Discussion:
Cable tray
(too old to reply)
Chris Mason
2013-03-22 19:07:37 UTC
Permalink
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130322/c45c41ac/attachment.htm>
Max Balchowsky
2013-03-24 01:33:39 UTC
Permalink
I don't know your exact application, but I've used Carlon wireways for years. Our application most of the time was to use the 4x4 gutter in lieu of metal gutter under the inverters,disconnects, Panelboards, etc.

http://www.carlonsales.com/wiresafe.php

?
Max Balchowsky
Design Engineer
SEE Systems
1048 Irvine Ave Suite 217
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
760-403-6810
"Building a Better Future For The Next Generation"



________________________________
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 12:07 PM
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray


I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.?
--
Chris Mason

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130323/0a1fb746/attachment.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-24 12:07:30 UTC
Permalink
I don't want the enclosed type, I am looking for wire tray as we will
support the airco pipes and some conduits.
Post by Max Balchowsky
I don't know your exact application, but I've used Carlon wireways for
years. Our application most of the time was to use the 4x4 gutter in lieu
of metal gutter under the inverters,disconnects, Panelboards, etc.
http://www.carlonsales.com/wiresafe.php
Max Balchowsky
Design Engineer
SEE Systems
1048 Irvine Ave Suite 217
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
760-403-6810
"Building a Better Future For The Next Generation"
------------------------------
*From:* Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
*To:* RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
*Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 12:07 PM
*Subject:* [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130324/7fcd00d7/attachment.htm>
Kirk
2013-03-24 19:39:04 UTC
Permalink
I like William Miller's idea of slitting PVC conduit. Must be a little tricky ripping it with a saw. It's fastened to the rails using stainless clamps. There are pictures of it and other good wire mgt. on his website. I have not found a reasonably priced wire tray to attach to the rails. Especially outdoor-rated.

Kirk Herander
VSE
I don't want the enclosed type, I am looking for wire tray as we will support the airco pipes and some conduits.
Post by Max Balchowsky
I don't know your exact application, but I've used Carlon wireways for years. Our application most of the time was to use the 4x4 gutter in lieu of metal gutter under the inverters,disconnects, Panelboards, etc.
http://www.carlonsales.com/wiresafe.php
Max Balchowsky
Design Engineer
SEE Systems
1048 Irvine Ave Suite 217
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
760-403-6810
"Building a Better Future For The Next Generation"
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 12:07 PM
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130324/7d288b5d/attachment.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-25 00:24:02 UTC
Permalink
We use Cablofil but at $10/ft, it's OK for the inverter area but for large
roofs, it is expensive.
Post by Kirk
I like William Miller's idea of slitting PVC conduit. Must be a little
tricky ripping it with a saw. It's fastened to the rails using stainless
clamps. There are pictures of it and other good wire mgt. on his website. I
have not found a reasonably priced wire tray to attach to the rails.
Especially outdoor-rated.
Kirk Herander
VSE
I don't want the enclosed type, I am looking for wire tray as we will
support the airco pipes and some conduits.
Post by Max Balchowsky
I don't know your exact application, but I've used Carlon wireways for
years. Our application most of the time was to use the 4x4 gutter in lieu
of metal gutter under the inverters,disconnects, Panelboards, etc.
http://www.carlonsales.com/wiresafe.php
Max Balchowsky
Design Engineer
SEE Systems
1048 Irvine Ave Suite 217
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
760-403-6810
"Building a Better Future For The Next Generation"
------------------------------
*From:* Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
*To:* RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
*Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 12:07 PM
*Subject:* [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130324/a2084c4f/attachment.htm>
Mark Richardson
2013-03-25 11:44:31 UTC
Permalink
We have had good luck with "Snake Tray"<http://snaketray.com/solar/> from Cable Management Solutions.
Comes in Galv and Stainless, 2" x 2" or 4" x 4"

[NYLE LOGO SMALL]
Mark Richardson
mrichardson at newyorklightenergy.com<mailto:mrichardson at newyorklightenergy.com>

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Chris Mason
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:24 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

We use Cablofil but at $10/ft, it's OK for the inverter area but for large roofs, it is expensive.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Kirk <kirk at vtsolar.com<mailto:kirk at vtsolar.com>> wrote:
I like William Miller's idea of slitting PVC conduit. Must be a little tricky ripping it with a saw. It's fastened to the rails using stainless clamps. There are pictures of it and other good wire mgt. on his website. I have not found a reasonably priced wire tray to attach to the rails. Especially outdoor-rated.

