[RE-wrenches] Rapid Shutdown Again?
cwarfel
cwarfel at entech-engineering.com
Tue Aug 28 08:50:21 EDT 2018
I like your solutions to this. Just sticking to rapid shutdown and not
the fire code, I think a lot of the problems with 690.12 could be
reduced if the maximum string voltage was 150 or even 250. It reduces
the ampacity on a roof for a given power and I feel that is more of a
danger than array voltage that the Firefighters are highly likely to avoid.
I still cannot get Outback Power to provide a corrected installation
manual or a start up procedure on the RSI/ICS equipment. Two plus months
and all I get are repeated vague or incorrect information. One expert at
OB said that they really didn't deal much with Rapid Shutdown............
I cannot install any more Outback on roofs at this time.
I'll see if it is ok to provide a link to an online petition to change
690.12.
Chris
On 8/27/2018 2:13 PM, Ray wrote:
>
> HI Chris;
>
> As with all things bureaucratic, good intentions can go awry when
> actually implemented. Years ago, I was one of the wrenches pushing
> for some form of disconnect closer to the power source, or the PV
> array. I had no idea it would come back to bite us small off grid
> folks so hard, though. I'm not quite for scrapping all of 690.12, but
> I do think it needs some serious work. /In or on the building/ needs
> to be defined more clearly as 'on the roof'. Ground mounts need a
> clearer exemption. The PV disconnect needs to be clearly defined and
> also clearly stated that the Rapid disconnect system stops there. The
> time limit needs to be bumped up to 90 seconds: no one is going to
> throw the switch and be hacking on the roof that fast. The array
> voltage should be 150 vdc, so that lower voltage off grid systems
> could be exempt, and I really think 690.12 should only apply to larger
> arrays (over 10kW) that have long exposed runs of conduit (over 10
> yards) or that cover more than a certain percentage of the total roof
> area. If an array covers one face of the garage it should be exempt,
> and if it covers half the total roof, then it should have Rapid
> disconnect, for instance. We need to be sensible, do the fire
> fighters have a good spot to cut and vent the roof without electrical
> hazards or not?
>
> Its interesting how article 690 has morphed from being almost entirely
> oriented towards off grid in 99 and 02, to now off grid is barely even
> considered. Just look at the lack of thought when they wrote the
> definitions for /DC to DC Converters/. The solar industry has been
> ready and willing to be thrown under the bus at every turn. I think
> its about time we started advocating for our own self interests like
> all the other parties involved. This also means that us off grid
> folks need to be properly represented, and off grid considered with
> all code changes. I think DC coupled PV should have its own section
> and be separated from AC coupled PV. The systems are so different
> that it doesn't make sense to throw them into the same section. The
> emergence of article 706 is a step in the right direction.
>
> Ray Walters
> Remote Solar
> 303 505-8760
> On 8/23/18 5:31 PM, cwarfel at entech-engineering.com wrote:
>>
>> I think Rapid Shutdown should be scrapped professionally and
>> personally. It was ill conceived and ill written. Anyone willing to
>> join me in a petition to CMP 44 and the like, contact me off list.
>>
>> To your question directly, you have a ground mounted system and you
>> are not subject to 690.12 unless your conductors are "in or on
>> building" which i cannot seem to find what that actually means.
>> Exempted are buildings that are isolated only for the PV system This
>> is a big win for installers as almost everyone installs systems like
>> this....... Right. They used to have a dimension to this, but I
>> guess that gave installers too much information. This is a stupid
>> Code addition for roof mounted pv systems, disguised as protecting
>> Firefighters, but not doing so in reality. The NEC looks politically
>> compromised by consultants and manufacturers who too advantage of
>> this fear mongering. No other country with a pv industry has
>> historically done this. Why are installers not up in arms about this?
>>
>> This is the NEC reference.
>>
>> 690.12 Rapid Shutdown of PV Systems on Buildings. PV system circuits
>> installed on or in buildings shall include a rapid shutdown function
>> to reduce shock hazard for emergency responders in accordance with
>> 690.12(A) through (D).
>>
>> If your system is ground mounted, you are outside the "altruistic"
>> intent of 690.12 of protecting Firefighters. Put a initiation device
>> disconnect switch at the array. Any supporters of RS should chime in
>> with the support of 690.12 and add clarity and guidance to those of
>> us who actually install systems and have to deal with this baloney.
>> 690.12 has caused more problems for multimode systems than any
>> tariffs, which are bad enough. I don' think the industry needs any
>> more "safe design and installation" assistance from the CMPs involved
>> with this issue.
>>
>> Chris Warfel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2018-08-23 00:31, Ray wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings fellow wrenches;
>>>
>>> I know we have beat this many times but I once again have not been
>>> able to resolve the contradictory information in 690 in regards to
>>> implementing 690.12. As Rebekah Hren pointed out before, the
>>> diagrams shown in Figure 690.1(b) show that the /PV System DC
>>> Circuit/ stops at the /PV Disconnect/. Note 2 says specifically the
>>> '/PV Disconnect separates the PV system from all other systems/'.
>>> But then in the definitions in 690.2 on the next page, the new
>>> definition of a /P//V System DC Circuit/ says that it includes DC to
>>> DC converter output circuits. (which are Solar Edge module level
>>> controls, but could be interpreted as a MPPT battery charge
>>> Controller?)
>>>
>>> Then 690.12 which only applies to '/PV System circuits in or on
>>> buildings/', says we have to control conductors more than 3 ft after
>>> penetrating the building.
>>>
>>> So in my case, I'm looking at a ground mount, and installing an
>>> external lockable disconnect on the wall before it goes into the
>>> building. This will officially be the PV Disconnect. In my
>>> interpretation, I should not need to do any Rapid Shutdown, because
>>> I've essentially prevented the /PV system/ from ever entering the
>>> building at all ( based on the 5th diagram and Note 2) However, I
>>> could see an AHJ claiming I had to do RS all the way to the output
>>> side of the charge controller.
>>>
>>> If this were true, could I simply apply RS equipment from the PV
>>> disconnect to the output of the charge controller, or am I back to
>>> module level shutdown for my ground mounted array, or could I build
>>> a tiny building that just housed the PV Disconnect and take the
>>> exemption for '/buildings with the sole purpose of housing PV system
>>> equipment/'?
>>>
>>> Essentially the definitions in 690.2 are too broad, and are at odds
>>> with the Figure and Notes of 690.1. They really didn't fix this in
>>> the 2017 code for us lowly off gridders. Charge controllers are
>>> covered by article 706.23___/Charge Control/_, and NOT by 690.12 at
>>> all. IMHO, the charge controller needs to be clearly defined and
>>> differentiated from DC to DC converters like Solar Edge's module
>>> level DC equipment.
>>>
>>> I just want to go back to doing solar designs and installations, and
>>> quit acting like an attorney parsing every word of this confusing
>>> code language.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ray Walters
>>> Remote Solar
>>> 303 505-8760
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>>>
>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>> <mailto:RE-wrenches at 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
>>> <http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>
>>>
>>> Check out or update participant bios:
>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>>
>> List Address:RE-wrenches at 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 at 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, PE
ENTECH Engineering, Inc.
PO Box 871, Block Island, RI 02807
(401)466-8978
EEI logo <http://entech-engineering.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches_lists.re-wrenches.org/attachments/20180828/a8975e80/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EEIlogolong.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 17117 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches_lists.re-wrenches.org/attachments/20180828/a8975e80/attachment.jpg>
More information about the RE-Wrenches
mailing list