I upgraded my house to AFCI when I moved to TX. It was at my cost…but since I did not wire the house I felt it was a great investment.
FYI- in the 2017 NEC the AFCI requirement will be on all 120V, 15 and 20 ampere branch circuits. But we will have to wait to see how that shakes out.
This smells badly of the industry desiring to sell more products by getting mandates enacted.
They may be effective devices but in a properly installed and well maintained system it is hard to imagine a scenario where the cost of these devices is worth it.
The above is my personal opinion subject to change.
GFCIs on the other hand are low cost in comparison and protect consumers from faulty devices.
I have to agree. I would be alot more accepting to the nec code that required only bedrooms to be fitted with afcis to transition into the afci era slowly while the technology proved itself and the technological kinks got worked out. Requiring essentially all branch circuits to now be afci encourages fewer branch circuits to be run and IMO likely shoddy workarounds will result to keep costs down (AFCI breakers are not cheap).
Here are some facts Ive found to start getting a better idea as to “what is safe and what is dangerous”, and the subjective nature of that question.
There are 131,000,000 homes in the US (apartments not included)
In U.S. there are approximately ,1,400,000 fires every year.
Of those, 300,000 - 400,000 are residential fires.
Of those residential fires, 20,000 - 30,000 are due to electrical malfunctions
200-300 deaths per year due to electrical fires
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that** AFCIs could prevent more than 50 percent of the electrical fires** that occur every year. (generous estimate IMHO which would only exist in lab type perfect world scenarios))- See more at: Homepage - Electrical Safety Foundation
Best case scenario afci technology could prevent 10,000 -15,000 fires every year or 100-150 deaths. While this seems like alot and one could argue one shouldnt put a price one one single life, the reality is there are only so much resources a homeowner has access to IMO its important to assess risks when comparing them to other potential risks and giving priority to scenarios that are more likely to cause harm or increase safety.
Another way of looking at it (assuming all homes were equipped with AFCI technology):
0.02 - 0.03 % of all home owners will experience an electrical fire every year
0.005- 0.01 % of all home owners will benfit from have afci installed
AFCI installation could potentially reduce residential fires by 3-5% every year or electrical fires by 50% (only true if all homes were equipped with the tech)
Whats more liekly to be dangerous to a home owner? IMO thats a great question. According to the cdc:
Unintentional fall deaths 27,000
Motor vehicle traffic deaths 34,000
**Unintentional poisoning deaths ****36,000
**IMO that is currently evolving, while all safety concerns are important, trip hazards both minor and major trump afci concerns. All inclusive fire prevention methods that include cooking, heating, open flames trump afci.
Plainly put, a home owner will more likely be safer by a very large margin focusing their resources on trip hazards, or fire suppression systems for kitchens.
Well…this is the last place I am going to get into another AFCI Debate. My advice is recommend them or not recommend them. I happen to believe in them and have a fairly advanced understanding of how they function and what they are “intended” to do…so I will leave it at that.
But while we are at it…lets remove those pesky Smoke Alarms…half the time no batteries are installed and the chirp in the middle of the night…and well once they go off the house is already on fire…who needs them anyway…
(Sarcasm Obviously)
I believe in them and recommend them. Afcis will eventually be the new standard and the cost of using them will come down. Eventually reducing residential fires by 3-5% is nothing to scoff at.
At the same time I believe in weighting risks. Is the lack of afci breakers in a modern electrical system a safety hazard,… I would say no, is there room for a safety enhancement,… yes. Sould making sure smoke detectors have batteries are hardwired and capable of detecting co2 be made before attempting to address afci concerns, …definitely.
I just bought new alarms for the whole home they came with a ten year none replaceable battery .
Throw away in ten years and buy new
Speaking of code changes, an inspector told me to prepare for these new smoke detectors being the new requirement. Makes sense too, beats having to replace batteries every 6 months.
I know that ain’t you.
You like electrical dog fights…Huh?
Originally Posted by rcooke View Post
I just bought new alarms for the whole home they came with a ten year none replaceable battery .
Throw away in ten years and buy new
Speaking of code changes, an inspector told me to prepare for these new smoke detectors being the new requirement. Makes sense too, beats having to replace batteries every 6 months.
From Should we recommend circuit breakers to be updated to AFCI - Page 2 - InterNACHI Inspection Forum http://www.nachi.org/forum/f19/should-we-recommend-circuit-breakers-updated-afci-97773/index2.html#ixzz3Q0u7dRDA
This has been a pet peeve. There is no reason for a smoke detector battery, especially when they are hard wired, to go bad in a few months. If the money were followed, I would bet on the battery companies also owning the smoke detector manufacturers.
This means nothing without stating the post#
lol…but those type of fights are for an Electrical Forum…lol:twisted:
Nope…just competing what was originally called for by the CPSC Evaluation and Investigation back in the 1980’s-90’s by an independent group. All the Manufacturers did at that point was CREATE what many thought was impossible…and it gets better as we get smarter…and learn more about the characteristics of arcing.
Ok ! Understood…
I believe in freedom of choice.
I oppose universal use of AFCIs for the very same reasons I oppose mandating residential fire sprinklers.
We could build, technology wise, almost 100% safe houses and autos.
How far are some willing to go?
My stance is is based on my belief in freedom from government tyranny.
Call me old fashioned. 
Not only do sprinklers work automatically they enhance the safety of the fire department responders by extinguishing or slowing the spread of fire until they arrive. Given that some departments are cutting staffing and the increased use of lightweight construction the use of sprinklers is needed more than ever to prevent larger fire losses.
How much freedom are you wiling to give up for security?
Does anyone have an AFCI upgrade suggestion narrative that they want to share?
Which of my personal liberties are infringed upon by the installation of sprinklers or AFCIs? If a house is built and there is a loss of life there will be people lining up to sue against the builder of a house without lifesaving features. The same as if codes were not adopted, but become the standard that is judged against.
Also do those freedoms allow me to place others in danger when they come to fight the fire in a minimally constructed house? Even if I choose not the have them installed the future owners will also miss out on protection they could have had.
The ability to choose how to spend your resources.
Every mandate raises the price, be it autos or homes.
All done with good intentions of course.:shock:
A better way would have been to let the market forces work.
I am speaking of insurers who could promote these safety devices by offering discounts or like some do for knob and tube wiring, make homes uninsurable with out the upgrades.
I will take market driven solutions over the tyranny of government every time.
Freedom is what it is.
Soooo, how do they operate in the event of a power failure? :neutral: