Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers

2015-07-27 Thread jerrysgarage01
ssage From: jarmo.venalai...@schneider-electric.com Date: 07/27/2015 5:34 AM (GMT-10:00) To: RE-wrenches Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers Hi: When deciding on voltage drops and otherwise working out the design of a solar system, one thing that needs careful atte

Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers

2015-07-27 Thread Jarmo . Venalainen
E-wrenches , Date: 07/25/2015 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers Sent by: "RE-wrenches" You would want to confirm hot temp PV circuit values with chosen Vdrop to ensure the irrelevant value doesn't drop you out of the inverters' operational lim

Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers

2015-07-25 Thread Glenn Burt
ge- From: "Chris Mason" Sent: ‎7/‎25/‎2015 15:20 To: "RE-wrenches" Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers It should be noted that the NEC recommendations for feeder circuits are to do with acceptable voltages at the load, i.e., you do not want your 208

Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers

2015-07-25 Thread Chris Mason
It should be noted that the NEC recommendations for feeder circuits are to do with acceptable voltages at the load, i.e., you do not want your 208V equipment running on 200V. PV circuits are not feeder circuits, voltage drop is irrelevant. Power loss may be relevant, but only in terms of economic v

Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers

2015-07-24 Thread William Miller
I have worked out the area under the daily bell curve. A 2% loss at max current equals 1% loss average. Maybe this logic could allow some flexibility. William > On Jul 25, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Jerry Shafer wrote: > > Wrenches > I have 3 engineering firms and one in-house engineer that only use

Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers

2015-07-24 Thread Jerry Shafer
Wrenches I have 3 engineering firms and one in-house engineer that only use 1% because in the NEC it is stated as a suggestion and not a requirement but they take this as a must not exceed instead, I cant change CC as it will be remotely monitored via the Outback connection, the Engineers refuse to

Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers

2015-07-22 Thread Brian Teitelbaum
*Jerry Shafer *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:38 AM *To:* RE-wrenches *Subject:* [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers Wrenches Some time back there was discussion on the conductor size and efficiency rating requirement for long DC runs. What I am looking at is this, 400 feet of MCM

Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers

2015-07-22 Thread Jarmo . Venalainen
bject: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers Sent by: "RE-wrenches" Wrenches Some time back there was discussion on the conductor size and efficiency rating requirement for long DC runs. What I am looking at is this, 400 feet of MCM 400 to keep the line loss at or below 1% per

Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers

2015-07-22 Thread Starlight Solar Power Systems
Jerry, A long distance wire run is practical now days using a high voltage controller. Have a look at Schneider and Morningstar 600Vdc controllers. Not sure what you mean "by nothing can be changed but wire size” but you will have to rewire the strings into series and protect the wire run. Lar

Re: [RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers

2015-07-22 Thread Roy Rakobitsch
Maybe 600vdc charge controller? Roy Rakobitsch NABCEP Certified Small Wind Installer® NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer® Certified Advanced Tower Climbing, Safety & Rescue Wind/PV Design Engineer Windsine LLC 631-514-4166 www.windsine.org On Jul 22, 2015 1:52 PM, "Jerry Shafer" wrote: > Wrench

[RE-wrenches] DC conductor line loss numbers

2015-07-22 Thread Jerry Shafer
Wrenches Some time back there was discussion on the conductor size and efficiency rating requirement for long DC runs. What I am looking at is this, 400 feet of MCM 400 to keep the line loss at or below 1% per NEC code for an off grid application, cost vs return is not acceptable. 2/0 is less than