Kirk Herander
VSE

On Mar 24, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com>> wrote:
I don't want the enclosed type, I am looking for wire tray as we will support the airco pipes and some conduits.
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Max Balchowsky <max at seesolar.com<mailto:max at seesolar.com>> wrote:
I don't know your exact application, but I've used Carlon wireways for years. Our application most of the time was to use the 4x4 gutter in lieu of metal gutter under the inverters,disconnects, Panelboards, etc.

http://www.carlonsales.com/wiresafe.php

Max Balchowsky
Design Engineer
SEE Systems
1048 Irvine Ave Suite 217
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
760-403-6810<tel:760-403-6810>
"Building a Better Future For The Next Generation"

________________________________
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com>>
To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 12:07 PM
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.

--
Chris Mason


_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>



_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>




--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com<http://www.cometenergysystems.com>
Cell: 264.235.5670<tel:264.235.5670>
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>




--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com<http://www.cometenergysystems.com>
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/a2ffef3a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3802 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <Loading Image...>
Mark Richardson
2013-03-25 11:44:31 UTC
Permalink
We have had good luck with "Snake Tray"<http://snaketray.com/solar/> from Cable Management Solutions.
Comes in Galv and Stainless, 2" x 2" or 4" x 4"

[NYLE LOGO SMALL]
Mark Richardson
mrichardson at newyorklightenergy.com<mailto:mrichardson at newyorklightenergy.com>

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Chris Mason
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:24 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

We use Cablofil but at $10/ft, it's OK for the inverter area but for large roofs, it is expensive.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Kirk <kirk at vtsolar.com<mailto:kirk at vtsolar.com>> wrote:
I like William Miller's idea of slitting PVC conduit. Must be a little tricky ripping it with a saw. It's fastened to the rails using stainless clamps. There are pictures of it and other good wire mgt. on his website. I have not found a reasonably priced wire tray to attach to the rails. Especially outdoor-rated.

Kirk Herander
VSE

On Mar 24, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com>> wrote:
I don't want the enclosed type, I am looking for wire tray as we will support the airco pipes and some conduits.
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Max Balchowsky <max at seesolar.com<mailto:max at seesolar.com>> wrote:
I don't know your exact application, but I've used Carlon wireways for years. Our application most of the time was to use the 4x4 gutter in lieu of metal gutter under the inverters,disconnects, Panelboards, etc.

http://www.carlonsales.com/wiresafe.php

Max Balchowsky
Design Engineer
SEE Systems
1048 Irvine Ave Suite 217
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
760-403-6810<tel:760-403-6810>
"Building a Better Future For The Next Generation"

________________________________
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com>>
To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 12:07 PM
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.

--
Chris Mason


_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>



_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>




--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com<http://www.cometenergysystems.com>
Cell: 264.235.5670<tel:264.235.5670>
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>




--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com<http://www.cometenergysystems.com>
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/a2ffef3a/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3802 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <Loading Image...>
Chris Mason
2013-03-25 00:24:02 UTC
Permalink
We use Cablofil but at $10/ft, it's OK for the inverter area but for large
roofs, it is expensive.
Post by Kirk
I like William Miller's idea of slitting PVC conduit. Must be a little
tricky ripping it with a saw. It's fastened to the rails using stainless
clamps. There are pictures of it and other good wire mgt. on his website. I
have not found a reasonably priced wire tray to attach to the rails.
Especially outdoor-rated.
Kirk Herander
VSE
I don't want the enclosed type, I am looking for wire tray as we will
support the airco pipes and some conduits.
Post by Max Balchowsky
I don't know your exact application, but I've used Carlon wireways for
years. Our application most of the time was to use the 4x4 gutter in lieu
of metal gutter under the inverters,disconnects, Panelboards, etc.
http://www.carlonsales.com/wiresafe.php
Max Balchowsky
Design Engineer
SEE Systems
1048 Irvine Ave Suite 217
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
760-403-6810
"Building a Better Future For The Next Generation"
------------------------------
*From:* Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
*To:* RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
*Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 12:07 PM
*Subject:* [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130324/a2084c4f/attachment-0001.htm>
Kirk
2013-03-24 19:39:04 UTC
Permalink
I like William Miller's idea of slitting PVC conduit. Must be a little tricky ripping it with a saw. It's fastened to the rails using stainless clamps. There are pictures of it and other good wire mgt. on his website. I have not found a reasonably priced wire tray to attach to the rails. Especially outdoor-rated.

