Re: [RE-wrenches] Flexible stranded Connectors

[William Miller]

Ray:

Darn good question, especially since I will be doing the exact same thing, 
*tomorrow*.

I have never been clear on the real problem. Fine stranded cables overheat in 
the wrong lugs?  Is this true for mechanical or compression?

Aside from code compliance, what is the best common sense approach to Sunny 
Islands with fine stranded?  Annual retorquing?  Pin terminals?  Solder tinning 
the strands?

I used to wrap thin copper sheeting around fine stranded just to corral the 
strands. Is this a possible solution?

Thanks Ray for bringing up a question I forgot to consider. 

William


Miller Solar

> On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Ray Walters  wrote:
> 
> Hi All;
> 
> In order to avoid any of my work showing up in someone's slideshow of 
> horrors, I'm trying to find the correct way to wire 3 Sunny Islands with 
> Cobra X flex cable.
> While it doesn't actually mention it in the SMA manual, a call to SMA tech 
> support confirmed my suspicions: the DC lugs in the inverter are NOT rated 
> for flex or fine stranded cable.
> Both SMA and CED recommended I try Grainger's for crimp on adapters.  
> Grainger had no clue, and nothing came up in searches there.
> From a trade show, I have an ILSCO lug book, that shows a crimp on pigtail 
> adapter.  It does not mention whether its flex rated though on the crimp side 
> of the adapter, as the adapter is used primarily to land over sized cables 
> into smaller lugs.  (2/0 to #1, for instance)
> The best I've found so far, is NSI, which makes sleeves, that are installed 
> around the wire, right in the connection:
> http://www.nsiindustries.com/products/electrical/connectors/compression-connectors/copper-compression/fsflex-cable-sleeve.aspx
> I also found a Schneider white paper recommending sleeves with their lugs:
> http://static.schneider-electric.us/docs/Circuit%20Protection/0515DB0301.pdf
> 
> So who has used these sleeves, and where do I get them?
> The sleeves seem like a decent compromise, whilst the ILSCO pigtail adapters 
> are coming in at $40/ ea.. (ouch)
> 
> On the internet, I'm seeing several examples of X flex used directly (no 
> adapters) with the Sunny Islands, so are folks just blowing off articles 
> 690.31(F) and 110.14, that specify the connector be rated for flex cable?
> And finally, couldn't SMA use a lug that was flex rated?
> For example, Marathon makes Class K rated mechanical Lugs: 
> http://www.marathonsp.com/NewRatings.html
> I'd use THHN, but I really don't feel good about wiring the Heineman breakers 
> with that stiff a wire.  I've cracked breaker cases before..that's why 
> the X flex is industry standard for off grid DC.
> 
> Thanks for your help,
> 
> -- 
> R.Ray Walters
> CTO, Solarray, Inc
> Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
> Licensed Master Electrician
> Solar Design Engineer
> 303 505-8760
> 
> ___
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
> 
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
> 
> Change email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List-Archive: 
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
> 
> Check out participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
> 
___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

[RE-wrenches] Flexible stranded Connectors

[Ray Walters]

Hi All;

In order to avoid any of my work showing up in someone's slideshow of 
horrors, I'm trying to find the correct way to wire 3 Sunny Islands with 
Cobra X flex cable.
While it doesn't actually mention it in the SMA manual, a call to SMA 
tech support confirmed my suspicions: the DC lugs in the inverter are 
NOT rated for flex or fine stranded cable.
Both SMA and CED recommended I try Grainger's for crimp on adapters.  
Grainger had no clue, and nothing came up in searches there.
From a trade show, I have an ILSCO lug book, that shows a crimp on 
pigtail adapter.  It does not mention whether its flex rated though on 
the crimp side of the adapter, as the adapter is used primarily to land 
over sized cables into smaller lugs.  (2/0 to #1, for instance)
The best I've found so far, is NSI, which makes sleeves, that are 
installed around the wire, right in the connection:

http://www.nsiindustries.com/products/electrical/connectors/compression-connectors/copper-compression/fsflex-cable-sleeve.aspx
I also found a Schneider white paper recommending sleeves with their lugs:
http://static.schneider-electric.us/docs/Circuit%20Protection/0515DB0301.pdf

So who has used these sleeves, and where do I get them?
The sleeves seem like a decent compromise, whilst the ILSCO pigtail 
adapters are coming in at $40/ ea.. (ouch)


On the internet, I'm seeing several examples of X flex used directly (no 
adapters) with the Sunny Islands, so are folks just blowing off articles 
690.31(F) and 110.14, that specify the connector be rated for flex cable?

And finally, couldn't SMA use a lug that was flex rated?
For example, Marathon makes Class K rated mechanical Lugs: 
http://www.marathonsp.com/NewRatings.html
I'd use THHN, but I really don't feel good about wiring the Heineman 
breakers with that stiff a wire.  I've cracked breaker cases 
before..that's why the X flex is industry standard for off grid DC.


Thanks for your help,

--
R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

[RE-wrenches] Whole house backup

[Mac Lewis]

Hello Wrenches,

I'm working on a design and could use some other points of view.  I have a
potential client that would like some backup power.  His house is bored
into a sandstone cliff and would be exceedingly costly to get any conduit
in and out of the structure, so I'm trying to avoid it.  It's not possible
to consolidate a critical load panel.  He currently has a grid-tied system
mounted on poles out by his pedestal-mounted main service panel.  He has
large electric loads, 2 electric hot water heaters, an electric stove and
some very ancient refrigerators.  He may swap some of these out, but its
not possible to get gas lines to serve these large heat loads.  For the
backup part of his system, he doesn't need to run these large electrical
loads and he does not need the system to automatically switch over to
backup mode.  He is willing to throw a switch or two.
Here is my initial idea.
1. Put the whole house on a 200A manual transfer switch.
2. Backfeed (ie from AC input terminals on hybrid inverter), the main
service panel
3. Put the grid on one pole of the transfer switch, and connect the AC
output of the hybrid inverter to the other pole of the transfer switch.
4.  In order to keep the hybrid inverter from backfeeding itself, I'd put a
power relay that disconnects the AC input terminal of the hybrid inverter
from the main service panel when the grid is down, and keeps it locked out.
5.  Because this system would be a manual transfer, the owner could turn
off all of his large electric loads before he switched to backup mode.

It seems like it may work.

Thanks in advance for any feedback, or other design possibilities.




-- 



Mac Lewis

*"Yo solo sé que no sé nada." -Sócrates*
___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Shade for Inverters on a flat roof

[Chris Mason]

I can show how we did the same thing on a flat roof using unistrut and
angle iron for 3 x SMA 20kw Tripowers and a 400A panel. All we had was a
$100 MIG welder. We put some roof steel sheet above the inverters.
I will have to look for photos.

Chris Mason
Comet Systems
Anguilla (264) 235-5670
St. Kitts  (869) 662-5670
skype netconcepts

NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer™
Renewable Energy Systems professional
Generac Generators Factory technician
On Apr 29, 2014 6:11 PM, "Allen Frishman"  wrote:

> Hey Wrenchers,
> I am looking for suggestions for building a shade structure on a flat roof
> for inverters and load center.There is no bulk heads on this flat roof
> and it is a zero lot building so there is no exterior wall available to
> hang the inverters.   No space inside the building either so the roof is
> the only option.Any suggestions?   I will be using a ballast racking
> system so the array will not provide any shade.
>
> All ideas welcome and appreciated!
>
> *Al Frishman*
> AeonSolar
>
> *(917) 699-6641 <%28917%29%20699-6641> - cell*
> *(888) 460-2867 <%2%29%20460-2867>*
> *www.aeonsolar.com *
>
>
> ___
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check out participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
>
>
___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] high efficiency modules in U.S.

[Exeltech]

Hello Jay,

They're assembling, using cells from domestic and international sources.  Their 
other components are domestic to the maximum extent possible.  Problem is .. 
like the domestic PV firms mentioned in another post, domestic component 
manufacturers are also going out of business, forcing procurement from foreign 
companies.

If we don't step up and increase support of our American firms .. there 
eventually won't be any American firms left to support.


Dan

On Tue, 4/29/14, jay peltz  wrote:

Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] high efficiency modules in U.S.
To: "RE-wrenches" 
Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2014, 5:36 PM

Dan,

Are they assembling or actually making cells as well?

jay

peltz power

On Apr 28, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Exeltech wrote:

> There's also 1Soltech Dallas, Texas.
>
> Made in the USA.  (Confirmed.  I visited their plant on a field trip with a 
> solar energy club not long ago and saw their production line in operation.)
>
> They make 60-cell and 80-cell PV ranging from 230W to 350W, and maybe others. 
>  They've even got a series of modules that are made with "colored" cells in 
> red, green, or blue.
>
> Not 20%+ (more like 16.0-16.5%) .. but of domestic manufacture .. and 
> available.  Been around since 2008.
>
> http://1soltech.com/
>
>
> Dan Lepinski

___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Article 690, or The Haves Vs. Have Nots

[jay peltz]

Follow up to Bill's point.

For Micros I've installed a disconnect on the roof, but never a breaker or fuse
Why install a breaker?

jay

peltz power
On Apr 29, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Bill Hoffer wrote:

> Dave
> 
> I agree, in the case of microinverters, you already have a main PV System 
> disconnect at the Load Panel to shut down the system that is readily 
> accesible.  I would consider the disconnect on the roof as a supplemental 
> disconnect for the purposes of maintenance by authorized personal that only 
> needs to be accessible.  
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Dave Click  wrote:
> I think 240.24(A)(4) allows the installation of the inverter OCPDs in the 
> SolaDeck hidden under a module.
> 
> 240.24 Location in or on Premises.
> (A) Accessibility. Overcurrent devices shall be readily accessible and shall 
> be installed so that the center of the grip of the operating handle of the 
> switch or circuit breaker, when in its highest position, is not more than 2.0 
> m (6 ft 7 in.) above the floor or working platform, unless one of the 
> following applies:
> ...
> (4) For overcurrent devices adjacent to utilization equipment that they 
> supply, access shall be permitted to be by portable means.
> 
> 
> And if panelboards / fused safety switches are allowed to have screwed-down 
> covers over the OCPDs, I'd think that installing a removable module over 
> these OCPDs would meet NEC. I guess an AHJ could argue that this requires TWO 
> covers be removed, unlike a panelboard or a switch.
> 
> DKC
> 
> 
> On 2014/4/29, 11:15, Jason Szumlanski wrote:
>> 690.9(D) is not applicable to the original discussion because we were 
>> talking about an Inverter output circuit, not a PV Source or Output circuit.
>> 
>> 690.34 may apply if you call a SolaDeck with breakers a junction box, but I 
>> can see that being a stretch in the mind of many. 
>> 
>> My and Ray's question about the screws on the SolaDeck cover itself 
>> requiring a tool to render it accessible is still an issue if the breakers 
>> themselves need to be "readily accessible," but that would also apply to a 
>> Midnite MNPV, which also has a cover with a screw.
>> 
>> 
>> Jason Szumlanski
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/28/2014 5:57 PM, Bill Brooks wrote:
>>> Read 690.9(D) and 690.34. Not sure where this “hysteria—run for the border” 
>>> sentiment is coming from.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 690.9(D) Photovoltaic Source and Output Circuits. Listed PV
>>> 
>>> overcurrent devices shall be required to provide overcurrent
>>> 
>>> protection in PV source and output circuits. The overcurrent
>>> 
>>> devices shall be accessible but shall not be required to
>>> 
>>> be readily accessible.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 690.34 Access to Boxes. Junction, pull, and outlet boxes
>>> 
>>> located behind modules or panels shall be so installed that
>>> 
>>> the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible
>>> 
>>> directly or by displacement of a module(s) or panel(s) secured
>>> 
>>> by removable fasteners and connected by a flexible
>>> 
>>> wiring system.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> This is not a change. Please help me understand the concern.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Bill Brooks.
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org 
>>> [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Ray Walters
>>> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 2:23 PM
>>> To: RE-wrenches
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] (no subject)
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Interesting so does "require a tool" include taking a screw off the cover 
>>> plate of the combiner box, too?
>>> What a game changer.  I'm going to Mexico for my next project; I'll 
>>> actually enjoy even more being the sole AHJ on the project.  
>>> 
>>> R.Ray Walters
>>> CTO, Solarray, Inc
>>> Nabcep Certified PV Installer, 
>>> Licensed Master Electrician
>>> Solar Design Engineer
>>> 303 505-8760
>>> On 4/28/2014 2:52 PM, Michael Morningstar wrote:
>>> 
>>> Readily accessible is now defined in the 2014 NEC. Installing OCPD’s 
>>> underneath a module is a major faux paux, and I can’t imagine any AHJ 
>>> thinking otherwise. Having to remove a module in order to reset a breaker, 
>>> what a drag.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> "Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal or inspection 
>>> without requiring those concerned to use a tool, to climb over, remove 
>>> obstacle or other.”
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:29 AM, William Miller  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You call it a solar panel, I call it a glass j-box cover plate. 
>>> 
>>> William
>>> 
>>> Miller Solar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jason Szumlanski  wrote:
>>> 
>>> If that is the interpretation,
>>> I don't see how the breakers are "readily accessible" in a SolaDeck
>>> mounted anywhere, regardless of whether it is under a module. It
>>> requires removal of four screws (using a tool) to access the breakers
>>> inside the enclosure. It's all up to the AHJ. It has not been an issue
>>> locally here. I can see how other juri

Re: [RE-wrenches] high efficiency modules in U.S.

[jay peltz]

Dan,
Are they assembling or actually making cells as well?

jay

peltz power
On Apr 28, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Exeltech wrote:

> There's also 1Soltech Dallas, Texas.
> 
> Made in the USA.  (Confirmed.  I visited their plant on a field trip with a 
> solar energy club not long ago and saw their production line in operation.)
> 
> They make 60-cell and 80-cell PV ranging from 230W to 350W, and maybe others. 
>  They've even got a series of modules that are made with "colored" cells in 
> red, green, or blue.
> 
> Not 20%+ (more like 16.0-16.5%) .. but of domestic manufacture .. and 
> available.  Been around since 2008.
> 
> http://1soltech.com/
> 
> 
> Dan Lepinski
> 
> 
> ___
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
> 
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
> 
> Change email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List-Archive: 
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
> 
> Check out participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
> 
> 

___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Shade for Inverters on a flat roof

[Benn Kilburn]

Al,
Not sure what you mean by "zero lot building"?
Can you design/construct a ballasted "wall/structure" at the back of the
array that could accommodate the inverters and load center on its
'out-of-the-sun' side.  It could be a covered/vented cabinet.
  Are micro-inverters an option?  That would make it easier to
design/construct such a wall.

Benn


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Allen Frishman wrote:

> Hey Wrenchers,
> I am looking for suggestions for building a shade structure on a flat roof
> for inverters and load center.There is no bulk heads on this flat roof
> and it is a zero lot building so there is no exterior wall available to
> hang the inverters.   No space inside the building either so the roof is
> the only option.Any suggestions?   I will be using a ballast racking
> system so the array will not provide any shade.
>
> All ideas welcome and appreciated!
>
> *Al Frishman*
> AeonSolar
>
> *(917) 699-6641 <%28917%29%20699-6641> - cell*
> *(888) 460-2867 <%2%29%20460-2867>*
> *www.aeonsolar.com *
>
>
> ___
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check out participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
>
>
___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Setbacks for fire responder protection

[Solar Energy Solutions]

William,
 
Please feel free to add this link to your site.  The Oregon Code is precedent 
setting and should be copied and improved upon regarding rooftop access.  When 
I say improved, I mean that 60% or more of an entire roof be available to 
firefighter access leaving 40% for solar.  This should be the line in the sand 
for anyone representing the solar industry.  Fighting tooth and nail against a 
committee of 12 and without any industry support one Bozo got 25%.  See pg 26 
for the Koyaanisqatsi clauses.  
 
http://www.bcd.oregon.gov/programs/solar/100510_OSISC_commentary.pdf

Andrew Koyaanisqatsi
President
Solar Energy Solutions, Inc.
Since 1987,
Moving Portland and Beyond 
to an Environmentally Sustainable Future.
503-238-4502
http://www.solarenergyoregon.com/ 
"Better one's House too little one day
than too big all the Year after."

 From: "will...@millersolar.com" 
>To: RE-wrenches  
>Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:24 AM
>Subject: [RE-wrenches] Setbacks for fire responder protection
>  
>
>
>Dear Colleagues:
> 
>I know many of you have been concerned about the impacts of new regulations on 
>roof-top solar intended to protect fire responders.  I have a new scenario to 
>offer for your consideration:
> 
>Around here only one city has adopted codes that require eave and ridge 
>setbacks to provide firefighter access for residential rooftop PV.  The 
>standard used for this city and for others adopting commercial restrictions 
>had been a draft proposal presented by Cal-Fire that has been circulating for 
>a while.  A copy of that is on our web site.  
> 
>This city has upped the ante by increasing the setback such that the 
>measurement starts not at the gable eave but at the gable framed wall.  This 
>typically subtracts another 24” of module space.  It appears that the 
>justification for this more restrictive interpretation is language in the 2013 
>California Fire Code offers some suggestion that gable eaves are not 
>structurally sound, although this is not stated.  Here is the language:
> 
>The access pathway shall be located at a structurally strong location on the 
>building capable of supporting the live load of fire fighters accessing the 
>roof.
> 
>I see no evidence in the language to support the notion that a gable eave 
>overhang is not structurally sound.  It is certainly strong enough to allow 
>roofers and other trades people to traverse without concern.  I would suggest 
>that any portion of a framed roof can become unsound if the underpinnings are 
>being burned away.
> 
>I think to disallow eaves as part of access paths based on the language is 
>taking this too far.  Comments?
> 
>Changing subjects slightly:  I have always wondered why we must preserve 
>access to both sides of a E-W ridge.  The concept  I have heard is that 
>firefighters may need to open the roof at the highest point to let out smoke.  
>I have never seen a partition below a ridge in the attic that would prevent 
>smoke from wafting sideways 36” to a hole cut on the north side of the ridge 
>versus the south side.  Does anyone know of a reason that the south side of 
>the ridge needs to be kept clear when the north side is clear?
> 
>The material I refer to can be found here:  
>http://www.millersolar.com/MillerSolar/Resources/_Resources.html
> 
>William Miller
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
>Lic 773985
>millersolar.com
>805-438-5600
> 
>___
>List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>
>List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>
>Change email address & settings:
>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
>List-Archive: 
>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
>List rules & etiquette:
>www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
>Check out participant bios:
>www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
>
>
>___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

[RE-wrenches] Shade for Inverters on a flat roof

[Allen Frishman]

Hey Wrenchers,
I am looking for suggestions for building a shade structure on a flat roof for 
inverters and load center.There is no bulk heads on this flat roof and it 
is a zero lot building so there is no exterior wall available to hang the 
inverters.   No space inside the building either so the roof is the only 
option.Any suggestions?   I will be using a ballast racking system so the 
array will not provide any shade.

All ideas welcome and appreciated!
Al Frishman
AeonSolar

(917) 699-6641 - cell
(888) 460-2867
www.aeonsolar.com


___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Article 690, or The Haves Vs. Have Nots

[Ray Walters]

I'm glad everyone is having so much fun with that pic, as scary as it 
was.  We could make a contest out of it: "How many code violations can 
you find in this picture?"
and let Bill judge the answers.  Believe me, there are more pictures, 
where that came from.
Sorry, I do not know what those cylinders are.  In a higher resolution 
photo, they appear to have AC power cords coming out of them.  Those are 
HUP batteries under all the tools and extra parts.  I hope they remember 
to water the batteries.


R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

On 4/29/2014 2:12 PM, ma...@berkeleysolar.com wrote:

Any idea what the two silver cylinders in the upper left of the photo are
(sitting on top of the battery box)?



Hi Bill;

The 2014 NEC (coupled with rampant misinterpretation)  is accelerating
an ever widening gap between those that have "code" and those that can't
afford it.  On one side, US installers are forced to keep up with all
the code changes, AHJs that don't understand solar, and sky rocketing
insurance rates, all for the privilege to compete with the likes of
Solar City, only to reap the ever shrinking profit margins in the end.
On the opposite front of solar are an ever increasing army of Do It
Yourself Idiots (DIYI ?!) that are hooking inverters directly to large
battery banks with car jumper cables, or plugging GT inverters into the
grid with male/ male extension cords.   (there really should be a law
against that)
So, apparently I work in the Purgatory of Solar, fixing imminently
dangerous situations, and not really caring so much lately about the
nuances of interpretation of the 2014 code.
For my money, 2008 code mixed with some 2011 as needed, seemed to be
plenty safe without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm glad to see you bring some sanity back to the playing field. I
always appreciate your comments.

How about this Flying Cable, Dual Radian Install to stoke your code
interpreting abilities:

The more you look, the wronger it gets.the buss block in the air on
the right carries several KW of PV array current.
mmm, mmm, what's cookin'

R.Ray Walters

PS, I already had the project in Mexico, before this thread came out..

On 4/28/2014 5:57 PM, Bill Brooks wrote:

Read 690.9(D) and 690.34. Not sure where this "hysteria---run for the
border" sentiment is coming from.

*690.9(D) Photovoltaic Source and Output Circuits. *Listed PV

overcurrent devices shall be required to provide overcurrent

protection in PV source and output circuits. The overcurrent

devices shall be accessible but shall not be required to

be readily accessible.

*690.34 Access to Boxes. *Junction, pull, and outlet boxes

located behind modules or panels shall be so installed that

the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible

directly or by displacement of a module(s) or panel(s) secured

by removable fasteners and connected by a flexible

wiring system.

This is not a change. Please help me understand the concern.

Bill Brooks.

*From:*re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Ray
Walters
*Sent:* Monday, April 28, 2014 2:23 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] (no subject)

Interesting so does "require a tool" include taking a screw off the
cover plate of the combiner box, too?
What a game changer.  I'm going to Mexico for my next project; I'll
actually enjoy even more being the sole AHJ on the project.

R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

On 4/28/2014 2:52 PM, Michael Morningstar wrote:

 Readily accessible is now defined in the 2014 NEC. Installing
 OCPD's underneath a module is a major faux paux, and I can't
 imagine any AHJ thinking otherwise. Having to remove a module in
 order to reset a breaker, what a drag.

 "Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal or
 inspection without requiring those concerned to use a tool, to
 climb over, remove obstacle or other."

 Michael



 On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:29 AM, William Miller
 mailto:will...@millersolar.com>> wrote:



 You call it a solar panel, I call it a glass j-box cover plate.

 William

 Miller Solar


 On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jason Szumlanski
 mailto:ja...@fafcosolar.com>> wrote:

 If that is the interpretation,
 I don't see how the breakers are "readily accessible" in a
 SolaDeck
 mounted anywhere, regardless of whether it is under a
 module. It
 requires removal of four screws (using a tool) to access
 the breakers
 inside the enclosure. It's all up to the AHJ. It has not
 been an issue
 locally here. I can see how other jurisdictions may not
 

Re: [RE-wrenches] Article 690, or The Haves Vs. Have Nots

[markf]

Any idea what the two silver cylinders in the upper left of the photo are
(sitting on top of the battery box)?


> Hi Bill;
>
> The 2014 NEC (coupled with rampant misinterpretation)  is accelerating
> an ever widening gap between those that have "code" and those that can't
> afford it.  On one side, US installers are forced to keep up with all
> the code changes, AHJs that don't understand solar, and sky rocketing
> insurance rates, all for the privilege to compete with the likes of
> Solar City, only to reap the ever shrinking profit margins in the end.
> On the opposite front of solar are an ever increasing army of Do It
> Yourself Idiots (DIYI ?!) that are hooking inverters directly to large
> battery banks with car jumper cables, or plugging GT inverters into the
> grid with male/ male extension cords.   (there really should be a law
> against that)
> So, apparently I work in the Purgatory of Solar, fixing imminently
> dangerous situations, and not really caring so much lately about the
> nuances of interpretation of the 2014 code.
> For my money, 2008 code mixed with some 2011 as needed, seemed to be
> plenty safe without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
>
> I'm glad to see you bring some sanity back to the playing field. I
> always appreciate your comments.
>
> How about this Flying Cable, Dual Radian Install to stoke your code
> interpreting abilities:
>
> The more you look, the wronger it gets.the buss block in the air on
> the right carries several KW of PV array current.
> mmm, mmm, what's cookin'
>
> R.Ray Walters
>
> PS, I already had the project in Mexico, before this thread came out..
>
> On 4/28/2014 5:57 PM, Bill Brooks wrote:
>>
>> Read 690.9(D) and 690.34. Not sure where this "hysteria---run for the
>> border" sentiment is coming from.
>>
>> *690.9(D) Photovoltaic Source and Output Circuits. *Listed PV
>>
>> overcurrent devices shall be required to provide overcurrent
>>
>> protection in PV source and output circuits. The overcurrent
>>
>> devices shall be accessible but shall not be required to
>>
>> be readily accessible.
>>
>> *690.34 Access to Boxes. *Junction, pull, and outlet boxes
>>
>> located behind modules or panels shall be so installed that
>>
>> the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible
>>
>> directly or by displacement of a module(s) or panel(s) secured
>>
>> by removable fasteners and connected by a flexible
>>
>> wiring system.
>>
>> This is not a change. Please help me understand the concern.
>>
>> Bill Brooks.
>>
>> *From:*re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org
>> [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Ray
>> Walters
>> *Sent:* Monday, April 28, 2014 2:23 PM
>> *To:* RE-wrenches
>> *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] (no subject)
>>
>> Interesting so does "require a tool" include taking a screw off the
>> cover plate of the combiner box, too?
>> What a game changer.  I'm going to Mexico for my next project; I'll
>> actually enjoy even more being the sole AHJ on the project.
>>
>> R.Ray Walters
>> CTO, Solarray, Inc
>> Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
>> Licensed Master Electrician
>> Solar Design Engineer
>> 303 505-8760
>>
>> On 4/28/2014 2:52 PM, Michael Morningstar wrote:
>>
>> Readily accessible is now defined in the 2014 NEC. Installing
>> OCPD's underneath a module is a major faux paux, and I can't
>> imagine any AHJ thinking otherwise. Having to remove a module in
>> order to reset a breaker, what a drag.
>>
>> "Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal or
>> inspection without requiring those concerned to use a tool, to
>> climb over, remove obstacle or other."
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:29 AM, William Miller
>> mailto:will...@millersolar.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> You call it a solar panel, I call it a glass j-box cover plate.
>>
>> William
>>
>> Miller Solar
>>
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jason Szumlanski
>> mailto:ja...@fafcosolar.com>> wrote:
>>
>> If that is the interpretation,
>> I don't see how the breakers are "readily accessible" in a
>> SolaDeck
>> mounted anywhere, regardless of whether it is under a
>> module. It
>> requires removal of four screws (using a tool) to access
>> the breakers
>> inside the enclosure. It's all up to the AHJ. It has not
>> been an issue
>> locally here. I can see how other jurisdictions may not
>> concur.
>>
>
> ___
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check

Re: [RE-wrenches] Article 690, or The Haves Vs. Have Nots

[Jason Szumlanski]

Not just microinverters. This could apply to multiple string inverters with
combined output in a suitable panel under a module. That scenario is
probably rare, but I have seen it on a commercial flat/low-pitched roof
installation.

Jason Szumlanski



On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Bill Hoffer  wrote:

> Dave
>
> I agree, in the case of microinverters, you already have a main PV System
> disconnect at the Load Panel to shut down the system that is readily
> accesible.  I would consider the disconnect on the roof as a supplemental
> disconnect for the purposes of maintenance by authorized personal that only
> needs to be accessible.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Dave Click wrote:
>
>>  I think 240.24(A)(4) allows the installation of the inverter OCPDs in
>> the SolaDeck hidden under a module.
>>
>>  *240.24 Location in or on Premises.*
>>  *(A) Accessibility.* Overcurrent devices shall be readily accessible
>> and shall be installed so that the center of the grip of the operating
>> handle of the switch or circuit breaker, when in its highest position, is
>> not more than 2.0 m (6 ft 7 in.) above the floor or working platform,
>> unless one of the following applies:
>> ...
>> (4) For overcurrent devices adjacent to utilization equipment that they
>> supply, access shall be permitted to be by portable means.
>>
>>
>> And if panelboards / fused safety switches are allowed to have
>> screwed-down covers over the OCPDs, I'd think that installing a removable
>> module over these OCPDs would meet NEC. I guess an AHJ could argue that
>> this requires TWO covers be removed, unlike a panelboard or a switch.
>>
>> DKC
>>
>>
>> On 2014/4/29, 11:15, Jason Szumlanski wrote:
>>
>>  690.9(D) is not applicable to the original discussion because we were
>> talking about an Inverter output circuit, not a PV Source or Output circuit.
>>
>>  690.34 may apply if you call a SolaDeck with breakers a junction box,
>> but I can see that being a stretch in the mind of many.
>>
>>  My and Ray's question about the screws on the SolaDeck cover itself
>> requiring a tool to render it accessible is still an issue if the breakers
>> themselves need to be "readily accessible," but that would also apply to a
>> Midnite MNPV, which also has a cover with a screw.
>>
>>
>>   Jason Szumlanski
>>
>>>
>>> On 4/28/2014 5:57 PM, Bill Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>>  Read 690.9(D) and 690.34. Not sure where this “hysteria—run for the
>>> border” sentiment is coming from.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *690.9(D) Photovoltaic Source and Output Circuits. *Listed PV
>>>
>>> overcurrent devices shall be required to provide overcurrent
>>>
>>> protection in PV source and output circuits. The overcurrent
>>>
>>> devices shall be accessible but shall not be required to
>>>
>>> be readily accessible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *690.34 Access to Boxes. *Junction, pull, and outlet boxes
>>>
>>> located behind modules or panels shall be so installed that
>>>
>>> the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible
>>>
>>> directly or by displacement of a module(s) or panel(s) secured
>>>
>>> by removable fasteners and connected by a flexible
>>>
>>> wiring system.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is not a change. Please help me understand the concern.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Brooks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [
>>> mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org]
>>> *On Behalf Of *Ray Walters
>>> *Sent:* Monday, April 28, 2014 2:23 PM
>>> *To:* RE-wrenches
>>> *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] (no subject)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting so does "require a tool" include taking a screw off the
>>> cover plate of the combiner box, too?
>>> What a game changer.  I'm going to Mexico for my next project; I'll
>>> actually enjoy even more being the sole AHJ on the project.
>>>
>>>  R.Ray Walters
>>>
>>> CTO, Solarray, Inc
>>>
>>> Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
>>>
>>> Licensed Master Electrician
>>>
>>> Solar Design Engineer
>>>
>>> 303 505-8760
>>>
>>> On 4/28/2014 2:52 PM, Michael Morningstar wrote:
>>>
>>> Readily accessible is now defined in the 2014 NEC. Installing OCPD’s
>>> underneath a module is a major faux paux, and I can’t imagine any AHJ
>>> thinking otherwise. Having to remove a module in order to reset a breaker,
>>> what a drag.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal or inspection
>>> without requiring those concerned to use a tool, to climb over, remove
>>> obstacle or other.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:29 AM, William Miller 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  You call it a solar panel, I call it a glass j-box cover plate.
>>>
>>> William
>>>
>>> Miller Solar
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jason Szumlanski 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If that is the interpretation,
>>> I don't see how the breakers are "readily accessible" in a SolaDeck
>>> mounted anywhere, regardless of whether it is under a module. It
>>> requires removal of four screws (using a t

Re: [RE-wrenches] Radian picture

[Ray Walters]

This may apply to the other string on using photos, etc.  but I hereby 
grant full rights to all registered users of the wrenches list to use 
any of my posted photos for educational purposes.
I was trying to figure out the DC wiring myself.  Its possible there is 
a homemade bussbar connected between the 2 inverters. Look close and 
tell me what you think.
A customer sent that pic to me, so I have not been there to see it in 
person.


R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

On 4/29/2014 10:33 AM, Jason Lerner wrote:

Hello Ray,

I teach a 4 day class for Outback, mostly for installers and distributers.

Could I use that picture you just posted on the Wrenches list,  with 
credit to you (or not) as an example of how to not hook them up?  I 
mention in the class how although it is possible to hook up a Radian 
without a GSLC,  it usually turns out like that photo


Also what are those things next to the hole saw on the upper left of 
the photo?  Are they capacitors?  And lastly do they have black for 
the + and - inverter cables on one inverter and red for + and - on the 
other??


Thanks much,


Jason Lerner
Waldron Power and Light Co.

(888) wapalco
(888) 927-2526  Office phone
(360) 588-6194  Home phone
(360) 632-2085  Sometimes cell - most of the time not




___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Article 690, or The Haves Vs. Have Nots

[Bill Hoffer]

Dave

I agree, in the case of microinverters, you already have a main PV System
disconnect at the Load Panel to shut down the system that is readily
accesible.  I would consider the disconnect on the roof as a supplemental
disconnect for the purposes of maintenance by authorized personal that only
needs to be accessible.

Bill


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Dave Click  wrote:

>  I think 240.24(A)(4) allows the installation of the inverter OCPDs in the
> SolaDeck hidden under a module.
>
>  *240.24 Location in or on Premises.*
>  *(A) Accessibility.* Overcurrent devices shall be readily accessible and
> shall be installed so that the center of the grip of the operating handle
> of the switch or circuit breaker, when in its highest position, is not more
> than 2.0 m (6 ft 7 in.) above the floor or working platform, unless one of
> the following applies:
> ...
> (4) For overcurrent devices adjacent to utilization equipment that they
> supply, access shall be permitted to be by portable means.
>
>
> And if panelboards / fused safety switches are allowed to have
> screwed-down covers over the OCPDs, I'd think that installing a removable
> module over these OCPDs would meet NEC. I guess an AHJ could argue that
> this requires TWO covers be removed, unlike a panelboard or a switch.
>
> DKC
>
>
> On 2014/4/29, 11:15, Jason Szumlanski wrote:
>
>  690.9(D) is not applicable to the original discussion because we were
> talking about an Inverter output circuit, not a PV Source or Output circuit.
>
>  690.34 may apply if you call a SolaDeck with breakers a junction box,
> but I can see that being a stretch in the mind of many.
>
>  My and Ray's question about the screws on the SolaDeck cover itself
> requiring a tool to render it accessible is still an issue if the breakers
> themselves need to be "readily accessible," but that would also apply to a
> Midnite MNPV, which also has a cover with a screw.
>
>
>   Jason Szumlanski
>
>>
>> On 4/28/2014 5:57 PM, Bill Brooks wrote:
>>
>>  Read 690.9(D) and 690.34. Not sure where this "hysteria--run for the
>> border" sentiment is coming from.
>>
>>
>>
>> *690.9(D) Photovoltaic Source and Output Circuits. *Listed PV
>>
>> overcurrent devices shall be required to provide overcurrent
>>
>> protection in PV source and output circuits. The overcurrent
>>
>> devices shall be accessible but shall not be required to
>>
>> be readily accessible.
>>
>>
>>
>> *690.34 Access to Boxes. *Junction, pull, and outlet boxes
>>
>> located behind modules or panels shall be so installed that
>>
>> the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible
>>
>> directly or by displacement of a module(s) or panel(s) secured
>>
>> by removable fasteners and connected by a flexible
>>
>> wiring system.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is not a change. Please help me understand the concern.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Brooks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [
>> mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Ray Walters
>> *Sent:* Monday, April 28, 2014 2:23 PM
>> *To:* RE-wrenches
>> *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] (no subject)
>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting so does "require a tool" include taking a screw off the cover
>> plate of the combiner box, too?
>> What a game changer.  I'm going to Mexico for my next project; I'll
>> actually enjoy even more being the sole AHJ on the project.
>>
>>  R.Ray Walters
>>
>> CTO, Solarray, Inc
>>
>> Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
>>
>> Licensed Master Electrician
>>
>> Solar Design Engineer
>>
>> 303 505-8760
>>
>> On 4/28/2014 2:52 PM, Michael Morningstar wrote:
>>
>> Readily accessible is now defined in the 2014 NEC. Installing OCPD's
>> underneath a module is a major faux paux, and I can't imagine any AHJ
>> thinking otherwise. Having to remove a module in order to reset a breaker,
>> what a drag.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal or inspection
>> without requiring those concerned to use a tool, to climb over, remove
>> obstacle or other."
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:29 AM, William Miller 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  You call it a solar panel, I call it a glass j-box cover plate.
>>
>> William
>>
>> Miller Solar
>>
>>
>>  On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jason Szumlanski 
>> wrote:
>>
>> If that is the interpretation,
>> I don't see how the breakers are "readily accessible" in a SolaDeck
>> mounted anywhere, regardless of whether it is under a module. It
>> requires removal of four screws (using a tool) to access the breakers
>> inside the enclosure. It's all up to the AHJ. It has not been an issue
>> locally here. I can see how other jurisdictions may not
>> concur.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>
>> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>>
>> Change email address & settings:
>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Article 690, or The Haves Vs. Have Nots

[Dave Click]

I think 240.24(A)(4) allows the installation of the inverter OCPDs in 
the SolaDeck hidden under a module.


** *240.24 Location in or on Premises.*
** National Electrical Code 2008 Edition *(A) Accessibility.* 
Overcurrent devices shall be readily accessible and shall be installed 
so that the center of the grip of the operating handle of the switch or 
circuit breaker, National Electrical Code 2008 Edition when in its 
highest position, is not more than 2.0 m (6 ft 7 in.) above the floor or 
working platform, unless one of the following applies:

...
(4) For overcurrent devices adjacent to utilization equipment that they 
supply, access shall be permitted to be by portable means.



And if panelboards / fused safety switches are allowed to have 
screwed-down covers over the OCPDs, I'd think that installing a 
removable module over these OCPDs would meet NEC. I guess an AHJ could 
argue that this requires TWO covers be removed, unlike a panelboard or a 
switch.


DKC


On 2014/4/29, 11:15, Jason Szumlanski wrote:
690.9(D) is not applicable to the original discussion because we were 
talking about an Inverter output circuit, not a PV Source or Output 
circuit.


690.34 may apply if you call a SolaDeck with breakers a junction box, 
but I can see that being a stretch in the mind of many.


My and Ray's question about the screws on the SolaDeck cover itself 
requiring a tool to render it accessible is still an issue if the 
breakers themselves need to be "readily accessible," but that would 
also apply to a Midnite MNPV, which also has a cover with a screw.



Jason Szumlanski


On 4/28/2014 5:57 PM, Bill Brooks wrote:


Read 690.9(D) and 690.34. Not sure where this "hysteria---run for
the border" sentiment is coming from.

*690.9(D) Photovoltaic Source and Output Circuits. *Listed PV

overcurrent devices shall be required to provide overcurrent

protection in PV source and output circuits. The overcurrent

devices shall be accessible but shall not be required to

be readily accessible.

*690.34 Access to Boxes. *Junction, pull, and outlet boxes

located behind modules or panels shall be so installed that

the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible

directly or by displacement of a module(s) or panel(s) secured

by removable fasteners and connected by a flexible

wiring system.

This is not a change. Please help me understand the concern.

Bill Brooks.

*From:*re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org

[mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of
*Ray Walters
*Sent:* Monday, April 28, 2014 2:23 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] (no subject)

Interesting so does "require a tool" include taking a screw off
the cover plate of the combiner box, too?
What a game changer.  I'm going to Mexico for my next project;
I'll actually enjoy even more being the sole AHJ on the project.

R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760  

On 4/28/2014 2:52 PM, Michael Morningstar wrote:

Readily accessible is now defined in the 2014 NEC. Installing
OCPD's underneath a module is a major faux paux, and I can't
imagine any AHJ thinking otherwise. Having to remove a module
in order to reset a breaker, what a drag.

"Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal or
inspection without requiring those concerned to use a tool,
to climb over, remove obstacle or other."

Michael



On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:29 AM, William Miller
mailto:will...@millersolar.com>> wrote:



You call it a solar panel, I call it a glass j-box cover
plate.

William

Miller Solar


On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jason Szumlanski
mailto:ja...@fafcosolar.com>>
wrote:

If that is the interpretation,
I don't see how the breakers are "readily accessible"
in a SolaDeck
mounted anywhere, regardless of whether it is under a
module. It
requires removal of four screws (using a tool) to
access the breakers
inside the enclosure. It's all up to the AHJ. It has
not been an issue
locally here. I can see how other jurisdictions may not
concur.




___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org


Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] (no subject)

[Jason Szumlanski]

Setting aside code issues for a moment, I wouldn't hesitate to put an OCPD
under a module if strategically located such that only one module needs to
be removed and there is adequate working space (i.e. the last module in a
row). How often are OCPD service issues encountered, especially AC inverter
output circuits? Very infrequently in my experience. I think it's good
practice to keep a SolaDeck AC output circuit combiner box out of the
blazing Florida sun, plus it looks a heck of a lot better. I did it at my
home, and I'm happy I did so.

Jason
​ Szumlanski​





On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Rebekah Hren wrote:

>   *Fuses for PV dc circuits do not have to be readily accessible:*
>
> 690.9(D) Photovoltaic Source Circuit and Output
>
> Listed PV overcurrent devices shall be required to provide overcurrent 
> protection
> in PV source and output circuits. The overcurrent devices shall be
> accessible but shall not be required to be readily accessible.
>
> The language allowing j-boxes under modules has been in the NEC for many
> cycles:
>
> 690.34 Access to Boxes. Junction, pull, and outlet boxes located behind
> modules or panels shall be so installed that the wiring contained in them
> can be rendered accessible directly or by displacement of a module(s) or
> panel(s) secured by removable fasteners and connected by a flexible wiring
> system.
>
> A dc combiner is now defined in the 2014 Code as a device/equipment and
> thus outlet might have it covered. I think there is an argument to be made
> that a box containing overcurrent protection can be positioned under a
> module. However I don't think it's a great idea and wouldn't want to
> maintain a system with fuses on a roof under the array, but this seems like
> a grey area in the Code and getting the AHJ interpretation would be
> advisable.
>
> Rebekah Hren
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Michael Morningstar <
> mjmornings...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Readily accessible is now defined in the 2014 NEC. Installing OCPD’s
>> underneath a module is a major faux paux, and I can’t imagine any AHJ
>> thinking otherwise. Having to remove a module in order to reset a breaker,
>> what a drag.
>>
>> "Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal or inspection
>> without requiring those concerned to use a tool, to climb over, remove
>> obstacle or other.”
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:29 AM, William Miller 
>> wrote:
>>
>> You call it a solar panel, I call it a glass j-box cover plate.
>>
>> William
>>
>> Miller Solar
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jason Szumlanski 
>> wrote:
>>
>> If that is the interpretation,
>> I don't see how the breakers are "readily accessible" in a SolaDeck
>> mounted anywhere, regardless of whether it is under a module. It
>> requires removal of four screws (using a tool) to access the breakers
>> inside the enclosure. It's all up to the AHJ. It has not been an issue
>> locally here. I can see how other jurisdictions may not
>> concur.
>>
>> _
>>
>>
___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Article 690, or The Haves Vs. Have Nots

[Jason Szumlanski]

690.9(D) is not applicable to the original discussion because we were
talking about an Inverter output circuit, not a PV Source or Output circuit..

690.34 may apply if you call a SolaDeck with breakers a junction box, but I
can see that being a stretch in the mind of many.

My and Ray's question about the screws on the SolaDeck cover itself
requiring a tool to render it accessible is still an issue if the breakers
themselves need to be "readily accessible," but that would also apply to a
Midnite MNPV, which also has a cover with a screw.


Jason Szumlanski

>
> On 4/28/2014 5:57 PM, Bill Brooks wrote:
>
>  Read 690.9(D) and 690.34. Not sure where this “hysteria—run for the
> border” sentiment is coming from.
>
>
>
> *690.9(D) Photovoltaic Source and Output Circuits. *Listed PV
>
> overcurrent devices shall be required to provide overcurrent
>
> protection in PV source and output circuits. The overcurrent
>
> devices shall be accessible but shall not be required to
>
> be readily accessible.
>
>
>
> *690.34 Access to Boxes. *Junction, pull, and outlet boxes
>
> located behind modules or panels shall be so installed that
>
> the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible
>
> directly or by displacement of a module(s) or panel(s) secured
>
> by removable fasteners and connected by a flexible
>
> wiring system.
>
>
>
> This is not a change. Please help me understand the concern.
>
>
>
> Bill Brooks.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [
> mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Ray Walters
> *Sent:* Monday, April 28, 2014 2:23 PM
> *To:* RE-wrenches
> *Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] (no subject)
>
>
>
> Interesting so does "require a tool" include taking a screw off the cover
> plate of the combiner box, too?
> What a game changer.  I'm going to Mexico for my next project; I'll
> actually enjoy even more being the sole AHJ on the project.
>
>  R.Ray Walters
>
> CTO, Solarray, Inc
>
> Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
>
> Licensed Master Electrician
>
> Solar Design Engineer
>
> 303 505-8760
>
> On 4/28/2014 2:52 PM, Michael Morningstar wrote:
>
> Readily accessible is now defined in the 2014 NEC. Installing OCPD’s
> underneath a module is a major faux paux, and I can’t imagine any AHJ
> thinking otherwise. Having to remove a module in order to reset a breaker,
> what a drag.
>
>
>
> "Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal or inspection
> without requiring those concerned to use a tool, to climb over, remove
> obstacle or other.”
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:29 AM, William Miller 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>  You call it a solar panel, I call it a glass j-box cover plate.
>
> William
>
> Miller Solar
>
>
>  On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jason Szumlanski 
> wrote:
>
> If that is the interpretation,
> I don't see how the breakers are "readily accessible" in a SolaDeck
> mounted anywhere, regardless of whether it is under a module. It
> requires removal of four screws (using a tool) to access the breakers
> inside the enclosure. It's all up to the AHJ. It has not been an issue
> locally here. I can see how other jurisdictions may not
> concur.
>
>
>
> ___
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check out participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
>
>
___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Publicity rights?

[Daniel Young]

We had this happen a few years ago. The installer in question was NABCEP
certified. The use of other installers systems as promotional material, as
well as other "less than ethical" practices on the website were in breach of
the NABCEP code of ethics. So we notified NABCEP and they approached the
installer. The site was changed soon after.

 

If they're a certified installer, you can look at the NABCEP code of ethics
and see if you have grounds of bringing NABCEP into the mix.

 

Code of Ethics is on the 42nd page of this pdf:

http://www.nabcep.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/NABCEP_Certification_Handbo
ok_D7.1_05_13_2013.pdf

 

This could fall under section B: Professional Practice #10

[10. The NABCEP Certificant/Candidate will be truthful and accurate in all
advertising and 

representations concerning professional qualifications, experience,
competency, and performance of services, 

including representations related to professional status and/or areas of
competence. The NABCEP 

certificant/candidate will not make false or deceptive statements concerning
professional or occupational 

training, experience, competence, ability, academic training or degrees,
credentials, 

institutional or association affiliations, services, or fees for services]

 

With Regards,

 

Daniel Young, 

Dovetail Solar and Wind

 

From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Will White
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:20 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Publicity rights?

 

We had a new competitor take a video of one of our installs (with owner's
permission) and post it on the front of their web page.  I believe it's
still there almost two years later.

 

It's a shady thing to do but I don't think there was anything we could
legally do to stop them.

 

From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca
Lundberg
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 6:34 PM
To: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Publicity rights?

 

I have come across a new (small) installer taking photos of solar projects
that others installed, and promoting them on their web site in their
"gallery" without getting permission or giving any credit to the installer.
This seems unethical, and I'd like to be able to point to a law related to
this so that my sites are not used in this way. Even if a customer gives
this person permission to take a photo of their site, it doesn't make sense
that this installer could imply any credit for this project by using it on
their web site. Isn't there some kind of law that relates to this?

Thanks in advance for your input!

Keep Shining!


Rebecca Lundberg
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer R
Owner/President
Powerfully GreenR
763.438.1976 | rebecca.lundb...@powerfullygreen.com 

Powered by the Sun!

 

  _  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2247 / Virus Database: 3722/6906 - Release Date: 04/28/14

___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

Re: [RE-wrenches] Publicity rights?

[Will White]

We had a new competitor take a video of one of our installs (with owner's 
permission) and post it on the front of their web page.  I believe it's still 
there almost two years later.

It's a shady thing to do but I don't think there was anything we could legally 
do to stop them.

From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org 
[mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Lundberg
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 6:34 PM
To: re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Publicity rights?

I have come across a new (small) installer taking photos of solar projects that 
others installed, and promoting them on their web site in their "gallery" 
without getting permission or giving any credit to the installer. This seems 
unethical, and I'd like to be able to point to a law related to this so that my 
sites are not used in this way. Even if a customer gives this person permission 
to take a photo of their site, it doesn't make sense that this installer could 
imply any credit for this project by using it on their web site. Isn't there 
some kind of law that relates to this?
Thanks in advance for your input!
Keep Shining!
Rebecca Lundberg
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer (r)
Owner/President
Powerfully Green(r)
763.438.1976 | 
rebecca.lundb...@powerfullygreen.com

Powered by the Sun!

___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org