diy solar

diy solar

NEC rapid shutdown requirement seems to require optimizers or microinverters for strings over 80v?

Sure, they can turn stuff off at the main breaker but the leadin and wiring up to that break still remain energised. Unless I am grossly mistaken solar installations in the USA are required to have a isolation switch not necessarily roof mounted, which would result in a similar situation where supply is removed but sections of the wiring remain energised. This additional regulation would be more like requiring the leadin be automatically disconnected at the pole when the main breaker is opened.
 
I have never seen them wait for a pole fuse. However, when the house down the street from me was on fire, I did notice they shut everything off at the meter. This is in line with the new ruling that says the solar shutdown switch has to be accessible. Firefighters will still have to be trained on how to deal with situations where hot electrical lines are present, but the result will be that they can't or won't do some things that they would otherwise do. They will have fewer options to aggressivly fight the fire.

BTW: I am retired from the computer industry and have nothing to do with firefighters, the NEC or equipment manufacturers. Furthermore, I believe the government usually makes things worse when they try to regulate them. However, like I said before, it seems to me that the NEC is doing a reasonable job. I suspect that the fact that the NEC is part of a private trade organization has a lot to do with this. The NEC writes guidelines and municipalities decide to adopt them as requirements (or not). It keeps the NEC an arms length away from the politicians. (Can you imagine the mess it would be if politicians were writing the rules for electrical code?)
The NFPA owns and publishes and copyrights the NEC. They are a "non-profit" organization that had over $18 million in income in 2017 on revenue of around $93 million. It is not a government agency, and there are no federal government associations with it.
 
Sure, they can turn stuff off at the main breaker but the leadin and wiring up to that break still remain energised. Unless I am grossly mistaken solar installations in the USA are required to have a isolation switch not necessarily roof mounted, which would result in a similar situation where supply is removed but sections of the wiring remain energised. This additional regulation would be more like requiring the leadin be automatically disconnected at the pole when the main breaker is opened.

Yes, They still have to be careful around the utility lead-in. The difference is that the Utility lead-in is not laying all over the roof where the firefighters need to bust through to get to the fire. Once they shut off the main, there is only a small area that is still energized. I don't know if it by code or just by convienence, but here in the states the meter and shut-off seems to always be directly under the overhead utility lead in. This means that once the power is off, there is a very small and known area they have to worry about. (I don't know what is typical for an under-ground service lead in)

I have not researched this new requirement, but I know of other NEC requirements that were developed based on records of real problems seen in the 'wild'. I suspect these new rules grew out of reports of actual problems seen by firefighters at fires.

I am bumed out by the new rules and I wish they wern't there. However I can understand them and appreciate why they were put in place.
 
I think this just means large arrays not on compliance, must be on ground mount systems...
No way to be in compliance with roof mounted conventional solar systems...
It just means roof stuff needs to be microinverters...

Man that sucks.
 
Ah ha!

3) PV arrays with no exposed wiring methods, no exposed conductive parts, and installed more than 2.5 m (8 ft) from exposed grounded conductive parts or ground shall not be required to comply with 690.12(B)(2).

So, if the wiring directly penetrates the roof, and does not follow along the roofline, the rapid shutdown ruling in invalid?
 
I KNOW the 2014 ruling is for flat roofs...

I do not see anything in the 2107 code specifying flat roofs...
It just says buildings... but it goes on to say walking path etc... so? Maybe?
I will go to my code enforcement office and ask for a ruling.
 
Reading
Ah ha!

3) PV arrays with no exposed wiring methods, no exposed conductive parts, and installed more than 2.5 m (8 ft) from exposed grounded conductive parts or ground shall not be required to comply with 690.12(B)(2).

So, if the wiring directly penetrates the roof, and does not follow along the roofline, the rapid shutdown ruling in invalid?

I recall reading the 2017 reg changed this to 1 meter from the array
 
Ah ha!