Kirk Herander
VSE
I don't want the enclosed type, I am looking for wire tray as we will support the airco pipes and some conduits.
Post by Max Balchowsky
I don't know your exact application, but I've used Carlon wireways for years. Our application most of the time was to use the 4x4 gutter in lieu of metal gutter under the inverters,disconnects, Panelboards, etc.
http://www.carlonsales.com/wiresafe.php
Max Balchowsky
Design Engineer
SEE Systems
1048 Irvine Ave Suite 217
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
760-403-6810
"Building a Better Future For The Next Generation"
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 12:07 PM
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130324/7d288b5d/attachment-0001.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-24 12:07:30 UTC
Permalink
I don't want the enclosed type, I am looking for wire tray as we will
support the airco pipes and some conduits.
Post by Max Balchowsky
I don't know your exact application, but I've used Carlon wireways for
years. Our application most of the time was to use the 4x4 gutter in lieu
of metal gutter under the inverters,disconnects, Panelboards, etc.
http://www.carlonsales.com/wiresafe.php
Max Balchowsky
Design Engineer
SEE Systems
1048 Irvine Ave Suite 217
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
760-403-6810
"Building a Better Future For The Next Generation"
------------------------------
*From:* Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
*To:* RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
*Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 12:07 PM
*Subject:* [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130324/7fcd00d7/attachment-0001.htm>
Glenn Burt
2013-03-25 22:12:23 UTC
Permalink
I think you will find it difficult to adhere to Article 392 and use a cable
tray on a rooftop with source circuit conductors, if that is your hope.



-Glenn



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Chris Mason
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:08 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/280b3b27/attachment.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-25 22:17:17 UTC
Permalink
What part of 392 would be a problem?
Post by Glenn Burt
I think you will find it difficult to adhere to Article 392 and use a
cable tray on a rooftop with source circuit conductors, if that is your
hope.****
** **
-Glenn****
** **
re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Mason
*Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 3:08 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* [RE-wrenches] Cable tray****
** **
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
****
** **
--
Chris Mason****
** **
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/8b9ce0f0/attachment.htm>
Glenn Burt
2013-03-25 22:34:37 UTC
Permalink
392.3(B)1



This was also pointed out in a recent article in Solar Pro talking about
Wire Management issues.



From: Chris Mason [mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:17 PM
To: glenn.burt at glbcc.com; RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



What part of 392 would be a problem?

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Glenn Burt <glenn.burt at glbcc.com> wrote:

I think you will find it difficult to adhere to Article 392 and use a cable
tray on a rooftop with source circuit conductors, if that is your hope.



-Glenn



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Chris Mason
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:08 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason




_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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
--
Chris Mason

President, Comet Systems Ltd

www.cometenergysystems.com

Cell: 264.235.5670

Skype: netconcepts

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/453dc5b0/attachment.htm>
David Brearley
2013-03-25 22:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Uses permitted. 392.10(B)(1) requires that single conductor cable in cable tray be size 1/0 or larger.

Here's the deal, though. NEC 2014 will add "Service Entrance Cable: Types SE and USE" to Table 392.10(A). It is not in that table now, which is why inspectors turn to 392.10(B). That means that under 390.10(A) in NEC 2014, Type USE conductor can be used in cable tray according to the methods outlined in Article 338. And references in 690.31 make it clear?if it isn't already? that PV Wire and USE-2 can generally be used interchangeably in PV systems, and that cable tray is accepted for source circuit conductors.

