Re: [RE-wrenches] SMA 1800u not generating power

[billbrooks7]

Glenn,



While the installation may not claim exact compliance with the current NEC 
(debatable), you can easily show that the TL inverter is much safer than the 
older 1800U. The TL has arc-fault detection and much better ground-fault 
detection. Conduit is not the answer since it breaks several other code 
requirements like the module manufacturer’s instructions (110.3(B)).



Bill Brooks.





From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Glenn Burt
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 2:14 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] SMA 1800u not generating power



All the way back to the module jboxes? Sounds pricey.
That is assuming the module jboxes accept conduit.

Indeed it I not only the home runs that need to be concerned with the PV 
rating, but the module conductors as well, as there is no distinction made in 
the code between them.

Sincerely,
Glenn Burt
Sent from my 'smart' phone so please excuse grammar and typos.

  _

From: William Miller 
Sent: ‎7/‎24/‎2015 16:59
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] SMA 1800u not generating power

Put it in conduit.




On Jul 24, 2015, at 8:14 PM, Glenn Burt mailto:glenn.b...@glbcc.com> > wrote:

How do you get around the code requirement for the use of PV wire with a TL 
inverter on the existing array?

Sincerely,
Glenn Burt
Sent from my 'smart' phone so please excuse grammar and typos.

  _

From: jerrysgarage01 
Sent: ‎7/‎24/‎2015 12:57
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] SMA 1800u not generating power

SMA used to to do repairs but last I heard they no longer have replacement 
parts. I have used the new SMA TL-22 because of the low voltage dc input. If 
you added some additional modules to the "B" input it might qualify for the tax 
credit (I did say might)

Good luck

Jerry





Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S™ III, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone



 Original message 

From: Jason Szumlanski

Date:07/24/2015 4:25 AM (GMT-10:00)

To: RE-wrenches

Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] SMA 1800u not generating power



Someone contacted me off list and said this company does out of warranty SMA 
repairs:



http://www.shop.solarcowboyzoutlet.com/Inverter-Repair-Service-Inverter-Repair-Service.htm



Looks like there is a risk in how big the repair is, but apparently they are 
willing to talk about the diagnostics before you send it in, and fix minor 
problems for a flat rate.



One bad part about these small systems is that labor to repair or replace 
failed units can easily turn into a cost equivalent to years of energy 
production, not to mention the hardware cost itself... I've only sold a few 
"tiny" systems over the years, and never really considered this. It makes much 
more financial sense for an owner to replace a failed 5kW inverter when the 
labor is basically the same as a 2kW.



Jason Szumlanski





On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Sky Sims mailto:s...@ecologicalsystems.biz> > wrote:

This is a known issue. I've come across a bunch of their inverters that have 
had this problem. In addition to seeing this issue on their 1800's I've seen it 
happen on their 2500's as well. Shows a solid green light but isn't putting out 
power.

The first time I came across this issue they had a refurbishment program, where 
they would rebuild the inverter and send it back with a one year warranty for 
under $400. The refurbishment program was a great program that I hope they 
bring back someday.

The last few times I contacted SMA about one of these defective inverters, they 
said the product was not under warranty and they no longer supported it. Only 
option they gave was to buy a new unit.

Sky Sims

Ecological Systems


On Jul 24, 2015, at 5:49 AM, Jason Szumlanski 
mailto:ja...@floridasolardesigngroup.com> > 
wrote:

I am looking at a 1800u from 2004 that has a green light and in mpp mode,  but 
Pac is zero. Grid and DC voltage are good.  No other indication of problems. I 
saw Pac tick up to 2W a couple of times,  but that's it. It's just not 
delivering AC power.

Any thoughts?

Sadly, it doesn't make much financial sense for the owner to replace it with a 
current model, as the replacement cost would take almost 10 years to recover 
with the small BIPV array connected to it. I'm hoping for a field repair option.

Jason Szumlanski

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 


Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm 

Check out or update participant bios:
ww

Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof

[billbrooks7]

Jarmo,



The sun’s geometry is not nearly that simple. To understand the impact of 
north-facing arrays, you have to perform a simulation. PV:WATTS does this just 
fine and it is easy to show that a 18-degreed North-facing tilt produces 75% of 
a perfect 30-degree south-facing array. Far more than your assumption of 50%.



To compare 15-degrees South to 15-degrees North, the numbers are slightly 
better at 77%. We are going to see a lot of north-facing arrays once people 
understand that low tilt angles are very forgiving on North slopes. Steep 
slopes are a totally different story and you have to run the numbers….



Bill.



From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of jarmo.venalai...@schneider-electric.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 8:04 AM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof



I did a slide on the effect of North facing modules.  For even a fairly 
aggressive rotation North as shown, the effect is "only" a 50% reduction.

The questions of whether or not to do it, are,

- is the mounting structure simpler, lower cost
- security against wind
- can I put a larger array on the roof  (typically yes, if you make back to 
back pyramid shaped structures)
- overall, what is the cost versus benefit

JARMO
_

Jarmo Venalainen  |   Schneider Electric   |  Xantrex Brand  |   CANADA  |   
Sales Application Engineer
Phone: +604-422-2528  |   Tech Support: 800-670-0707  |   Mobile: +604-505-0291
Email:   
jarmo.venalai...@schneider-electric.com  |   Site:   
www.Xantrex.com  |   Address: 3700 Gilmore Way, Burnaby, BC V5G4M1


 


 

 

 

 




*** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail





From:

"Peter Parrish" mailto:peter.parr...@calsolareng.com> >


To:

"'RE-wrenches'" mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >,


Date:

07/28/2015 12:22 AM


Subject:

[RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof


Sent by:

"RE-wrenches" mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org> >



  _




I recently read a short piece that caught me up short, and I quote:

“The fast dropping cost of solar, while a huge boon to the adoption of solar 
PV, has counter-intuitively altered design parameters. No longer is the 
north-facing roof considered unusable because limited application in less-than 
optimal orientations can still show a positive net benefit. Arrays are thus 
designed now with elements or sub-arrays in these locations, increasing overall 
kW installation while reducing the energy production per capacity installed. 
This might have been anticipated based on sheer economic analysis from a users 
perspective, but so long has solar been expensive that these less optimal 
orientations were never seriously considered.”

I doubt that the individual who wrote this piece came to these conclusions 
him/herself. Does anyone know of a recent article that argued this perspective? 
Is this an emerging design practice? If so, I’d like to know more about it.

-  Peter

Peter T. Parrish, Ph.D.
President, SolarGnosis
1107 Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 351
South Pasadena, CA 91030
(323) 839-6108
peter...@pobox.com 



__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
_
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 


Change listserver email address & settings:
  
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive:  
 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof

[billbrooks7]

Jarmo,



Unfortunately, simple is wrong in this case—and detrimental to the PV industry 
that needs all the roof real estate it can find.


Bill.



Bill Brooks, PE

Principal

Brooks Engineering





From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of jarmo.venalai...@schneider-electric.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:43 AM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof



Hi:

Granted that the description is very simple, but that is the intent.

The essence of it is that the "loss" for small variations in angle of incidence 
is approximately bounded by, (less than), the sin of the angle between the 
orientations of two panels/arrays in question.

10 degrees --->  minus 17%
20 degrees --->  minus 33%
30 degrees --->  minus 50%

If you go through the detailed math and take into account  atmospheric effects, 
especially when the sun is near the horizons, temperature, location, weather, 
etc., the result will vary, but will not be worse than the sin of the angle.

I'll draw out better picture with more detail for Vancouver.  We're at a fairly 
high latitude, so overall array orientation is a more sensitive factor than 
farther south.

JARMO

_

Jarmo Venalainen  |   Schneider Electric   |  Xantrex Brand  |   CANADA  |   
Sales Application Engineer
Phone: +604-422-2528  |   Tech Support: 800-670-0707  |   Mobile: +604-505-0291
Email:   
jarmo.venalai...@schneider-electric.com  |   Site:   
www.Xantrex.com  |   Address: 3700 Gilmore Way, Burnaby, BC V5G4M1







*** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail





From:

Brian Mehalic mailto:br...@solarenergy.org> >


To:

RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >,


Date:

07/28/2015 09:48 AM


Subject:

Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof


Sent by:

"RE-wrenches" mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org> >



  _




The analysis of 50% of south facing production is too simplistic; running some 
modeling shows that, depending on the latitude, the difference can be much 
smaller, approaching 25% less for the north facing.  I think this layout could 
become more common especially on low slope commercial roofs, where the north 
facing module would occupy space that was already unused due to interrow 
shading.  Of course the closer to the equator the less difference between 
production of the north and south arrays...and you better be careful when 
stringing them in series so as not to mix N and S facing..plus filling in all 
those gaps between rows could make servicing the array a bit problematic!

Cheers,


Brian Mehalic
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installation Professional™ R031508-59

PV Curriculum Developer and Instructor
Solar Energy International
http://www.solarenergy.org 

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:24 AM, mailto:billbroo...@sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
Jarmo,



The sun’s geometry is not nearly that simple. To understand the impact of 
north-facing arrays, you have to perform a simulation. PV:WATTS does this just 
fine and it is easy to show that a 18-degreed North-facing tilt produces 75% of 
a perfect 30-degree south-facing array. Far more than your assumption of 50%.



To compare 15-degrees South to 15-degrees North, the numbers are slightly 
better at 77%. We are going to see a lot of north-facing arrays once people 
understand that low tilt angles are very forgiving on North slopes. Steep 
slopes are a totally different story and you have to run the numbers….