3) PV arrays with no exposed wiring methods, no exposed conductive parts, and installed more than 2.5 m (8 ft) from exposed grounded conductive parts or ground shall not be required to comply with 690.12(B)(2).

So, if the wiring directly penetrates the roof, and does not follow along the roofline, the rapid shutdown ruling in invalid?


Earlier in this thread MAAST posted this link:

https://www.purepower.com/blog/2017-nec-690.12-rapid-shutdown-important-changes

Here is part of that article:

Rapid Shutdown Code – Part 2 (Effective after January 1, 2019)
Language of the Code 690.12(B)(2):
(2) Inside the Array Boundary. The PV system shall comply with one of the following:


(1) The PV array shall be listed or field labeled as a rapid shutdown PV array. Such a PV array shall be installed and used in accordance with the instructions included with the rapid shutdown PV array listing and labeling or field labeling.

(2) Controlled conductors located inside the boundary or not more than 1 m (3 ft) from the point of penetration of the surface of the building shall be limited to not more than 80 volts within 30 seconds of rapid shutdown initiation. Voltage shall be measured between any two conductors and between any conductor and ground. This is the really important part!


(3) PV arrays with no exposed wiring methods, no exposed conductive parts, and installed more than 2.5 m (8 ft) from exposed grounded conductive parts or ground shall not be required to comply with 690.12(B)(2).

The requirement of 690.12(B)(2) shall become effective January 1, 2019.

What this means to you:
This “inside the array boundary” part is all new and doesn’t resemble the previous requirements. Sub-item 1 requires a UL standard that isn't out yet, and
sub-item 3 is intended for BIPV, so we will skip both.

I had to look up what BIPV means and found this:
https://www.wbdg.org/resources/building-integrated-photovoltaics-bipv

BIPV is Building Integrated PhotoVoltics

Apparently this is intended for things like making windows out of semi-transparent photo panels. Presumably, Tesla's solar shingles would apply as well. The wording in point 3 seems to allow for some wiggle room, but be careful about making any assumptions. When it comes to deciding exactly what the wording means, it comes down to your local building inspectors. There are a lot of stories of one town reading the NEC one way and another town reading it another way. Furthermore, it is not like you can appeal to the NEC if you don't like what your inspector says. The only appeals are what your local jurisdiction has set up.

I also can't believe they are going to leave this open ended. At some point they will likely add guidelines around this for the same reasons they added the other guidelines. They will often make exclusions like this if they can't come up with practical rules that work with available technology and product. Once a solution is available, they will add it to the code. (It is probably no coincidence that these new rules are showing up about the same time micro-inverters are catching on)

Yes....this has the optics of the Micro Inverter manufactures buying off the NEC. That could be what happened but I don't think that is the case.
 
We are in Colorado and were required to have rapid Shutdown on our 1500 watt rooftop array. Our solar engineer at NAZWS did not think it was necessary on off-grid applications but, after checking with the electrical inspector NEC 2017 does indeed require this. After some research the engineer at NAZWS came up with a product from Outback Power called FireRaptors. We were also required to have an outside shut off for the inverter power supply to the service panel. So the power from the inverter is ran outside to a 240v/60amp breaker - double pole. The power for the FireRaptor's 24vdc transformer is pulled from one leg of the invert shut off. Even though there is a big red button to shut the panels down, by tripping the main breaker to the inverter power supply the power is cut to the FireRaptors as well. This does leave power from the battery bank to the inverter and then under the cabin and out to the main disconnect. But that passed inspection. Link to the FireRaptors: https://www.solar-electric.com/outb...MIx9-Mlr7F5gIVzODICh2Ejgv6EAQYASABEgIqS_D_BwE
 