So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
Post by Chris Mason
What part of 392 would be a problem?
I think you will find it difficult to adhere to Article 392 and use a cable tray on a rooftop with source circuit conductors, if that is your hope.
-Glenn
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Chris Mason
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:08 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/31f9b19c/attachment.htm>
William Miller
2013-03-25 23:26:43 UTC
Permalink
David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is
prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna
correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day
now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do
anyway. Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm
Post by David Brearley
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay
for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/77e4b8c1/attachment.htm>
David Brearley
2013-03-26 01:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.

There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.

The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing to let installers build to the most current standard.

That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.
This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...
Thanks!
William Miller
PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.
wm
Post by David Brearley
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/6bf810b5/attachment.htm>
Bill Brooks
2013-03-26 02:53:30 UTC
Permalink
All,



Here is the language that has been accepted into the 2014 NEC:



690.31(C)(2)



(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using
single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all
sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in
cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported
at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to
exceed 1.4m (4.5').



I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.



Bill.







From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David
Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.




There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.



The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is
more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing
to let installers build to the most current standard.



That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.









On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, William Miller wrote:





David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited
by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that
pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I
might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway.
Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm


At 03:46 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:




So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for
source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/8ee885c3/attachment.htm>
David Brearley
2013-03-26 03:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Bill. That's another welcome change to look forward to in NEC 2014.
Post by Bill Brooks
All,
690.31(C)(2)
(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to exceed 1.4m (4.5?).
I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.
Bill.
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.
There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.
The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing to let installers build to the most current standard.
That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.
This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...
Thanks!
William Miller
PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.
wm
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/d92d2380/attachment.htm>
Mark Richardson
2013-03-26 12:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Bill,
Thank you for continuing to help adopt more practical and 'user friendly' code1 requirements.
As Glen pointed out, [NEC 2011] 392.10(B)(1)(a) could pose a problem for some AHJ's - even though 690.31(B) allows PV wire in exposed outdoor locations (presumably not in "cable tray").
It is truly counter-intuitive that by efforting responsible wire-management and installing PV wire in "cable tray" it would somehow create a code violation unless it was at least 1/0, and that it would somehow be allowed in a residential application under the same 392.10? It is also interesting to note the definition of Supervised Industrial Installation2 in 240.2 and that all of those conditions are not met in most cases
Just wanted to say again: Thanks for the forward progress!
Mark

1 - I know, I know: "user-friendly code" is an oxymoron J
2 - I could not find a referenced definition of Industrial Establishments

[NYLE LOGO SMALL]
Mark Richardson
mrichardson at newyorklightenergy.com<mailto:mrichardson at newyorklightenergy.com>

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:54 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

All,

Here is the language that has been accepted into the 2014 NEC:

690.31(C)(2)

(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to exceed 1.4m (4.5').

I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.

Bill.



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.

There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.

The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing to let installers build to the most current standard.

That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.




On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, William Miller wrote:

David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm


At 03:46 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:

So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/e767f1de/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3802 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <Loading Image...>
Glenn Burt
2013-03-26 15:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Bill,



Does this mean that USE-2 is not acceptable for use in this manner?

Also, what is your confidence level that this will make it to the printer? I
recall a few other instances of proposed amendments that at the last minute
were not included in the past few code cycles (pertaining to PV).



Too bad we are still on the 2008 code cycle here.



Thanks

Glenn Burt



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:54 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



All,



Here is the language that has been accepted into the 2014 NEC:



690.31(C)(2)



(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using
single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all
sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in
cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported
at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to
exceed 1.4m (4.5').



I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.



Bill.







From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David
Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.




There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.



The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is
more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing
to let installers build to the most current standard.



That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.









On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, William Miller wrote:



David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited
by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that
pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I
might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway.
Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm


At 03:46 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:



So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for
source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/8fbb7e47/attachment.htm>
David Brearley
2013-03-26 16:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Not at all. Type USE cable was added to the Permitted Uses of Cable Tray, as outlined in Section 392.10(A) and the the companion Table 392.10(A).
Post by Glenn Burt
Bill,
Does this mean that USE-2 is not acceptable for use in this manner?
Also, what is your confidence level that this will make it to the printer? I recall a few other instances of proposed amendments that at the last minute were not included in the past few code cycles (pertaining to PV).
Too bad we are still on the 2008 code cycle here?
Thanks
Glenn Burt
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:54 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
All,
690.31(C)(2)
(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to exceed 1.4m (4.5?).
I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.
Bill.
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.
There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.
The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing to let installers build to the most current standard.
That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.
This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...
Thanks!
William Miller
PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.
wm
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/bae30681/attachment.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-26 19:42:11 UTC
Permalink
I don't understand how it can be permissible to string the PV wire over the
rails, under the modules, and in the rail channels, but not permissible to
put it in purpose made cable trays. Makes no sense.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/9164e9f1/attachment.htm>
Glenn Burt
2013-03-27 01:16:52 UTC
Permalink
In a world where PV wire may be substituted for USE-2, but USE-2 cannot be
substituted for PV wire, and (future) 690 wording that only refers to PV
wire, there is still question in my mind about proper (future) use in cable
trays when 690 over rules 392, as it does in so many other matters.



The devil is in the details.





From: David Brearley [mailto:david.brearley at solarprofessional.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:51 PM
To: glenn.burt at glbcc.com; RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



Not at all. Type USE cable was added to the Permitted Uses of Cable Tray, as
outlined in Section 392.10(A) and the the companion Table 392.10(A).



On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Glenn Burt wrote:





Bill,



Does this mean that USE-2 is not acceptable for use in this manner?

Also, what is your confidence level that this will make it to the printer? I
recall a few other instances of proposed amendments that at the last minute
were not included in the past few code cycles (pertaining to PV).



Too bad we are still on the 2008 code cycle here.



Thanks

Glenn Burt



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:54 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



All,



Here is the language that has been accepted into the 2014 NEC:



690.31(C)(2)



(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using
single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all
sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in
cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported
at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to
exceed 1.4m (4.5').



I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.



Bill.







From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David
Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.




There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.



The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is
more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing
to let installers build to the most current standard.



That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.









On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, William Miller wrote:



David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited
by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that
pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I
might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway.
Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm


At 03:46 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:




So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for
source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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 at 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/9d949a3b/attachment.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-26 19:42:11 UTC
Permalink
I don't understand how it can be permissible to string the PV wire over the
rails, under the modules, and in the rail channels, but not permissible to
put it in purpose made cable trays. Makes no sense.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/9164e9f1/attachment-0001.htm>
Glenn Burt
2013-03-27 01:16:52 UTC
Permalink
In a world where PV wire may be substituted for USE-2, but USE-2 cannot be
substituted for PV wire, and (future) 690 wording that only refers to PV
wire, there is still question in my mind about proper (future) use in cable
trays when 690 over rules 392, as it does in so many other matters.



The devil is in the details.





From: David Brearley [mailto:david.brearley at solarprofessional.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:51 PM
To: glenn.burt at glbcc.com; RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



Not at all. Type USE cable was added to the Permitted Uses of Cable Tray, as
outlined in Section 392.10(A) and the the companion Table 392.10(A).



On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Glenn Burt wrote:





Bill,



Does this mean that USE-2 is not acceptable for use in this manner?

Also, what is your confidence level that this will make it to the printer? I
recall a few other instances of proposed amendments that at the last minute
were not included in the past few code cycles (pertaining to PV).



Too bad we are still on the 2008 code cycle here.



Thanks

Glenn Burt



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:54 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



All,



Here is the language that has been accepted into the 2014 NEC:



690.31(C)(2)



(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using
single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all
sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in
cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported
at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to
exceed 1.4m (4.5').



I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.



Bill.







From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David
Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.




There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.



The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is
more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing
to let installers build to the most current standard.



That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.









On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, William Miller wrote:



David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited
by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that
pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I
might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway.
Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm


At 03:46 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:




So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for
source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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 at 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/9d949a3b/attachment-0001.htm>
David Brearley
2013-03-26 03:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Bill. That's another welcome change to look forward to in NEC 2014.
Post by Bill Brooks
All,
690.31(C)(2)
(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to exceed 1.4m (4.5?).
I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.
Bill.
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.
There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.
The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing to let installers build to the most current standard.
That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.
This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...
Thanks!
William Miller
PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.
wm
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/d92d2380/attachment-0001.htm>
Mark Richardson
2013-03-26 12:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Bill,
Thank you for continuing to help adopt more practical and 'user friendly' code1 requirements.
As Glen pointed out, [NEC 2011] 392.10(B)(1)(a) could pose a problem for some AHJ's - even though 690.31(B) allows PV wire in exposed outdoor locations (presumably not in "cable tray").
It is truly counter-intuitive that by efforting responsible wire-management and installing PV wire in "cable tray" it would somehow create a code violation unless it was at least 1/0, and that it would somehow be allowed in a residential application under the same 392.10? It is also interesting to note the definition of Supervised Industrial Installation2 in 240.2 and that all of those conditions are not met in most cases
Just wanted to say again: Thanks for the forward progress!
Mark

1 - I know, I know: "user-friendly code" is an oxymoron J
2 - I could not find a referenced definition of Industrial Establishments

[NYLE LOGO SMALL]
Mark Richardson
mrichardson at newyorklightenergy.com<mailto:mrichardson at newyorklightenergy.com>

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:54 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

All,

Here is the language that has been accepted into the 2014 NEC:

690.31(C)(2)

(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to exceed 1.4m (4.5').

I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.

Bill.



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.

There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.

The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing to let installers build to the most current standard.

That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.




On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, William Miller wrote:

David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm


At 03:46 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:

So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/e767f1de/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3802 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <Loading Image...>
Glenn Burt
2013-03-26 15:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Bill,



Does this mean that USE-2 is not acceptable for use in this manner?

Also, what is your confidence level that this will make it to the printer? I
recall a few other instances of proposed amendments that at the last minute
were not included in the past few code cycles (pertaining to PV).



Too bad we are still on the 2008 code cycle here.



Thanks

Glenn Burt



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:54 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



All,



Here is the language that has been accepted into the 2014 NEC:



690.31(C)(2)



(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using
single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all
sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in
cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported
at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to
exceed 1.4m (4.5').



I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.



Bill.







From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David
Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.




There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.



The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is
more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing
to let installers build to the most current standard.



That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.









On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, William Miller wrote:



David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited
by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that
pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I
might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway.
Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm


At 03:46 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:



So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for
source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/8fbb7e47/attachment-0001.htm>
David Brearley
2013-03-26 16:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Not at all. Type USE cable was added to the Permitted Uses of Cable Tray, as outlined in Section 392.10(A) and the the companion Table 392.10(A).
Post by Glenn Burt
Bill,
Does this mean that USE-2 is not acceptable for use in this manner?
Also, what is your confidence level that this will make it to the printer? I recall a few other instances of proposed amendments that at the last minute were not included in the past few code cycles (pertaining to PV).
Too bad we are still on the 2008 code cycle here?
Thanks
Glenn Burt
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:54 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
All,
690.31(C)(2)
(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to exceed 1.4m (4.5?).
I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.
Bill.
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.
There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.
The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing to let installers build to the most current standard.
That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.
This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...
Thanks!
William Miller
PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.
wm
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/bae30681/attachment-0001.htm>
William Miller
2013-03-26 04:29:40 UTC
Permalink
David:

Of course, I understand that you are not saying we can willfully disregard
the Code in anticipation of future clarification. I was just extrapolating
on your idea.

If we want an exception based on a predicted update in the code, we are at
the mercy of the AHJ who may or may not be convinced. I think most AHJs
are willing to diverge from the Code in a more strict interpretation, but
not the reverse. Right now, as I read it, unless the leads are 1/0 or
larger, we are forbade.

I treat PV systems like rooftop AC units. The voltages and currents are
similar, if not more severe. I don't believe you could or should run power
to a rooftop AC unit in cable tray. Conduit is a tried and true practice
and I recommend it.

