spend the rest of the money on Ecobee thermostat, Sonos audio system, and ipad to play with all of that.
Why? Consumer grade stuff standards, reliability, and integrability in IoT are in infant stage. We deal with commercial grade stuff and wrote a lot of software for it, but that is a different world.
Just my 2 cents.
Jonathan,
Your approach may well be a harbinger of things to come, unfortunately though your code probably hasn't kept pace. I would imagine your rules are similar to those found in Canadian electrical codes which don't envisage remote connections. It wants lights with wall switches in all rooms, entries ands stairs, except for garages and storage rooms. For now you are probably stuck with a conventional system, with your innovations as an overlay on it.
Apollo S's answer is mine as well. I've worked for a home automation company. I would never put that stuff in my house. It's expensive, unreliable, and puts you on the expensive and endless technology upgrade bandwagon. And frankly the supposed benefits are often non-existent. I've spent a lot of time around houses filled with wifi-accessible lights, shades, door locks, and other gadgets, and I have a hard time seeing how any of it would add value to my life or my house. As a builder, I'd recommend building normally and assuming that future owners will re-wire as they see fit if they want to adopt any of this stuff.
James,
It's a good idea and one I have been doing with new construction for a few years now. I run conduit up to the truss space for future solar and down to the crawlspace from the main and media panels, and every room. My electrician does point out to me though that it cost more to do this than having him wire the house with cat 5 and be done.
First, if you are thinking of using smart switches in the future make sure your electrician wires a neutral to all switch boxes even if that wire currently goes unused. If you replace a regular switch with a smart switch most need that wire.
ENT is good particularly for audio/video runs from electronics (receiver etc.) locations to TV location since you don't know what the future will hold for these connections. Even just PVC from an attic or basement to these areas gives some nice flexibility later
Wireless is terribly unreliable and slow and hackable, so while the walls are open run a few cat5e or cat6 cables to many locations (working areas (desks, office etc.), a/v areas , anywhere you might want a camera later, thermostats, and other things you might want to eventually monitor.
Then consider if you ever plan to have a security system, once again hard wired is much more reliable and much less hackable than wireless so running a security wire to ground floor windows and doors make sense as well.
I agree with Apollo and also like Malcolm's plan. On my land, while driveway was excavated and site work was being done over time- I ran some 4" conduit, 2" conduit and mostly took advantage of just having crossings under the driveway, too. In particular where the utility wire goes under and across the foot of the driveway, while the utility company was there, we placed 4" conduit, capped next to it, bedded in sand. If any new line of sorts including electrical primary is ever placed, I may be the only driveway not cut up. But the stuff is not cheap, but hopefully having some runs like this may save you headache down the road. It would be terrible to have to rip your driveway up after a few years, would it not?
Joe,
If only more people did that.
Thanks again--these are all good notes. I'll definitely make it a point to run plenty of cat6 through the place, to a central location. As you've mentioned, adding conduit makes plenty of sense, especially outside where new concrete will make future retrofits difficult. I had hoped to hear more positive comments on wireless controls / futureproofing in that manner, but I can't say I'm surprised by what I did read from all your comments.
Thanks again!
If you really want to create "future flexibility" in your house, instead of "romex" NM Cable, rough-in your house with ENT- Electrical Nonmetallic Tubing. If circuiting and load demands change in the future, the wiring in the raceway is always accessible to be changed or modified without tearing holes in the walls. The location of the outlet and (must remain) accessible junction boxes, however, is determined at the time of installation, (unless you choose thereafter to open up the walls/ceilings to access the ENT and re-route it to a new box location....) Need a new outlet with different electrical requirements for your new Turbo-Thermo-Encabulator Max in the corner of your former third bedroom, now mad scientist laboratory? Fish it into the ENT from the panel. No walls torn apart, and your new in-home Mini-Hadron is all set to go.