<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Nick,<br>
<br>
Advocating for an economic comparison between the cost of wire and the
energy saved by larger wire is not the same as advocating for high
voltage drops, or low ones either. Even with the present low prices
for PV modules and high prices for copper wire, a 100-ft long 350-volt
dc input to a 3-kW inverter should have around 1% voltage drop. Now
consider a 350-volt 10-amp PV circuit that's 500 feet long. Using 12
AWG copper the dc voltage drop would be 5.5%. Sounds like that might
be a poor wire choice, right? Look what happens as the wire size is
increased:<br>
<br>
Conductor Power $ per<br>
AWG $/ft Cost ---- Loss ---- watt saved<br>
12 0.62 $620 193W (5.5%) -- <br>
10 0.95 $950 123W (3.5%) $4.71 <br>
8 1.54 $1540 77W (2.2%) $12.83<br>
6 2.37 $2370 49W (1.4%) $29.64<br>
4 3.73 $3730 32W (0.9%) $80.00<br>
<br>
It would be reasonable to use 10 AWG copper, but before going up to 8
AWG, I'd consider buying more PV instead. Why buy a watt of power at
$12.83 when it cost less to buy a watt of PV? The conductor price used
here, just for illustration, is from Southwire's price list for
THHN/THWN wire dated 7 April 2010. In the column of conductor costs I
only considered the cost of two current carrying wires. The cost of
the equipment ground wire, conduit, connectors, etc all go up too.
That makes the dollars per watt saved look even worse.<br>
<br>
Kent Osterberg<br>
Blue Mountain Solar, Inc.<br>
<br>
<br>
Nick Soleil wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:904885.96037.qm@web44903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style>
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">I
feel that it is best to maintain a 1.5% voltage drop on the AC and DC.
However, I was just sizing conductors for a 400 KW project, with the
array 1000' from the main service panel. With AC modules, I would have
needed 5-Parallel runs of 700MCM at 208VAC (20 wires at 700MCM for
1.5%VD!) The cost would have been over 100K, which was cost
prohibitive. However, by running DC wiring, and utilzing AL, we were
able to maintain 1.5 VDC drop without being too expensive (yet still
expensive.)<br>
<div> </div>
Nick Soleil<br>
Project Manager<br>
Advanced Alternative Energy Solutions, LLC<br>
PO Box 657<br>
Petaluma, CA 94953<br>
Cell: 707-321-2937<br>
Office: 707-789-9537<br>
Fax: 707-769-9037
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br>
<div
style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font
face="Tahoma" size="2">
<hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b>
Kent Osterberg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kent@coveoregon.com"><kent@coveoregon.com></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> RE-wrenches
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org"><re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Wed, April 7,
2010 7:10:58 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re:
[RE-wrenches] DC wire sizing<br>
</font><br>
<meta http-equiv="x-dns-prefetch-control" content="off">
<title></title>
August,<br>
<br>
Thanks for remembering which SolarPro had that article.<br>
<br>
As an installer you can always claim that larger wire will make the
system more efficient. The question is: does it make sense to put in
larger wire? There is always a point where the extra copper is more
valuable the extra energy. Knowing where that break even point is an
important aspect of the system design. The techniques shown in this
article are what I use. Those that strive blindly to get 1% voltage
drop in a PV circuit when it would be cheaper to buy more PV modules
are wasting money and natural resources.<br>
<br>
Kent Osterberg<br>
Blue Mountain Solar, Inc.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
August Goers wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi All -
It seems to me that there is indeed a rather simple set of calculations that we can run to determine costs and benefits of wire sizing. Solar Pro 3.2 (Feb/Mar 2010) has a good article on this on page 16.