We are in Colorado and were required to have rapid Shutdown on our 1500 watt rooftop array. Our solar engineer at NAZWS did not think it was necessary on off-grid applications but, after checking with the electrical inspector NEC 2017 does indeed require this. After some research the engineer at NAZWS came up with a product from Outback Power called FireRaptors. We were also required to have an outside shut off for the inverter power supply to the service panel. So the power from the inverter is ran outside to a 240v/60amp breaker - double pole. The power for the FireRaptor's 24vdc transformer is pulled from one leg of the invert shut off. Even though there is a big red button to shut the panels down, by tripping the main breaker to the inverter power supply the power is cut to the FireRaptors as well. This does leave power from the battery bank to the inverter and then under the cabin and out to the main disconnect. But that passed inspection. Link to the FireRaptors: https://www.solar-electric.com/outb...MIx9-Mlr7F5gIVzODICh2Ejgv6EAQYASABEgIqS_D_BwE
More MC4 connectors to worry about. How many panels and how many MC4 connections do you have?
 
6 panels ... I'm guessing here... 28 I think. 2x6=12 x 2 for FireRaptors = 24 + 4 for extensions to rooftop combiner box = 28... I think! I gua lot of places for failure but we were extra careful making up our wires. No issues in this first 6 months.

Edit... each FireRaptor connects to 2 panels so my count may be off.... only required 3 Fireraptors for the 6 panels.
 
We are in Colorado and were required to have rapid Shutdown on our 1500 watt rooftop array. Our solar engineer at NAZWS did not think it was necessary on off-grid applications but, after checking with the electrical inspector NEC 2017 does indeed require this. After some research the engineer at NAZWS came up with a product from Outback Power called FireRaptors. We were also required to have an outside shut off for the inverter power supply to the service panel. So the power from the inverter is ran outside to a 240v/60amp breaker - double pole. The power for the FireRaptor's 24vdc transformer is pulled from one leg of the invert shut off. Even though there is a big red button to shut the panels down, by tripping the main breaker to the inverter power supply the power is cut to the FireRaptors as well. This does leave power from the battery bank to the inverter and then under the cabin and out to the main disconnect. But that passed inspection. Link to the FireRaptors: https://www.solar-electric.com/outb...MIx9-Mlr7F5gIVzODICh2Ejgv6EAQYASABEgIqS_D_BwE

Hmmmm. Interesting solution. It allows for building out high voltage strings with 24 volt panels. ~$30 per panel in parts, but probably just as much more in labor. Not cheap but cheaper than a micro-inverter on every other panel.

When I first saw the '80 Volt' requirement I wondered where that came from. I now suspect they had an 'every-other-panel' solution in mind when they set the voltage to be conveniently just above the OC voltage of two typical 24 volt panels.

If this is the direction the industry goes, I hope they standardize. Then panel makers could build it into the panel and bring the system cost down. For 24 or 12 volt panels they could have two versions of the same panel, one with and one without the function built in. Then you could have every other panel wired to the kill line and stay under the 80 volt limit.
 
Hmmmm. Interesting solution. It allows for building out high voltage strings with 24 volt panels. ~$30 per panel in parts, but probably just as much more in labor. Not cheap but cheaper than a micro-inverter on every other panel.

When I first saw the '80 Volt' requirement I wondered where that came from. I now suspect they had an 'every-other-panel' solution in mind when they set the voltage to be conveniently just above the OC voltage of two typical 24 volt panels.

If this is the direction the industry goes, I hope they standardize. Then panel makers could build it into the panel and bring the system cost down. For 24 or 12 volt panels they could have two versions of the same panel, one with and one without the function built in. Then you could have every other panel wired to the kill line and stay under the 80 volt limit.
I'm thinking about installing The Clapper in mine.
 
Well I remembered wrong, I just looked it up and OC for a typical 24 volt panel is 42 volts. They must have NOT wanted 2 24 volt panels.
 
Well I remembered wrong, I just looked it up and OC for a typical 24 volt panel is 42 volts. They must have NOT wanted 2 24 volt panels.
Mo' $$$ for someone. Just get ready for 2V. Plumbing can double as conduit.
 
I just looked up several high wattage panels. They seem to hit 40V OC at around 300 watts. So you can build a good system with 2 per.
 
Back
Top