Bill.



From: RE-wrenches [mailto:  
re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of  
 
jarmo.venalai...@schneider-electric.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 8:04 AM
To: RE-wrenches <  
re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof



I did a slide on the effect of North facing modules.  For even a fairly 
aggressive rotation North as shown, the effect is "only" a 50% reduction.

The questions of whether or not to do it, are,

- is the mounting structure simpler, lower cost
- security against wind
- can I put a larger array on the roof  (typically yes, if you make back to 
back pyramid shaped structures)
- overall, what is the cost versus benefit

JARMO
_

Jarmo Venalainen  |   Schneider Electric   |  Xantrex Brand  |   CANADA  |   
Sales Application Engineer
Phone:   +604-422-2528  |   Tech Support:  
 800-670-0707  |   Mobile:   
+604-505-0291
Email:   
jarmo.venalai...@schneider-electric.com  |   Site:   
www.Xantrex.com  |   Address: 3700 Gilmore Way, B

Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof

[billbrooks7]

Larry and Peter,



You are too old-school to think outside the box. It’s not about direct 
sunlight—it’s all about kWh/m^2/day and those numbers don’t lie. Your analysis 
is not correct and this is why simple analyses will always give you a wrong 
answer.



North-facing arrays have been financially attractive for years, but many have 
not done it due to taboos or bad analysis. Reverse-tilt arrays often look 
horrible and should be avoided particularly on the street-side of a house. 
Also, the structural impacts of tilted arrays on residential rooftops are not 
well-understood so wind-loading calculations are complex at best.



We have been using east and west facing roofs for your years so what’s the big 
deal about north? I put together the one of the first tables of orientation 
version performance way back in 2001 for the California Energy Commission to 
combat the misconceptions that PV arrays had to be mounted at 45-degrees facing 
South (the prevailing misconception at the time). I didn’t print the North 
facing numbers because the concept would have blown people’s minds at the 
time—they weren’t ready for the truth.



30-degrees facing south is optimal in most latitudes from 20-degrees to 
50-degrees. (perfect in most locations)

4:12 pitch (18-degrees) facing south is 97% of perfect.

4:12 pitch east or west is 88% of perfect.

Flat is 89% of perfect.

4:12 pitch facing north is 75% of perfect.



The truth shall set you FREE.



Bill.





From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Starlight Solar Power Systems
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 9:41 AM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof



In Yuma, AZ, north facing modules will have direct sunlight for small part of 
the year. In the picture, look at the yellow area above the East-West line. 
Thats direct sunlight from the north. The green top line in the picture shows 
summer solstice showing sunlight from sunrise to about 0930 and from 1530 to 
sunset. The energy harvested during those hours will be tiny compared to the 
peak sun hours on the south side. The angle of incidence will also reduce the 
total power generated during those hours.



The thin brown middle line is the equinox. By then, there is no direct sunlight 
on the north side. I can not see any benefit in AZ even at todays low prices. 
Now, if I were building in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala, that would be a different 
story. But then again, I would have to clean off the volcanic ash each morning.



Larry Crutcher
Starlight Solar Power Systems





chart came from http://www.gaisma.com/en/







On Jul 27, 2015, at 11:21 PM, Peter Parrish mailto:peter.parr...@calsolareng.com> > wrote:



I recently read a short piece that caught me up short, and I quote:




“The fast dropping cost of solar, while a huge boon to the adoption of solar 
PV, has counter-intuitively altered design parameters. No longer is the 
north-facing roof considered unusable because limited application in less-than 
optimal orientations can still show a positive net benefit. Arrays are thus 
designed now with elements or sub-arrays in these locations, increasing overall 
kW installation while reducing the energy production per capacity installed. 
This might have been anticipated based on sheer economic analysis from a users 
perspective, but so long has solar been expensive that these less optimal 
orientations were never seriously considered.”



I doubt that the individual who wrote this piece came to these conclusions 
him/herself. Does anyone know of a recent article that argued this perspective? 
Is this an emerging design practice? If so, I’d like to know more about it.



-  Peter



Peter T. Parrish, Ph.D.

President, SolarGnosis

1107 Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 351

South Pasadena, CA 91030

(323) 839-6108

peter...@pobox.com 



___







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof

[billbrooks7]

Jarmo,



Your intent was laudable, but simple trigonometry just flat out fails with the 
complexity of solar geometry. PVWatts is so easy to use that anyone, without 
any knowledge of trigonometry, can use it with far more accurate results. Take 
advantage of nice, free software that your tax dollar paid for many years ago.



Your harvest calculations don’t take into account about 20 factors that impact 
solar energy on a PV array. You are only looking at instantaneous sunlight at 
noon on a south-facing surface. There is almost nothing that we can learn from 
that simple of an analysis which is why we turned to simulations over 25 years 
ago. I have all my complex geometry sun position equations from the solar class 
I took in 1985, but to calculate energy from those equations requires hourly 
weather data and a computer—no other method will work. PVWatts does this.



Use PVWatts and continue to advocate the installation of PV modules wherever 
they make economic sense—north, south, east, or west.



Bill.





From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of jarmo.venalai...@schneider-electric.com
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 3:53 PM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof



Hi:

I went over and looked at my calculations whereby I arrived at the simple 
expression that the change in harvested solar energy is bounded by the sin of 
the angle of tilt to the North.

As I was doing it however, it became clear that the reason this simple result 
popped up, is simply because,

1. The effect of tilting an array North is exactly the same as if the system 
was physically relocated farther North by that amount of degrees latitude.
2. There is a linearly decreasing amount of annual insolation which is a linear 
function of latitude.

Latitude  versus  Average Annual Insolation
30 degrees latitude has  8.7 kWh-m2
40 degrees latitude has  7.8 kWh-m2
50  degrees latitude has  6.7 kWh-m2
60  degrees latitude has  5.6 kWh-m2

3. The SIN function is very linear for small angles up to about 40 degrees 
Angle versus sin
sin(10) = 0.17
sin(20) = 0.34
sin(30) = 0.5
sin(40) = 0.64

The sin expression describing the effect of north tilt is a bounding function, 
whereby it bounds the maximum reduction in energy harvest as a function of 
tilt.  It is a bounding analysis as it does not take into account the effect of 
atmospheric diffuse radiation which has the effect of making the "tilt loss" 
less than it would be if the earth had no atmosphere.

For example if an array was tilted north by 40 degrees in Vancouver, with no 
atmosphere the modules would see no sunlight for 6 months of the year.  With an 
atmosphere, there is still a lot of light to be gathered.

Regardless, my intent with the exercise from the beginning was to find a bound 
for the potential "loss effect" of North tilt so that I could continue to 
advocate the maximum use of roof space even when that roof is North facing.

JARMO
_

Jarmo Venalainen  |   Schneider Electric   |  Xantrex Brand  |   CANADA  |   
Sales Application Engineer
Phone: +604-422-2528  |   Tech Support: 800-670-0707  |   Mobile: +604-505-0291
Email:   
jarmo.venalai...@schneider-electric.com  |   Site:   
www.Xantrex.com  |   Address: 3700 Gilmore Way, Burnaby, BC V5G4M1







*** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail





From:

mailto:billbroo...@sbcglobal.net> >


To:

"'RE-wrenches'" mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >,


Date:

07/28/2015 12:20 PM


Subject:

Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof


Sent by:

"RE-wrenches" mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org> >



  _




Jarmo,

Unfortunately, simple is wrong in this case—and detrimental to the PV industry 
that needs all the roof real estate it can find.

Bill.

Bill Brooks, PE
Principal
Brooks Engineering


From: RE-wrenches [  
mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of 
jarmo.venalai...@schneider-electric.com 

Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:43 AM
To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Using the North Facing Roof

Hi:

Granted that the description is very simple, but that is the intent.

The essence of it is that the "loss" for small variations in angle of incidence 
is approximately bounded by, (less than), the sin of the angle between the 
orientations of two panels/arrays in question.

10 degrees --->  minus 17%
20 degrees --->  minus 33%
30 degrees --->  minus 50%

If you go through the detailed math and take into account  atmospheric effects, 
especially when the sun is near the horizons, temperature, location, weather, 
etc., the result will vary, but will not be worse than the sin of th

Re: [RE-wrenches] Rapid Shutdown Battery Systems

[billbrooks7]

Ray,

Do you have a massive battery bank and 3, 8kW inverters inside the house? Is
this in a garage or power shed. If it is a power shed, then 690.12 is not
intended to relate to the power shed. That will be clarified in the 2017
NEC.

The area for discussion is what constitutes the length of battery cables.
690.71 has restrictions on where overcurrent protection needs to be for
circuits longer than 5'. Do people really follow that religiously? This
would be a discussion that really needs to happen with the AHJ. My basic
view is that if I have a 4' run from a battery box to my inverters (even
though one lead may be 10' long), many would call that a 4' run. That is
what is exposed from a fire fighter point of view. Remember the battery is
potentially a massive bomb in a fire, so 48V conductors are the least of a
fire fighter's concern.

Bottom line is how to make it easy for a firefighter to kill the vast
majority of wires in a building. A backup system simply reenergizes
everything. Cutting off the dc from the array and the ac out of the
inverters solves the problem--keep the battery as close as possible and
don't worry about trying to turn off the battery circuit to the inverter.

Bill.


-Original Message-
From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On
Behalf Of Ray Walters
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:40 PM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Rapid Shutdown Battery Systems

Hi Wrenches;

I have an upcoming project to be inspected, ,and having spent too much time
on off grid and out of country work, I'm now playing catch up with the new
690.12 and 690.71(H) requirements.
The proposed GTB system is 3 Radians with a ground mounted 18kW array and
large HUP battery bank.  I just read a Bill Brooks article that basically
says that Rapid Shutdown not only applies to ground mounted arrays that come
into buildings, but also applies to battery cables if longer than 5 ft.
There are 690.12 compliant combiners from Midnite that work with their
Birdhouse system, so I think I've got a handle on the array requirements
(more or less).
What is stumping me is how to feed three 8kW inverters from a large battery,
and install auto disconnect breakers within 5 ft.
1) the disconnect has to be large enough, Midnite only makes a 250 amp
remote trip breaker, so I'd have to parallel 3 of these?
2) 690.71(H)3 says the breaker can't be in the battery enclosure, which is
tricky since the enclosure is 160" long from one end to the other with 2
parallel strings.
3) I'm having trouble even finding an enclosure for 3 large DC breakers
(Flex 1000 is the only thing I know of) and to get the enclosure close
enough is an issue too.
I just got off the phone with Tech support at Outback and they don't seem to
have any Rapid Shutdown gear ready.
Are inspectors actually requiring this yet, or because of the lack of
available UL listed products, can we take a pass on at least some of the
requirements?  Another strategy the Outback tech thought of is to put all
the equipment into a shipping container and then its not in or on a
"building", and 690.12 doesn't apply.

--
R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

[billbrooks7]

Brian,



I don’t know that I have a lot of good news for you. I have looked into this 
and I really don’t see a good way out of making some pretty conservative 
assumptions. You can read what I wrote in my IAEI article on Support of Exposed 
Cable earlier this year. I get into ampacity briefly though it is not the focus 
of the article.



http://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2015/04/14/support-of-exposed-cable-for-pv-systems-requirements-and-recommendations/



Bundling 50-60 conductor together should have a much worse impact than working 
off the free-air table. I believe the only way to evaluate that bundle is to 
treat it as if it is in a raceway.



The lesser number of conductors (bundle of 3 or 4), the more it will begin to 
act like a free air cable.



Bill.





From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Brian Mehalic
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 2:56 PM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



Hello wrenches, question about running conductors in cable tray.  So we have 
our allowance in 690.31(C)(2) for using small PV Wire in cable tray for PV 
source and output circuits.  I'm trying to determine what adjustment factor to 
apply when there are a bunch of small conductors.



392.80(A)(2)(a) and (b) both address single conductor cable in covered cable 
tray, but only refer to conductors from 1/0 to 500 kcmil, and 600 kcmil and up. 
 I'm looking more at 40 or 50 12 AWG conductors (20 to 30 source circuits).  
The adjustment factors in 392.80(A)(2) are pretty hefty - only 60 to 70% of the 
rated ampacity, but as stated in Table 301.15(B)(17) (conductors in free air, 
so that helps).



Any guidance would be much appreciated, and thanks for your time,




Brian Mehalic
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installation Professional™ R031508-59



PV Curriculum Developer and Instructor

Solar Energy International
http://www.solarenergy.org



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Guarding against live parts 690.7 (D)

[billbrooks7]

Craig,



This one is easy to misinterpret. You missed the words “live parts”. This has 
been removed from the 2017 NEC because it is actually referring to load 
circuits being fed directly by a PV system on the dc side. All references to 
loads and batteries are being removed from 690.



This is a complete non-issue.



Bill.



From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Craig Gerald Buttke
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:44 AM
To: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Guarding against live parts 690.7 (D)





How is everyone handling 690.7 (D)

Circuits over 150 Volts to Ground. In one- and two- family dwellings, live 
parts in photovoltaic source circuits and photovoltaic output circuits over 150 
volts to ground shall not be accessible to other than qualified persons while 
energized.



If you have a commercial (non one or two-family dwelling) are you screening 
your ground mount arrays to keep people from touching live conductors PV wires)?

Thanks for your thoughts



--
Yours in Solardarity,

Craig Gerald Buttke

M:(715) 630-1227
O:(715) 630-6451
F:(715) 952-4501

North Wind Renewable Energy, LLC
1626C W Pearl Street
Stevens Point, WI 54481

www.northwindre.com 

NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional™
NABCEP Certified PV Technical Sales Professional™
State of WI: Master Electrician


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Guarding against live parts 690.7 (D)

[billbrooks7]

William,



I’m shocked and offended (a tiny bit) that you would prejudice yourself to not 
agree with me ;-).



First of all I have been heavily involved in the revising of the language in 
690.31(A) to make it clear that we cannot walk up and touch cables operating at 
600V. The term guarded is a defined term:



Guarded. Covered, shielded, fenced, enclosed, or otherwise

protected by means of suitable covers, casings, barriers,

rails, screens, mats, or platforms to remove the likelihood

of approach or contact by persons or objects to a point

of danger.



A fence actually does not prevent ready access (unless it does not have a 
gate), but the term guarded fixes that problem. The guarding means has to be 
approved by the AHJ, but many methods have been employed including mounting 
lattice work around the backside of fixed ground-mounted systems.



Fences are best used for larger systems (over 50-100kW) whereas other 
methods—albeit labor intensive—are generally preferred for smaller 
installations (under 100 kW)



No intelligent person would disagree with this proper interpretation of the 
NEC—including you.



Bill.





From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of William Miller
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 12:09 PM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Guarding against live parts 690.7 (D)



Ray:



1.Why no fence?  Aesthetics.  Also costs may be a wash by the time you 
mobilize a fencing contractor.

2.I’d apply the same requirements to a fence as one would to an uncovered 
swimming pool.  There are the same consequences if a child ends up in the wrong 
place.

3.Why bother?

We figure the expense will decrease as we figure better design and 
implementation.  Hasn’t yet.

We care about safety.  I figure we, as an industry, will kill a child by 
electrocution someday—it is a matter of probability.  I hope it won’t be on one 
of our jobs.

We hope, in some small way, we influence the industry to improve.

4.The industry has not developed solutions because there is no demand. 
There is no demand because AHJs don’t enforce the code.



Thanks for the compliment.  We have several new designs not yet featured on the 
web site. Check back next time this comes up.



William



PS:  I am curious what Bill Brooks take on this is, but I don’t think I will 
agree with his interpretation.



W






Lic 773985
millersolar.com 
805-438-5600



From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 ] On Behalf Of Ray Walters
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 11:37 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Guarding against live parts 690.7 (D)



WilIiam;

 checked out your guards on your website, that looks really clean, but also 
like a lot of work and expense.  I'm still so surprised manufacturers are not 
offering an option like that to their frame systems.
My question: how come you didn't just fence the array?  Shading issues on the 
south?
If fencing, what height of fence is considered adequate?  4 ft?  6 ft?



R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

On 9/4/2015 9:44 AM, William Miller wrote:

Gary:



I think the issue of PV wiring behind module that are readily accessible is 
addressed in (2014) 690.31:



Where PV source and output circuits operating at maximum

system voltages greater than 30 volts are installed in

readily accessible locations, circuit conductors shall be

guarded or installed in a raceway.



I am not sure what application the original poster had in mind, but this is the 
question I think you are asking.  The interpretation to 690.31 seems clear to 
me:  No one should be able to touch the conductors without resorting to a 
ladder, opening a locked gate or removing a protective panel.  Readily 
accessible is defined thusly:



Capable of being

reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections

without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite

to actions such as to use tools, to climb over or remove

obstacles, or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.



Implementing this is harder than it might seem.  Lacking a fence, the installer 
must either use the flimsy solar-scrim product or fabricate his or her own 
shielding.  We have put a fair amount of effort towards this.  See link 

 .





William










Lic 773985
millersolar.com 
805-438-5600



From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 ] On Behalf Of gary easton
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 2:22 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Guarding against live parts 690.7 (D)



Bill

Are you  saying there is no requirement to shield wires on a

Re: [RE-wrenches] Guarding against live parts 690.7 (D)

[billbrooks7]

William,



You can always quote me to an AHJ, as long as I actually said it or wrote it.



I have been accused of saying all kinds of things that I never said—people just 
misunderstood what I said and “quoted” me incorrectly.



All the best—and stay safe. Always tragic to hear of electrocutions—most are so 
preventable as this one clearly was. Never, ever assume that a circuit is off. 
I know you warned against inductive sensors, but they should still be used as 
one of several methods to detect voltage. I just watched a video about a guy 
who thought he was testing a 480V circuit when it was really a 12kV circuit. 
The fireball caught him on fire and burned him to death. The meter was the 
problem. An inductive sensor would have saved his life. There is no single 
method for safety.



Bill.



From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of William Miller
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 2:37 PM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Guarding against live parts 690.7 (D)



Bill:



I apologize that I assumed incorrectly.  Thank you for your assessment.  May I 
quote you to our AHJ?



Sincerely,



William






Lic 773985
millersolar.com 
805-438-5600



From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 ] On Behalf Of 
billbroo...@sbcglobal.net 
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 12:59 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Guarding against live parts 690.7 (D)



William,



I’m shocked and offended (a tiny bit) that you would prejudice yourself to not 
agree with me ;-).



First of all I have been heavily involved in the revising of the language in 
690.31(A) to make it clear that we cannot walk up and touch cables operating at 
600V. The term guarded is a defined term:



Guarded. Covered, shielded, fenced, enclosed, or otherwise

protected by means of suitable covers, casings, barriers,

rails, screens, mats, or platforms to remove the likelihood

of approach or contact by persons or objects to a point

of danger.



A fence actually does not prevent ready access (unless it does not have a 
gate), but the term guarded fixes that problem. The guarding means has to be 
approved by the AHJ, but many methods have been employed including mounting 
lattice work around the backside of fixed ground-mounted systems.



Fences are best used for larger systems (over 50-100kW) whereas other 
methods—albeit labor intensive—are generally preferred for smaller 
installations (under 100 kW)



No intelligent person would disagree with this proper interpretation of the 
NEC—including you.



Bill.





From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of William Miller
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 12:09 PM
To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Guarding against live parts 690.7 (D)



Ray:



1.Why no fence?  Aesthetics.  Also costs may be a wash by the time you 
mobilize a fencing contractor.

2.I’d apply the same requirements to a fence as one would to an uncovered 
swimming pool.  There are the same consequences if a child ends up in the wrong 
place.

3.Why bother?

We figure the expense will decrease as we figure better design and 
implementation.  Hasn’t yet.

We care about safety.  I figure we, as an industry, will kill a child by 
electrocution someday—it is a matter of probability.  I hope it won’t be on one 
of our jobs.

We hope, in some small way, we influence the industry to improve.

4.The industry has not developed solutions because there is no demand. 
There is no demand because AHJs don’t enforce the code.



Thanks for the compliment.  We have several new designs not yet featured on the 
web site. Check back next time this comes up.



William



PS:  I am curious what Bill Brooks take on this is, but I don’t think I will 
agree with his interpretation.



W






Lic 773985
millersolar.com 
805-438-5600



From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 ] On Behalf Of Ray Walters
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 11:37 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Guarding against live parts 690.7 (D)



WilIiam;

 checked out your guards on your website, that looks really clean, but also 
like a lot of work and expense.  I'm still so surprised manufacturers are not 
offering an option like that to their frame systems.
My question: how come you didn't just fence the array?  Shading issues on the 
south?
If fencing, what height of fence is considered adequate?  4 ft?  6 ft?

R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

On 9/4/2015 9:44 AM, William Miller wrote:

Gary:



I think the issue of PV wiring behind module that are readily accessib

Re: [RE-wrenches] traveling with digital meters

[billbrooks7]

Jay,

I always try to carry on meters. This includes I-V curve tracers and such. TSA 
will often ask you to turn them on.

Bill.

-Original Message-
From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of jay
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 3:50 PM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: [RE-wrenches] traveling with digital meters

Hi All,

I believe this was talked about in the past, but I can’t find it.

I’m going to be traveling out of the country with a clamp on w/probes

And curious if I should/can check this or carry it on?

thanks

jay


___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Plastic washers

[billbrooks7]

William,

 

It appears that most (not all) of the damage you show on your website is due to 
incidental contact of bare copper with the aluminum. Also, dripping from bare 
copper to aluminum is a problem particularly in a marine environment. Lastly, 
the Coast Guard has been using unframed modules in marine environments for 
several decades because of problems they had with anodized aluminum in the 
1980s in marine environments. Some module products prohibit installation in 
marine environments as well.

 

Bottom line, there is no surprise that a marine environment will require 
significantly more maintenance than in Atascadero. Types of stainless hardware 
also needs to be more closely reviewed as stainless and aluminum still react 
with one another—just at a much lower rate that some other materials. There are 
materials recommendations for stainless types in marine environments that have 
been used for many decades for sailboats and the like.

 

It makes little sense to design products for the marine environment unless it 
is specifically to satisfy that niche. Better choice of stainless hardware (not 
stainless clips), no bare copper, and consistent maintenance are probably your 
best options. There are a few frameless glass-on-glass modules that also might 
be an option moving forward.

 

Bill.

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of William Miller
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 10:11 AM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Plastic washers

 

Jay:

 

Conrad has a very pertinent point to make below. We are discovering that 
neither aluminum racking nor module frames hold up well in a marine 
environment. If you navigate to Miller Solar/case studies you will see photos 
and commentary about a particularly serious case of aluminum degradation. 

 

We pulled all of the equipment off the roof and we are waiting for advice from 
the rack and module manufacturers.  Various ideas brainstormed do include 
plastic spacers to minimize al to al or al to ss contact. 

 

William Miller


On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:36 AM, Conrad Geyser mailto:conr...@cape.com> > wrote:

Jay,

 

I would suggest that he has a point, that the dissimilar metals do have a 
reaction.  But that the reaction is self limiting and that stainless fasteners 
with aluminum are used in marine applications albeit only with anodized 
aluminum.  Or say fine and invoice accordingly for the plastic washers.

 

Conrad

Cotuit Solar

 

 




  

 
Conrad Geyser, Principal

Cotuit Solar LLC

508-428-8442

 

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Jason Szumlanski 
mailto:ja...@floridasolardesigngroup.com> > 
wrote:

Another engineer, eh?

 

I'd say no... Tell him to find another installer. 50 million Elvis fans, I mean 
PV installations, can't be wrong.

 

Ask him if he brings his own scissors to the hairdresser? That's my favorite 
line.

 

 

Jason Szumlanski

 

 

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Jay mailto:jay.pe...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi all

I've got a client who insists on "plastic " ( synthetic) washers between SS 
washers and the aluminum racking and modules.

I'm tried every angle to assure him it's not a problem to no effect.

So anybody have any recommendations about type, material, and where to buy?

Thanks

Jay
Peltz power.


___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm  

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org  

 


___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm  

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org  



 

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re

Re: [RE-wrenches] Aquion Batteries

[billbrooks7]

Dan,

 

I concur with your basic assessment. After listening to an Aquion presentation, 
and reviewing the operating curves, this battery has a very narrow application. 

 

Most off-grid houses these days have significant surge loads. That is why we 
spend so much time and effort making sure our inverter is properly rated for 
the worst-case surges. Most batteries are relied upon, not just for energy 
storage, which Aquion appears to deliver, but we also must have significant 
surge power. Aquion essentially has no surge capability.

 

If you have an application where a non-surge inverter will work, then you might 
have an Aquion application. Otherwise, stay away from Aquion until they develop 
a concept that allows surges.

 

Think of the Aquion battery like a fuel cell. Fuel cells are notoriously poor 
at surges.

 

Bill.

 

Bill Brooks, PE

Principal

Brooks Engineering

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Dan Fink
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 10:52 AM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Aquion Batteries

 

I second Larry's concerns about Aquion's SOC/voltage curves and tripping LVD at 
only 40% DOD with standard PV equipment, tied in with not being able to handle 
high discharge C-rates and surge loads. I did some math on running a typical 
off-grid home with a well pump on Aquions, and it wasn't pretty, but I may not 
have done the math right. Very interested to hear personal experience on 
off-grid homes with these batteries. 

 

 I was starting to envision applications for remote MET tower, repeater tower 
etc applications with low discharge C-rates and high charging C-rates, and then 
saw Aquions lowest operation temperature of -5C, 23 F. That's considered a 
"heat wave" during certain times of year in many areas, including here in sunny 
Colorado. In these applications the batteries are NOT in a heated room, instead 
an outdoor enclosure at the base of a tower.

 

AGMs are serving us here just fine on these sorts of esoteric installations, 
and they have no problem with -29C and lower when kept at high SOC. And, cheap, 
easy to replace, and giving us many years of life. The ROI math on the Aquions 
compared to AGM is not adding up for me on these applications.

 

My only experience with Aquion was their class at the NABCEP conference last 
year. 

 

Any ground truth experience and stories on Aquions and other similar 
technologies appreciated here also.

 

Best regards;




Dan Fink

Adjunct Professor, Ecotech Institute

IREC Certified Instructor™ for: 

~ PV Installation Professional

~ Small Wind Installer

Executive Director, Buckville Energy

NABCEP Accredited Continuing Education Providers™
  970.672.4342


 

 

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Starlight Solar Power Systems 
mailto:la...@starlightsolar.com> > wrote:

I too am interested in anyone that has installed these. I had some concerns 
back on Nov 10, 2014. Here is a copy/past from that conversation:

 

Something does not add up to me. The cell has a voltage discharge curve way 
outside that of RE equipment, 1.75 Vpc down to 0.5Vpc. I can't see how this 
technology could be scaled to RE applications without wasting much of the 
capacity. From what I see, only about 40% could be used before LVD.

 

And this:

The Aquion battery claims their 2.4kWh, 48 volt stack operates from 59 to 30 
volts. Many inverters have a LBCO of 1.75 Vpc (42 volts). Depending on voltage 
sag, that means about half of the capacity of the Aquion battery can't be used. 
Even if the outback can operate down to 1.5 Vpc, you are still not able to use 
the full capacity of the battery unless your load is less than 800 Watts. 

I have reviewed their technical presentation and it looks to me like the 
capacity simply can't be used in the off grid environment. If you can't use it, 
why do they rate it at 2.4kWh? BTW, the Voltage vs.Energy chart on the spec 
sheet does not match the first chart I posted.

 

 

 

 



 

 

On Jan 29, 2016, at 7:30 AM, Chris Schaefer mailto:ch...@solarandwindfx.com> > wrote:

 

To All,

Great insight on the lithium movement. I do am looking for anyone 
dealing with the new Aquion batteries. I’ve got a couple of potential clients 
that have inquired about them. Saw them at a NABCEP training session last 
spring and while the idea is moving I wasn’t impressed. Perhaps it’s time to 
start a new thread, “Aquion batteries”.

 

Thanks,

Christopher

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of d...@energysolarnow.com  
Sent: Friday, 29 January, 2016 00:49
To: Dan Fink
Cc: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] LiFePO4; WAS Availability of Powerwall Batteries

 

Thanks for sharing your experience with these batteries, Dan.

I have similar SOC issues with an off-grid customer who has the Aquion Hybrid 
Ion batteries

Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for center-fed panelboards

[billbrooks7]

All,

 

Here is the new language that has been approved for the 2017 NEC (more 
authoritative than JW).

 

705.12(B)(3)(d)

 

(d) A connection at either end, but not both ends, of a center-fed panelboard 
in dwellings shall be permitted where the sum of 125 percent of the power 
source(s) output circuit current and the rating of the overcurrent device 
protecting the busbar does not exceed 120 percent of the current rating of the 
busbar.

 

This clarifies that it was never the intent of the NEC to limit the 120% rule 
to the opposite end of the busbar for dwellings (it was allowed from 2005 back 
to 1987). I was able to convince the panel that centerfed panels did not need 
the opposite end stipulation. Several large jurisdictions in California or 
considering making an official policy accepting the language of the 2017 NEC on 
this item. Please share this with your own jurisdiction.

 

Bill.

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Glenn Burt
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:54 AM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

 

I believe that John Wiles has stated this in a couple of places in print, 
therefore you may have a tough time justifying a way around the rule to an AHJ.

Supply side connections are very popular in this situation.

  _  

From: August Goers  
Sent: ‎3/‎2/‎2016 11:32
To: RE-wrenches  
Subject: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

All –

 

We are seeing more AHJs not allowing us to use the NEC 7015.12(D)(2)(3)(b) 120% 
rule on center-fed panelboards. For example, if we have a 100 A meter/main 
combo with a center fed 100 A breaker we cannot apply the 120% rule at all and 
need to do a panel swap. What are other wrenches doing in this case?

 

Best,

 

August

Luminalt

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for center-fed panelboards

[billbrooks7]

Phil,

 

I think you already understand how to apply the “120% rule.” All this is saying 
is that the breaker can go at either end of a center-fed panel for dwellings. 
Do you understand now?

 

To summarize—a 200A center-fed panel would allow a 40-amp PV breaker to be 
installed at either end to meet the 120% rule.

 

Bill.

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Philip Lawes Insoltech
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 8:26 AM
To: 'RE-wrenches' 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

 

Bill,

Could you please provide an example of this showing calculations?

Thanks so much,

Phil

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of billbroo...@sbcglobal.net  
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 11:24 AM
To: 'RE-wrenches' mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

 

All,

 

Here is the new language that has been approved for the 2017 NEC (more 
authoritative than JW).

 

705.12(B)(3)(d)

 

(d) A connection at either end, but not both ends, of a center-fed panelboard 
in dwellings shall be permitted where the sum of 125 percent of the power 
source(s) output circuit current and the rating of the overcurrent device 
protecting the busbar does not exceed 120 percent of the current rating of the 
busbar.

 

This clarifies that it was never the intent of the NEC to limit the 120% rule 
to the opposite end of the busbar for dwellings (it was allowed from 2005 back 
to 1987). I was able to convince the panel that centerfed panels did not need 
the opposite end stipulation. Several large jurisdictions in California or 
considering making an official policy accepting the language of the 2017 NEC on 
this item. Please share this with your own jurisdiction.

 

Bill.

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Glenn Burt
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:54 AM
To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

 

I believe that John Wiles has stated this in a couple of places in print, 
therefore you may have a tough time justifying a way around the rule to an AHJ.

Supply side connections are very popular in this situation.

  _  

From: August Goers  
Sent: ‎3/‎2/‎2016 11:32
To: RE-wrenches  
Subject: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

All –

 

We are seeing more AHJs not allowing us to use the NEC 7015.12(D)(2)(3)(b) 120% 
rule on center-fed panelboards. For example, if we have a 100 A meter/main 
combo with a center fed 100 A breaker we cannot apply the 120% rule at all and 
need to do a panel swap. What are other wrenches doing in this case?

 

Best,

 

August

Luminalt

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for center-fed panelboards

[billbrooks7]

Chris,

 

While John’s article may seem like a logical interpretation of the 2014 NEC, if 
you lived in the western half of the United States where these panels are 
common, you would have a very different view of his choice of articles.

 

His article sites a technicality that is not a safety concern in the least. Of 
all the things that AHJs have to worry about with PV, this has to be at the 
very bottom of the list—and yet this is the only thing that many AHJs look at 
because someone wrote an article about it. We set the record straight in the 
2017 NEC, but that does not fix the fact that literally 1,000s of these 
perfectly fine panels have been removed due to the focus of this magazine 
article.

 

Your opinion of this interpretation would be very different if you had lost a 
PV system sale because someone was unwilling to incur the extra cost of a panel 
change out when you knew it was totally unnecessary.

 

I have all the respect in the world for what you are doing in the northeast. 
I’m just helping with some “perspective” from the left coast.

 

I’m off my high horse,

 

Bill.

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Christopher Warfel
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 6:42 AM
To: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

 

This is a link to John Wiles article on NEC2014 for this topic. To my 
knowledge, no one has adopted NEC2017, so it would seem that this article is 
appropriate for the most recent NEC published. As noted AHJs can allow 
exceptions, and it is great that new language is now approved for NEC2017, but 
that wasn't the case when John Wiles published his article.

http://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2014/07/10/center-fed-load-centers-and-panelboards/

There is also pdf version here.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t 

 
&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjl8OmH26TLAhWI7D4KHcbJAHQQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdept-wp.nmsu.edu%2Fswtdi%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F11%2Fiaei_jul-aug_2014.pdf&usg=AFQjCNERV2M21V1nvLlvLVSLZUMoj36J_A&sig2=g145SdF1HzNuHc0P6NXshw&bvm=bv.115339255,d.cWw&cad=rja


Chris




On 3/2/2016 2:24 PM, billbroo...@sbcglobal.net 
  wrote:

All,

 

Here is the new language that has been approved for the 2017 NEC (more 
authoritative than JW).

 

705.12(B)(3)(d)

 

(d) A connection at either end, but not both ends, of a center-fed panelboard 
in dwellings shall be permitted where the sum of 125 percent of the power 
source(s) output circuit current and the rating of the overcurrent device 
protecting the busbar does not exceed 120 percent of the current rating of the 
busbar.

 

This clarifies that it was never the intent of the NEC to limit the 120% rule 
to the opposite end of the busbar for dwellings (it was allowed from 2005 back 
to 1987). I was able to convince the panel that centerfed panels did not need 
the opposite end stipulation. Several large jurisdictions in California or 
considering making an official policy accepting the language of the 2017 NEC on 
this item. Please share this with your own jurisdiction.

 

Bill.

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Glenn Burt
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:54 AM
To: RE-wrenches   

Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

 

I believe that John Wiles has stated this in a couple of places in print, 
therefore you may have a tough time justifying a way around the rule to an AHJ.

Supply side connections are very popular in this situation.


  _  


From: August Goers  
Sent: ‎3/‎2/‎2016 11:32
To: RE-wrenches  
Subject: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

All –

 

We are seeing more AHJs not allowing us to use the NEC 7015.12(D)(2)(3)(b) 120% 
rule on center-fed panelboards. For example, if we have a 100 A meter/main 
combo with a center fed 100 A breaker we cannot apply the 120% rule at all and 
need to do a panel swap. What are other wrenches doing in this case?

 

Best,

 

August

Luminalt






___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
 
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 
 
Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
 
List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
 
List rul

Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for center-fed panelboards

[billbrooks7]

Howie,

 

To clarify what the 2017 NEC states, it allows for either end of the bus. There 
is some value to having loads in between the PV breaker and the main breaker. 
Also, by putting the PV breaker as far away from the main as possible, the heat 
of both breakers are likely to affect each other. 

 

The 2005 and earlier NEC did not stipulate anything about location on the bus.

 

Bill.

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Howie Michaelson
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 12:11 PM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

 

Bill,

Did I understand your earlier post to infer that there never was an intent to 
apply the "opposite end of the buss" rule to the 120% backfeed allowance in 
residential applications?  And that you have been working to rewrite a solar 
backfeed breaker in a residential setting to land anywhere on the buss?

Howie


Howie Michaelson
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer™
Sun Catcher, LLC
Renewable Energy Systems Sales and Service
VT Solar Electric Incentive Partner
802-272-0004

 

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:07 PM, mailto:billbroo...@sbcglobal.net> > wrote:

Phil,

 

I think you already understand how to apply the “120% rule.” All this is saying 
is that the breaker can go at either end of a center-fed panel for dwellings. 
Do you understand now?

 

To summarize—a 200A center-fed panel would allow a 40-amp PV breaker to be 
installed at either end to meet the 120% rule.

 

Bill.

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 ] On Behalf Of Philip Lawes 
Insoltech
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 8:26 AM
To: 'RE-wrenches' mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

 

Bill,

Could you please provide an example of this showing calculations?

Thanks so much,

Phil

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of billbroo...@sbcglobal.net  
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 11:24 AM
To: 'RE-wrenches' mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

 

All,

 

Here is the new language that has been approved for the 2017 NEC (more 
authoritative than JW).