<span><a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://solarprofessional.com/issue/?backissues=1">http://solarprofessional.com/issue/?backissues=1</a></span>
-August
August Goers
Luminalt Energy Corporation
O: 415.641.4000
M: 415.559.1525
F: 650.244.9167
<a moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" ymailto="mailto:august@luminalt.com"
target="_blank" href="mailto:august@luminalt.com">august@luminalt.com</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
ymailto="mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org"
target="_blank" href="mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org">re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org</a> [<a
moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
ymailto="mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org"
target="_blank" href="mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org">mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org</a>] On Behalf Of Bob-O Schultze
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:51 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] DC wire sizing
Ray,
Sorry, I'm not buying that argument over a 25+ year design lifespan. Also, -and perhaps something many folks don't consider- the NEC requires a MAX loss of ≤5% over the ENTIRE circuit. That means all the way to the mains panel. Best practices would require no more than 1.5% VD between the inverter and the mains so as to avoid any potential of
overvoltage disconnection by the inverter. As it tries to push the current into the grid, it also pushes up the voltage on that line and on it's own sensors. Obviously, the larger the current flow and the higher the VD, the worse the situation could be. Bear in mind that the grid is not held to the same over and under voltage specifications as your inverter is. 3% + 1.5% is pushing it just a bit too close for comfort and I still think wasting watts in wire losses is bad design. We agree that orienting PVs to an azimuth other than 180° and a bit less than latitude elevation is less than ideal, but you "run what you brung" in terms of
the orientation and roof pitch of a structure. Better to take a hit on production if we're talking about the backasswards method of incentivizing by the installed watt, than not installing PV at all. That said, we DO have control over wire sizing. IMO, throwing away watts forever just to cheapen it up a very little bit
upfront is poor economy and as the price of gird supplied power increases over the years, the waste and lost revenue is even more acerbated.
Best, Bob-O
On Apr 6, 2010, at 6:04 PM, R Ray Walters wrote:
Just run the numbers sometime. Compare the cost difference of #6 vs. #4 wire say, and then look at how many more watts you're actually saving, then multiply that additional wattage by the installed cost per watt.
Very simply, once you've satisfied code requirements, there is a point at which it is cheaper to add more panels than use bigger wire.
Also, that point is a moving target that fluctuates with PV and wire costs. I've found recently for our projects, that that point is falling at about 3% loss.
I also include a cost factor for oversizing the conduit, extra labor (bigger wire is harder to handle), and any connectors needed to land the larger wire.
I've got very well designed systems working for decades, using this
method.
This is how large commercial systems are designed as well.
You can't simply pull 1%, and then call us bad designers because we actually do an economic analysis for each wire run.
It used to be unheard of to install PV facing anything but due south at latitude tilt, but now we know to add a few more modules. Same concept.
R. Walters
<a moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" ymailto="mailto:ray@solarray.com"
target="_blank" href="mailto:ray@solarray.com">ray@solarray.com</a>
Solar Engineer
On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Bob-O Schultze wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Ray,
A 2% wire loss is the generally accepted metric for battery based systems with relatively low PV voltage input (<150Voc). It's just plain bad design to accept more than a 1% VD on higher voltage systems. PVs ain't THAT cheap.
Best, Bob-O
On Apr 6, 2010, at 11:44 AM, R Ray Walters wrote:
Once I have fulfilled NEC min. requirements, I use a spreadsheet to analyze the cost of larger wire vs. the cost of power lost. Going under 2% is usually not worth it, if copper prices are high, and PV cost is low enough (current market). Sizing for under 2% was good economics a few years back, when PV was high, and copper was low, though.
For NEC 2011, I agree: while I readily welcome development of DC AFI, implementing code before the technology is ready, is a bad idea. But that may be the only way to get the technology in place.....
Ray
On Apr 6, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Kent Osterberg wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Ray,
Considering that we design PV wiring to be efficient with voltage (and power) loss typically less than 2%, the wire size is nearly irrelevant to arcing issues. Essentially all the energy available from the PV array can be dissipated in the dc arc. And since the current is limited by the nature of the IV curve, breakers alone usually won't clear the fault. The best combiner breakers can do (if you have enough parallel circuits) is isolate the fault to one string in the PV array. With one string being 1 or 2 kW in many systems there is still the potential for a lot of heat.
With the 2011 code just around the corner and no dc arc fault protection on the horizon, it looks like our industry is again going to have a code requirement that no one can fulfill.
Kent Osterberg
Blue Mountain Solar, Inc.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>______________________________________________
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>