Corey: I think what you are proposing is a bad idea and false economy.
It is good practice to provide disconnecting and over-current protection devices to all discrete components in any system. This applies to power systems as well as signaling systems. This provides capability to isolate sub-systems for troubleshooting and temporary operation in case of partial failures. The cost of a small sub-panel is a minimal, necessary part of this type of installation. Now that we have seen that very few cases support the math needed to comply with code, further discussion seems purely academic. William Miller Miller Solar > On Jun 30, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Brian Teitelbaum <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Corey, > > The wire ampacity has to be sized for the OCPD, as this is potentially a > bidirectional wire in a fault. While the inverter is current limited, the > grid it’s connected to is only limited by the Service Main, and that 50A > OCPD, which would exceed the ampacity of #10 wire. > > Brian Teitelbaum > AEE Solar > > > > From: RE-wrenches [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Corey Shalanski > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 11:38 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Combining Multiple Inverters > > Thank you to all who responded to this thread - particularly Jason/Dave/Jay > for pointing out the maximum OCPD requirements. > > Getting back to my original question.. I would like to use Dave's "extremely > small subset" example of two SB5s operating at 277V. In this case, if we were > to parallel the output of each inverter onto a 50A OCPD (#6 wire), could we > downsize the wire to #10 from the split going back to each individual > inverter? or would we be better served (required?) to run #6 all the way back > to each unit? Since we are dealing with current-limited devices I would tend > to think we can downsize but wanted to get Wrenches' feedback on this. > > -- > Corey Shalanski > Joule Energy > New Orleans, LA > ᐧ > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:41 PM, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:32:02 -0400 > From: Dave Click <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Combining Multiple Inverters > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > This is an interesting conversation, but I'm not sure it's going to > really impact anything. > > When an inverter is listed, it is tested with some "maximum output > overcurrent protection" as part of its rating per UL 1741. Typically > inverter manufacturers set this to be just above the inverter's max > current + 25%. As you know, many inverters can work at more than one > voltage, so for the SB5s their max current ratings at 277/240/208V are > 18/20.8/24A, respectively. The max overcurrent protection is 50A. This > figure often appears in the manual but not in the data sheet. For SMA, > it's in the manuals. For some manufacturers, it's only available from > tech support. > > For the Sunny Boy line, the only way you could have more than one > inverter on a shared OCPD is if you have two SB5s operating at 277V > (18.1A rated current each, so 2x18.1x1.25 < 50A). The SB6, SB7, and SB8 > all have currents too high to make this work, as they share the 50A max > OCPD. The SB3/3.8/4 have a max OCPD of 30A, which is too low to > double-up since each SB3 requires an OCPD of at least 20A. The TLs don't > work either, as the max for any unit is too low. I don't see it in the > SMA manual, but I know that in other manuals I've seen a manufacturer > requirement for a dedicated OCPD. The only inverters I know of that have > a max OCPD rating far beyond their rated current are micro-inverters. > > As for the shared disconnect, since at least the 2005, 690.15 has noted, > "A single disconnecting means in accordance with 690.17 shall be > permitted for the combined ac output of one or more inverters or ac > modules in an interactive system." That being said, the NEC requires ac > modules and micro-inverters to have ac disconnects (connectors, > typically) per 690.6 and 690.15(A). 690.15 notes that an inverter be > able to be disconnected from all sources, but if doubling up these SB5s > you could argue that this shared disconnect accomplishes that via the > anti-islanding protection... so I agree now that this is a grey area. > > Anyway, it comes down to whether it's worth worrying about this for what > is an extremely small subset of compatible inverter configurations, when > you can just do something like install a $50 Eaton BR24L70RP (70A bus, > 240V, 4 spaces) with two 30A breakers and be on your way. > > DKC > _______________________________________________ > List sponsored by Redwood Alliance > > List Address: [email protected] > > Change listserver email address & settings: > http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org > > List-Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/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: [email protected] Change listserver email address & settings: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html List rules & etiquette: www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm Check out or update participant bios: www.members.re-wrenches.org
