So far the module level shutdown requirements have been a real blow to our
industry. The reliability and cost from a maintenance and installation
standpoint has been very hit or miss so far. It feels like this requirement was
rolled out far too quickly without enough forethought to its impact on
Sky,
I, for one, totally agree. While I agree with the need to keep
firefighters safe, it seems to me that rules regarding solar conduit would
serve the same purpose; required labeling of rooftop conduit beyond the
array boundary, required distance below roof deck for attic conduit, etc.
I am sur
Andrew,
If these are the only two examples of justification of MLSD
and not knowing the details of the examples you've cited, I suggest
there is a more effective, equal in labor to apply, less expensive,
durable solution. For the squirrel problem, an alternate solution is
one of
Hi Sly,
The small part of the industry ( Offgrid ) mostly uses ground mounting
and is not using MLSD. On some new offgrid homes I use rapid shutdown at
MPPT level to get the permit if the AHJ can't be reasoned with. The
Schneider rapid shutdown has a nice 600 vdc disconnect in it, that is
useful
Yes, I would like more info too. I'm all about safety, but it needs to
be based on reality not theory. For instance, would string level shut
down have stopped the arcs you mentioned? Also, I second the
screening. Even if MLSD stops the fire, the rodents have still won the
day by taking out
Hi Ben,
Dave had to go on a service call up into the high county. No cell ! I
expect him back before dark. Probably will get back in the AM
Thanks, Ingrid
Dave Angelini Offgrid Solar
"we go where powerlines don't"
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
e-mail offgridso...@sti.net
text 209 813 0060
Dear All,
I have been an outspoken critic of module level shutdown for all the reasons
folks do. However, I have come around. We have witnessed too many systems
where rooftop wiring has been chewed up by critters... mostly squirrels. We
have seen everything from residential fires to holes in
Friends:
Recently it was posited here that metallic scrims or wire guarding is
required to be bonded. This is not technically correct. Section
250.4(A)(4) states bonding is required for …*non–current-carrying
electrically*
*conductive materials that are likely to become energized…*
If it c
Ray,
That's a great point it seems like people are really concerned about
squirrels and I simply don't understand how adding more components and more
potential points of failure helps to address a potential rodent attack, If
anything it seems like MLSD just increases the amount of risk of damage
fr
I agree with the MLPE concept.
It is safer, period. There are no high voltage ground faults, series or
parallel.
Fire danger is significantly reduced from just a single module.
The danger to firefighters is almost 0 with MLPE. Probably greater danger
slipping on them than shock.
But other a
There’s a buried-in-plain-sight issue here that has bugged me for years.
In the bad old days we had to hard wire into J-boxes on the backs of modules. A
pain, but it meant that, if necessary, we could install conduit from the module
to the combiner box. Now we have convenient pigtails.
Howeve
I totally agree; where else does the NEC allow loose single conductor
cables to run unprotected? outdoors? All because the module manus and
industry in general has made no effort, zero, to accommodate any type of
electrical industry standard K/Os for conduit, or TEK 90 (great stuff
BTW). If
12 matches
Mail list logo