 

705.12(B)(3)(d)

 

(d) A connection at either end, but not both ends, of a center-fed panelboard 
in dwellings shall be permitted where the sum of 125 percent of the power 
source(s) output circuit current and the rating of the overcurrent device 
protecting the busbar does not exceed 120 percent of the current rating of the 
busbar.

 

This clarifies that it was never the intent of the NEC to limit the 120% rule 
to the opposite end of the busbar for dwellings (it was allowed from 2005 back 
to 1987). I was able to convince the panel that centerfed panels did not need 
the opposite end stipulation. Several large jurisdictions in California or 
considering making an official policy accepting the language of the 2017 NEC on 
this item. Please share this with your own jurisdiction.

 

Bill.

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Glenn Burt
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:54 AM
To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

 

I believe that John Wiles has stated this in a couple of places in print, 
therefore you may have a tough time justifying a way around the rule to an AHJ.

Supply side connections are very popular in this situation.

  _  

From: August Goers  
Sent: ‎3/‎2/‎2016 11:32
To: RE-wrenches  
Subject: [RE-wrenches] NEC 705.12 Point of Connection - 120% rule for 
center-fed panelboards

All –

 

We are seeing more AHJs not allowing us to use the NEC 7015.12(D)(2)(3)(b) 120% 
rule on center-fed panelboards. For example, if we have a 100 A meter/main 
combo with a center fed 100 A breaker we cannot apply the 120% rule at all and 
need to do a panel swap. What are other wrenches doing in this case?

 

Best,

 

August

Luminalt


___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm  

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org  



 

___

Re: [RE-wrenches] Rapid Shutdown

[billbrooks7]

Ray,

I guess I have to step in after that acknowledgement. PV system circuit is a
self-defined term and therefore cannot be defined unless you are going to
develop a meaning that is different from the self-definition. It means ANY
circuit in a PV system. This includes battery and stand-alone circuits in
the 2014 NEC.

The language of the 2014 NEC was a compromise between the fire service and
the PV industry.  Originally, the language required essentially module-level
shutdown. I raised the concern with the PV industry to get them involved
since most were not paying attention at the time. This language was
developed and intended to cover all circuits in a PV system. In the 2014
NEC, batteries are part of a PV system and therefore fall under this
requirement.

In the 2017 NEC, we were very careful to carve out all batteries and loads,
that were previously part of PV systems, and place them in their own
articles. Don't shoot the messenger on this one and don't think for a minute
that I alone made this requirement or am alone in interpreting it in this
way. I did author this compromise with other representatives of the PV
industry so I think I know what the intent was.

It is understandably difficult for battery systems and I would try to keep
battery circuits as short as possible. The 5-feet was intended to match the
requirement of 690.71(H)--which is further evidence of the intent of the
2014 NEC. 

The 2017 NEC removes batteries from the requirement, but they still cannot
backfeed the PV array. Energy storage systems (Article 706) will have their
own requirements in time--that is guaranteed.

Bill.


-Original Message-
From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On
Behalf Of Ray Walters
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:02 AM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Rapid Shutdown

Greetings Esteemed Wrenches:

I've just heard back from our inspector here in Colorado, and we are still
being required to disconnect the batteries under 690.12.  No where in 690.12
are batteries mentioned, nor in the appropriate 690.71 section that deals
with batteries.  The entire reasoning behind this is based on a single
article written by a single person: Bill Brooks.  I have contacted both
Outback and Magnum on this issue, and their engineers are unaware that rapid
shutdown applies.
My interpretation is that I could install an inverter and battery system
that was charged from a generator, and we would not need any rapid shutdown
at all.  But according to Bill, as soon as I put a single solar module into
the system, suddenly the entire system becomes PV? The problem lies with the
term 'PV System circuit'  used in 690.12.  690.2 Defines 'PV Output
circuit', and 'PV source circuit', but there is no 'PV system circuit'
defined.  690.12 therefore uses an undefined term.
Our design uses 2 inverters, so if we used Midnite's E panel with their
remote trip breakers, the 2nd inverter would be more than 5 ft from the
batteries.  If we used Magnum or Outback DC disconnects (that would comply
with the 5 ft rule specified in 690.71) they don't offer remote trip.
We have a Midnite Rapid disconnect Combiner on the roof with the Birdhouse,
so we are complying with 690.12, it should not be applied to batteries
though.

Thanks,

--
R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] reflective label maker?

[billbrooks7]

Chris,

 

Just to add a fine point of clarification, 690.31(G)(4) requires that the
"warning" sign on conduit be Reflective, Capitalized, with white lettering
on Red background. This intentionally does not match the ANSI color schemes
for signs. The NEC overrules ANSI in this case.

 

If AHJs require that these labels be orange, these signs will not officially
be compliant with the NEC. These signs were in the fire code and were
removed and put into the NEC to keep all electrical requirements in the NEC.

 

Bill.

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On
Behalf Of Christopher Warfel
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 4:48 AM
To: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] reflective label maker?

 

We have been using DuroLabel Pro for over a year. Very good support. The
negative is having to change colors if AHJs are going to want to follow the
ANSI color requirements, but that is probably true for most printers. The
labels are durable. I made some for my oyster farm to id equipment as an
experiment. They have been submerged in salt water for 5 months and don't
appear to be deteriorating. Chris

On 3/31/2016 6:25 PM, Conrad Geyser wrote:

Anybody have a favorite reflective label maker that they would care to share
the info on?

 

Conrad

Cotuit Solar LLC






___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
 
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
 
 
Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
 
List-Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
 
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm 

 
Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org  
 





-- 
Christopher Warfel, President
ENTECH Engineering, Inc.
PO Box 871, Block Island, RI 02807
401-466-8978
___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] reflective label maker?

[billbrooks7]

Chris,

 

Where sign requirements (whether in NEC, IBC, IFC, IRC, etc) have specific
requirements for specific signs that may not agree with the basic ANSI
rules, the code requirement applies. Where no color requirement accompanies
the sign, then the ANSI color designations would be most appropriate. The
NEC specifically cites the ANSI standard which provides some additional
legitimacy to the ANSI standard.

 

To be clear, the ANSI standard must be cited by an enforceable code to have
any teeth at all.

 

Bill.

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On
Behalf Of Christopher Warfel
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 9:11 AM
To: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] reflective label maker?

 

Thanks Bill, are there other areas where we should look only to the NEC for
coloring? Right now, we are using white lettering on a red back ground and
the NEC language for all labels (mainly because that's the stock we
initially purchased and still have it).  I think there are: Danger, Warning,
Caution, and Notice.  Chris

On 4/1/2016 10:50 AM, billbroo...@sbcglobal.net
  wrote:

Chris,

 

Just to add a fine point of clarification, 690.31(G)(4) requires that the
"warning" sign on conduit be Reflective, Capitalized, with white lettering
on Red background. This intentionally does not match the ANSI color schemes
for signs. The NEC overrules ANSI in this case.

 

If AHJs require that these labels be orange, these signs will not officially
be compliant with the NEC. These signs were in the fire code and were
removed and put into the NEC to keep all electrical requirements in the NEC.

 

Bill.

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On
Behalf Of Christopher Warfel
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 4:48 AM
To: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] reflective label maker?

 

We have been using DuroLabel Pro for over a year. Very good support. The
negative is having to change colors if AHJs are going to want to follow the
ANSI color requirements, but that is probably true for most printers. The
labels are durable. I made some for my oyster farm to id equipment as an
experiment. They have been submerged in salt water for 5 months and don't
appear to be deteriorating. Chris

On 3/31/2016 6:25 PM, Conrad Geyser wrote:

Anybody have a favorite reflective label maker that they would care to share
the info on?

 

Conrad

Cotuit Solar LLC







___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
 
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
 
 
Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
 
List-Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
 
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm 

 
Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org  
 






-- 
Christopher Warfel, President
ENTECH Engineering, Inc.
PO Box 871, Block Island, RI 02807
401-466-8978






___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
 
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
 
 
Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
 
List-Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
 
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm 

 
Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org  
 





-- 
Christopher Warfel, President
ENTECH Engineering, Inc.
PO Box 871, Block Island, RI 02807
401-466-8978
___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Siemens P4JF 75 watt PV module spec sheet

[billbrooks7]

Dana,

 

Reaching back into my brain archives, having done a few projects with these 
modules, I know that many, if not all, of these modules were rated for a 
maximum system voltage of 48-volts. They can’t be used on higher voltage PV 
arrays.

 

This was a budget version of their standard product. The picture from William 
has the basic specs.


Bill.

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of William Miller
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:26 PM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Siemens P4JF 75 watt PV module spec sheet

 

Dana:

 

Best I can do is a photo of a module data placard, attached.

 

William

 

 


Lic 773985
millersolar.com  
805-438-5600

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 ] On Behalf Of Dana
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 8:57 AM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Siemens P4JF 75 watt PV module spec sheet

 

Hey All,

 

I have an out of state client with Siemens P4JF 75 watt PV modules and am 
looking for a spec sheet. I did a search on the internet and did not come up 
with a hit.

 

Does anyone have a copy of this spec sheet or a suggestion?

 



Dana Orzel 

Great Solar Works, Inc -  NABCEP # 051112-136

E - d...@solarwork.com    - Web - solarwork.com 
  

O - 970.626.5253  C - 208.721.7003

"Responsible Technologies for Responsible People since 1988"  

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

 

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] 120% rule for hybrid inverters

[billbrooks7]

All,

 

The 2011 NEC reference for stand-alone systems is 705.12(D)(2) Exception:

 

Exception: Where the photovoltaic system has an energy storage device to allow 
stand-alone operation of loads, the value used in the calculation of bus or 
conductor loading shall be 125 percent of the rated utility-interactive current 
from the inverter instead of the rating of the overcurrent device between the 
inverter and the bus or conductor.

 

The 2014 NEC made this the rules of the road for all inverter output circuits 
connected to other sources.

 

Bill.

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Howie Michaelson
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 8:39 AM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] 120% rule for hybrid inverters

 

Mark,  I read that section as stating that both must be true, which I would 
take to mean if one is using a 20 amp breaker to protect the output from a 3 kW 
inverter, you need to count it as 20 amps toward the 120% rule, not the 15.63 
amps the 125% calculation would infer.  I know that 2014 was changed to allow 
for larger breakers to feed hybrid inverters, but I can't recite the code that 
allows that (unless I am misreading the intent of the section you quoted). Can 
you clarify this for me?

Thanks,

Howie




Howie Michaelson
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer™
Sun Catcher, LLC
Renewable Energy Systems Sales and Service
VT Solar Electric Incentive Partner
802-272-0004

 

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Mark Westbrock 
mailto:westbr...@positiveenergysolar.com> > 
wrote:

Hi Mac,

 

The wording changed because in the 2011 NEC 705.12(D) you had to use the size 
of your backfeed breaker in calculating the busbar loading, but in 2014, 
705.12(D)(2)(3)(b) now says "125 percent of the inverter output circuit current 
and the rating of the OCPD protecting the busbar shall not exceed 120%".  

 

So, the 2014 wording basically allows all inverters to follow the exception 
that used to be there for hybrid inverters.  I hope that helps.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark






Mark Westbrock|  VP, Branch Manager |  Employee Owner

NABCEP™ Certified PV Installation Professional

NABCEP™ Certified 

Technical Sales Professional

NM EE98J Licensed Electrician

510 S. Main St., Las Cruces, NM 88001

cell  575.640.2432   |  office  575.524.2030 
 

  m...@positiveenergysolar.com 

  www.PositiveEnergySolar.com

 

  

 

 

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Mac Lewis mailto:maclew...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hello wrenches,

 

I am looking for the exception to the 120% rule in the 2014 code that allowed 
for compliance to the 120% rule to be based on the utility-interactive current 
as opposed to the backfeed breaker size for hybrid inverter.  I hope this still 
exists, but I'm having a hard time finding it in the 2014 code.  In 2011 it was 
705.12(D)2 Exception.  That was nice clear language that all inspectors 
accepted, I'm hoping the same exists for the 2014 code.

 

Thanks in advance code experts

 




 

-- 

 

 

 

Mac Lewis

"Yo solo sé que no sé nada." -Sócrates


___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm  

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org  



 


___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm  

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org  



 

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] NRTL certification question

[billbrooks7]

Steven,

 

Although you are correct that OSHA certifies NRTLs for specific test standards, 
I have not run into jurisdictions in California that reject products listed to 
UL standards by ETL, TUV, and CSA. There have been specific cases where the 
County and City of LA have questioned various products, but to say it was 
because it was coming from another lab is difficult to prove. The City of LA 
has rejected UL products, so their approach has more to do with the fact that 
they have their own lab so they like the revenue that they receive from 
testing—very different issue.

 

I just don’t want rumors to start that some CA AHJs only accept UL—that is 
hearsay and not factual.

 

Bill.

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of Steven Lawrence
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 8:48 AM
To: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Subject: [RE-wrenches] NRTL certification question

 

Just to expand on this, the NRTL has to test to the specific UL standard.  
However, if you look at the definition of "listed" in the NEC, it states 
"equipment, materials, or services included in a list published by an 
organization that is acceptable to the AHJ...).  I have heard of some 
jurisdictions in CA that do not accept CSA, Tuv, ETL, etc and will only accept 
UL as a testing agency.

BTW it is possible to do field certification of equipment, although it's 
probably more cost effective  to purchase new modules.

 

Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:05:53 +
From: Isaac Opalinsky mailto:david.opalin...@sunpower.com> >
To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >
Subject: [RE-wrenches]  NRTL certification question
Message-ID:

mailto:cy1pr07mb2184a207c09e66f9f5ed7e1188...@cy1pr07mb2184.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Allan,

OSHA maintains the list of NRTL?s: 
https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/nrtllist.html.

TUV Rheinland is included, but CE is not a NRTL ? it is a manufacturer?s 
declaration of conformity (literally translated is European Conformity) to 
European requirements for product conformity.  As a manufacturers? declaration, 
it is not a third party certification.  I?d stay away from products that are 
CE, and not UL, TUV, CSA, etc.

Isaac Opalinsky | Technical Sales
77 Rio Robles, San Jose, CA 95134 | office 443-569-3476   | 
mobile 443-277-6286   | isaac.opalin...@sunpower.com 
  >
[sp_2014_logo_black_orange_CMYK-01]
IREC Certified Master Instructor | IREC_10055_AM_PV

***

 

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Undercurrent Protection?

[billbrooks7]

Eric,


Your reasoning sounds logical, but it is missing the point. Transformers have 
to be protected by overcurrent devices, similar to wire. Inverters are current 
limited devices so they only have to be able to withstand a certain size 
circuit breaker. The current from the inverter is considered continuous so most 
circuit breakers are designed to operate at 80% of their rating continuously 
(therefore the requirement to multiply inverter output current by 125%).

 

Does that make any more sense?

 

Bill.

 

Bill Brooks, PE

Principal

Brooks Engineering

3949 Joslin Lane

Vacaville, CA 95688

707-332-0761 (office and mobile)

b...@brooksolar.com (email)

www.brooksolar.com (web)

 

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of e...@harvesthesun.com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 3:34 PM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Undercurrent Protection?

 

I realize this is potentially a stupid question, and one that is long overdue, 
but here goes:

 

Why in 690(B) are we setting a minimum threshold on OCPD when we're protecting 
against over current?

 

Shouldn't we be setting a maximum threshold...as is done in pretty much all 
other cases? The way I see it, we should take the array/inverter max output AC 
current and multiply by 125% to set our min ampacity on wire,

and then calc down to find the breaker trade size that lands between the max AC 
output current and max AC output current times 125%. That way, we avoid 
nuisance tripping but achieve the max overcurrent protection possible.

By following 690(B) we're actually decreasing OCP: Literally, 690(B) is stating 
that we can have a breaker 100x over the circuit rating, so long as it's not 
under the circuit rating times 1.25. To me this seems antilogical.

 

Mr. Brooks?

 

690.9(B) Overcurrent Device Ratings. Overcurrent device ratings

shall be not less than 125 percent of the maximum

currents calculated in 690.8(A).

 

455.7(B)...The overcurrent protection determined

from this section shall not exceed 125 percent of the

phase converter nameplate single-phase input amperes.

 

450.4(A)...Such overcurrent device

shall be rated or set at not more than 125 percent of

the rated full-load input current of the autotransformer.

 

450.5(A)(2) Overcurrent Protection. An overcurrent sensing device

shall be provided that will cause the main switch or commontrip

overcurrent protection referred to in 450.5(A)(1) to open if

the load on the autotransformer reaches or exceeds 125 percent

of its continuous current per-phase or neutral rating.

 

450.5(B)(2)(b) Ampere Rating. The overcurrent protection shall be

rated or set at a current not exceeding 125 percent of the 

autotransformer continuous per-phase current rating or

42 percent of the continuous-current rating of any seriesconnected

devices in the autotransformer neutral connection.

 

 

 

Eric Stikes

Founding Director & CEO

Good Sun Solar, A CA non-profit corp.

www.goodsun.life  

(530) 559-5023

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Undercurrent Protection?

[billbrooks7]

Eric,

 

No worries on the education side. I’ve been educating for nearly 30 years in 
this field. I’m learning new stuff every day so I expect others to have the 
same commitment to learning. I’m glad to see that you do.

 

One personal frustration with the listing label on inverters is that they did 
away with the “maximum overcurrent device” rating on the inverter (there is a 
maximum circuit breaker rating for inverters). This rating, often buried in the 
specifications of the installation instructions of the inverter, is the breaker 
that the inverter was tested with. 

 

An inverter with a one-amp continuous output current can be connected to a 20-A 
circuit breaker (if it has that rating). In fact you can connect up to 16 of 
those inverters on one 20-A breaker—we call that a microinverter branch circuit 
(not a code title).

 

Similarly, we can take four 40-amp inverters and connect them in parallel on a 
200-A breaker as long as the inverter has a 200-amp maximum overcurrent device 
rating. The safety standard tests for the maximum short circuit current that a 
specified circuit breaker can present to an inverter to see if the bonding path 
in the inverter can withstand the inrush and trip the breaker without causing a 
fire. That’s all the safety standard cares about. 

 

If you run a circuit breaker that is connected to an inverter at more than 80% 
of its rating, that’s just stupid because you knew how much current it could 
generate in the first place—it is defined in the ratings. If you run a circuit 
breaker connected to a transformer at more than 80% of its rating continuously, 
you not only violate the listing of the circuit breaker, you also violate the 
listing of the transformer. The only way to fix the transformer issue is to 
lower the load on the transformer. The inverter and the transformer have 
circuit breakers for very different reasons.

