221–230 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in the US, but in parts of Europe they effectively use AFCI/GFCI breakers for everything.
Those are code in the us now too. (with exceptions for where they don't make sense)
The conventional practice in the US is still to use GFCI receptacles rather than breakers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.bgelectrical.uk/uk/circuit-protection/devices/rc... Right there, both bidirectional and unidirectional breakers.
It would be really interesting to know what's so special about these UK units that they can be "damaged" by being fed from the "wrong" side (as per some other article), considering that the only place where these behave like that is an island north of France.
However in the case of a UK home, where you may have a single ring circuit connecting all the sockets on the whole floor, what's in the breaker panel isn't going to protect you with plug-in solar anyway. Better hope what you are plugging in meets UK standards and isn't just some Chinese rubbish that claims it does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are code in the us now too. (with exceptions for where they don't make sense)
NEC doesn't specify GFCI breakers, it merely requires receptacles in certain areas have GFCI protection, and accepts GFCI breakers as one way to provide that. The conventional practice in the US is still to use GFCI receptacles rather than breakers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are code in the us now too. (with exceptions for where they don't make sense)
Always important to note that "code" does not mean "must meet this standard". Many existing installations will not meet current code and there are varying levels of code (at least in the UK) that mean anything from an electrician can ignore minor faults through to network-notifiable issues. But that's rather the point here that consumers are the ones who are going to be plugging in these devices, with no appreciation…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can decentralize residential power without doing the same for industrial loads. Doing so is a mixed bag. It's somewhat more expensive however it's less prone to failures during natural disasters, failures aren't outside of your ability to fix, and it isn't subject to politics to nearly the same degree. When you consider the logistics of strengthening the last mile of residential to accommodate EVs in a sparsely p…
> You can decentralize residential power without doing the same for industrial loads. Doing so is a mixed bag There is a middle ground: decentralize enough to run essential services. Run the rest through the grid. The big downside to decentralising residential power is that's variable demand–precisely the sort of demand you can net out against other parts of the grid. The sort of variance that makes grids more econom…
Residential is variable but for the most part not all that amenable to time shifting, at least at present. Isn't a grid most efficient with a constant load, with the next best being something that varies only slowly over time and is highly predictable?
Then there's EVs. I'm under the impression that replacing a notable fraction of the ICE cars on the road with EVs would at present place the grid over capacity most places in the US.
When it comes to unit cost doesn't the ultimate benefit here lie with the consumer's pocketbook? I don't see why residential considerations should make much (or even any) difference to dense commercial or extremely high capacity industrial users. Given that solar plus battery is reasonably affordable for a large chunk of the US population it doesn't really seem like much of a downside when framed as a voluntary expense. I still see people building it out where I'm at (suburbs) despite (AFAIK) the subsidies ending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather the county utility manage such a neighborhood level grid; I don't trust my neighbors over the long term to consistently make good decisions regarding such technical matters. But then that's sort of what the major grid operators already do with smaller localized circuits. It's just that it was all built multiple decades ago with centralized unidirectional distribution in mind.
> the county utility the what now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can decentralize residential power without doing the same for industrial loads. Doing so is a mixed bag There is a middle ground: decentralize enough to run essential services. Run the rest through the grid. The big downside to decentralising residential power is that's variable demand–precisely the sort of demand you can net out against other parts of the grid. The sort of variance that makes grids more econom…
> The big downside to decentralising residential power is that's variable demand–precisely the sort of demand you can net out against other parts of the grid. Residential is variable but for the most part not all that amenable to time shifting, at least at present. Isn't a grid most efficient with a constant load, with the next best being something that varies only slowly over time and is highly predictable? Then the…
That’s fine. A solar system specced to a house has to meet its max drawdown. A house connected to a grid can effectively pawn off its unused power to another user. That’s the efficiency of a grid.
> doesn't the ultimate benefit here lie with the consumer's pocketbook?
Yes. The NPV of a blended system (solar, maybe battery and grid) almost always beats going all in on one or the other. You spec to your base load and put the uncertainty on the grid. That way you don’t have to overprovision solar and battery. (And you’re good with your essentials if the power goes out.)
This is almost universally true unless you have super-subsidized solar (bonus points for an expensive grid, e.g. California) or stupidly-cheap and reliable grid power (until recently, the Gulf).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone know the US equivalent terminology for a "ring final" ?
We would call it "a serious code violation." It's prohibited in the NEC and always has been, it's objectively less safe. From what I understand the UK allowed it because of a severe postwar copper shortage and it persists to this day because it's allowed and a bit cheaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The solar systems, as currently pushed, are designed to be carefully monitored at all times; if you read the contract ( in IL anyway, but I presume it is common, because my mom had a similar experience ), I have to give the company a way in every time they desire to look at the panels. I did my own install of a ground mount 6.7kW array. I initially declined to connect to the inverter manufacturer's monitoring, beca…
Hmm, could you recommend any good references for a personal build? I was debating doing a test run with a shed ( if I mess it up too bad, it won't hurt as much kinda deal ).
I did have to take a very challenging exam to get licensed by the state for "home owner solar" - much harder than I expected given the NEC sections and the fact that it was open book.