 

The circuit breaker connected to an inverter output circuit is really only 
there to protect against a fault in the inverter or a fault in the conductor. 
It does not need to deal with “overcurrent” since the inverter has a defined 
output current.

 

Bill.

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of e...@harvesthesun.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:01 AM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Undercurrent Protection?

 

Bill,

 

OK. I think I get it. We're protecting against nuisance tripping due to heat 
build up over time at breaker terminals resulting from continuous loads/sources 
of current. I understand that you mean an inverter, as a continuous power 
source, needs to be "allowed" greater flexibility (125%) of current constraint 
in order to function when you mention having to "withstand" a certain size 
breaker. However, we're still missing the actual "overcurrent" protection part, 
no? Obviously there's Article 240. But that's still not setting a max OCPD 
size, right?...unless I am missing something.

 

I won't blame you if you decide you have more important things to attend than 
educating me on the nuances of the NEC. I'm still learning and I do greatly 
appreciate your insight!

 

 

Eric

 

 

- Original Message - 

Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Undercurrent Protection?
From: billbroo...@sbcglobal.net  
Date: 10/31/16 5:41 pm
To: "'RE-wrenches'" mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >

Eric,


Your reasoning sounds logical, but it is missing the point. Transformers have 
to be protected by overcurrent devices, similar to wire. Inverters are current 
limited devices so they only have to be able to withstand a certain size 
circuit breaker. The current from the inverter is considered continuous so most 
circuit breakers are designed to operate at 80% of their rating continuously 
(therefore the requirement to multiply inverter output current by 125%).

 

Does that make any more sense?

 

Bill.

 

Bill Brooks, PE

Principal

Brooks Engineering

3949 Joslin Lane

Vacaville, CA 95688

707-332-0761 (office and mobile)

b...@brooksolar.com   (email)

www.brooksolar.com   (web)

 

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of e...@harvesthesun.com  
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 3:34 PM
To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Undercurrent Protection?

 

I realize this is potentially a stupid question, and one that is long overdue, 
but here goes:

 

Why in 690(B) are we setting a minimum threshold on OCPD when we're protecting 
against over current?

 

Shouldn't we be setting a maximum threshold...as is done in pretty much all 
other cases? The way I see it, we should take the array/inverter max output AC 
current and multiply by 125% to set our min ampacity on wire,

and then calc down to find the breaker trade size that lands between the m

Re: [RE-wrenches] SMA $0 series DC disconnect

[billbrooks7]

William,

 

I’m not sure you meant to imply this, but carports and groundmounts do not need 
any RS equipment unless you were to bring the dc conductors into a building, 
which would not be smart.

 

The 2017 NEC allows connectors to be used as isolation devices for equipment as 
long as the circuit current is below 30 amps, which it always is on individual 
strings. I realize California will not be on the 2017 for 3 years, but it will 
make installations cheaper, not more expensive. 

 

Electronics are destined to become a bigger part of PV arrays in the future—and 
not just because of rapid shutdown requirements. It just makes sense in 
building applications for many reasons. The keys will be cost and reliability.

 

Bill.

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of William Miller
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 5:39 PM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: [RE-wrenches] SMA $0 series DC disconnect

 

Friends:

 

I am taking a poll to see if any of you have noticed the change in the SMA 40 
series DC disconnect as compared to earlier series inverters and how it may be 
affecting your installations.  The DC disconnect is no longer in the lower, 
connection box area, but in the electronics area.  This means it will not 
de-energize the DC connections.  Certain jurisdictions will not allow us to 
install this unit without an external disconnect.  The service manual addresses 
the subject. 

 

The Remote Shutdown Box unit may provide a means to de-energize PV sources, but 
in a webinar today SMA claims it does not meet code, possibly in regards to 
lock-out capability.  It actually looked viable to me, but that is not based on 
any research.

 

Soon all or most building mounted PV arrays will require Rapid Shutdown.  This 
will add hundreds of dollars to the cost of an install, but safety is safety.  
What may sting is adding $400-500 of RS equipment to a carport or ground mount 
where it may not otherwise be required.

 

SMA has concurred that the issue bears further discussion and I should hear 
back from them soon.  In the meantime, I thought it might be useful to all 
parties to see how much impact this change in design is having to other 
installers.

 

Thanks in advance for any input.  I will report back on what I learn.

 

William Miller

 

 


Lic 773985
millersolar.com  
805-438-5600

 

___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] SMA 40 series DC disconnect

[billbrooks7]

William,

 

I was also surprised to see SMA go down this road (ala Fronius IG). I can’t 
speak to why they did this. I’m installing my first 40 series right now.

 

I have never supported covering the array as a viable method of removing 
voltage. It is far safer to unplug the strings on the roof if you want to 
remove voltage. Not sure why they did not suggest unplugging instead of 
tarping. 

 

Either way, many jurisdictions will require an external dc disconnect with this 
new configuration—what a waste. If SMA were smart, they would put connectors in 
their dc connection box to be compliant with the 2017 NEC which would solve 
their problem. It means a design change. They must be expecting this product to 
be connected to a rapid shutdown switch box—that’s the only thing that makes 
sense.

 

Bill.

 

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of William Miller
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 10:45 AM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] SMA 40 series DC disconnect

 

Bill:

 

That is exactly my point.  Carports and ground-mounts do not need RS, but any 
system requires safe means to disconnect DC.  So how do you accomplish this 
with the 40 series?

 

Sure, using the DC connector is one way to disconnect the DC input to the 40 
series electronics.  However, the service manual cautions against this.  Below 
is the verbatim text from the manual.  

 

>From SMA Document SB30-77-1SP-US-40-AT-PU-SG-xx-11 Service Manual:

 

• If an external DC disconnecting switch is available, open the external DC 
disconnecting

switch.

• If there is no external DC disconnecting switch, cover the PV modules with 
opaque

material (e.g. foil).

• Ensure that there is no voltage on the DC conductors of the PV array.

• Wait five minutes before working on the inverter.

• Leave the DC-in connecting terminal plate plugged into the Connection Unit 
and only

touch it on the black enclosure.

 

I was told that the term ‘foil’ is a poor translation from German, and likely 
means a tarp.  In any event, this verbiage is quite unfortunate as it precludes 
using the connector as a disconnect.  I wonder if there is some criteria on 
what kind of connectors can be used as a disconnecting means and which cannot.  
I am sure it has something to do with ‘touch-safe’ requirements.  The DC 
connector in the 40 series may not meet this criteria.  The external leads 
could possibly come free of the connector body as they are just 
insert-connected.  I would be very reticent to send out a technician to work on 
one of these without some serious consideration of the implications.

 

SMA seems like they are interested in this conundrum and I am withholding 
judgement pending receiving a response from them.  I just thought it very 
curious that they moved the location of the disconnect in the DC power flow 
scheme.   Seems to me like a fundamental change that flew under the radar.  See 
below for a rendering of the change in DC power flow:

 

Formerly:  PV>Integrated Disconnect-->chassis separation

 

40 Series:  PV -->chassis separation>Integrated Disconnect

 

 

William

 

PS:  I remember wasting an entire afternoon in a conference room in San Diego 
arguing with Fronius about the same concept.  They too insisted that to service 
the IG series inverter one had to just tarp the modules.  Let us please put 
that myth to rest once and for all:  Tarping modules is not viable.

 

Wm

 

 


Lic 773985
millersolar.com  
805-438-5600

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org 
 ] On Behalf Of 
billbroo...@sbcglobal.net  
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 7:40 AM
To: 'RE-wrenches' mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] SMA $0 series DC disconnect

 

William,

 

I’m not sure you meant to imply this, but carports and ground mounts do not 
need any RS equipment unless you were to bring the dc conductors into a 
building, which would not be smart.

 

The 2017 NEC allows connectors to be used as isolation devices for equipment as 
long as the circuit current is below 30 amps, which it always is on individual 
strings. I realize California will not be on the 2017 for 3 years, but it will 
make installations cheaper, not more expensive. 

 

Electronics are destined to become a bigger part of PV arrays in the future—and 
not just because of rapid shutdown requirements. It just makes sense in 
building applications for many reasons. The keys will be cost and reliability.

 

Bill.

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of William Miller
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 5:39 PM
To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >
Subject: [RE-wrenches] SMA $0 series DC disconnect

 

Friends:

 

I am taking a poll to see if any of you have no

Re: [RE-wrenches] 2014 NEC 705-100 (A)

[billbrooks7]

Jay,
 
You need to provide more information. The 2014 NEC is a significant improvement 
in the language related to single-phase inverters on a 3-phase service. To read 
it any other way shows a very large misunderstanding of the language.

It should be much better on the 2014 NEC, not worse. Where do they not get it. 
The old language was used routinely to prevent single-phase inverters on the 
3-phase systems. I wrote the change to the 2014 that greatly improves the 
language.

Bill.

-Original Message-
From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf 
Of jay
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 6:35 PM
To: RE-wrenches 
Subject: [RE-wrenches] 2014 NEC 705-100 (A)

HI All,

I’ve got a client who’s having some issues with the building department. (for 
the 705-11-A  NEC 2014) Now it is true that we in California are now in 2014 
NEC) They are saying that he isn’t allowed to install the 3rd  inverter onto a 
3 phase service ( this system was done in stages, using SMA 3kw for phases 1 
and 2) Now they are being stopped on adding the 3rd.

Anyone ever run into this before?
Any answers?

thanks

jay


___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org


___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org