William Miller
Post by David Brearley
Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.
There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.
The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language
is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are
willing to let installers build to the most current standard.
That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.
Post by William Miller
This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is
prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna
correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any
day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin'
to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...
Thanks!
William Miller
PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.
wm
Post by David Brearley
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out
that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is
okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
<mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
Miller Solar
Voice :805-438-5600
email: william at millersolar.com
http://millersolar.com
License No. C-10-773985
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/86a19533/attachment.htm>
Bill Brooks
2013-03-26 05:15:11 UTC
Permalink
William,



I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I have
rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no clue
how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in
general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for good
reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.



The sooner we get away from conduit-particularly for long feeder runs-the
better.



In Europe they don't have problems with their rooftop wiring systems because
everything is in tray.



For those that don't allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just
remember that if it isn't called cable tray, then 392 doesn't apply. The NEC
would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no
sense.



We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is ancient
and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not mean it is
correct. That's why we try to fix it every three years.



Bill.





From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William
Miller
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:30 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



David:

Of course, I understand that you are not saying we can willfully disregard
the Code in anticipation of future clarification. I was just extrapolating
on your idea.

If we want an exception based on a predicted update in the code, we are at
the mercy of the AHJ who may or may not be convinced. I think most AHJs are
willing to diverge from the Code in a more strict interpretation, but not
the reverse. Right now, as I read it, unless the leads are 1/0 or larger, we
are forbade.

I treat PV systems like rooftop AC units. The voltages and currents are
similar, if not more severe. I don't believe you could or should run power
to a rooftop AC unit in cable tray. Conduit is a tried and true practice
and I recommend it.

William Miller


At 06:01 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:



Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.


There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.

The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is
more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing
to let installers build to the most current standard.

That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.




On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, William Miller wrote:




David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited
by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that
pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I
might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway.
Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm


At 03:46 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:




So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for
source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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 <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org/>


_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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 <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org/>

Miller Solar
Voice :805-438-5600
email: william at millersolar.com
http://millersolar.com <http://millersolar.com/>
License No. C-10-773985

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/d1d9f43a/attachment.htm>
William Miller
2013-03-27 04:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Bill:

I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and
true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't
know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors
in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow
and ice and falling objects.

Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the
necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the
benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.

Respectfully,

William Miller

PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building
envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding
them. Thoughtful installers will do the same.

Wm
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I
have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no
clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea
in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for
good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long feeder runs?the
better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop wiring systems
because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just
remember that if it isn?t called cable tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The
NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This
makes no sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is
ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not
mean it is correct. That?s why we try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William Miller
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:30 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Of course, I understand that you are not saying we can willfully disregard
the Code in anticipation of future clarification. I was just
extrapolating on your idea.
If we want an exception based on a predicted update in the code, we are at
the mercy of the AHJ who may or may not be convinced. I think most AHJs
are willing to diverge from the Code in a more strict interpretation, but
not the reverse. Right now, as I read it, unless the leads are 1/0 or
larger, we are forbade.
I treat PV systems like rooftop AC units. The voltages and currents are
similar, if not more severe. I don't believe you could or should run
power to a rooftop AC unit in cable tray. Conduit is a tried and true
practice and I recommend it.
William Miller
Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.
There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.
The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language
is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are
willing to let installers build to the most current standard.
That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.
This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is
prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna
correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any
day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin'
to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...
Thanks!
William Miller
PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.
wm
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay
for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
<mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org/>www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
<mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org/>www.members.re-wrenches.org
Miller Solar
Voice :805-438-5600
email: <mailto:william at millersolar.com>william at millersolar.com
http://millersolar.com
License No. C-10-773985
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6205 - Release Date: 03/26/13
Miller Solar
Voice :805-438-5600
email: william at millersolar.com
http://millersolar.com
License No. C-10-773985
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/b1510b79/attachment.htm>
Bill Brooks
2013-03-27 05:55:17 UTC
Permalink
William,



I have all the respect in the world for you, but I'm not referring to
"basket tray", which is only appropriate for small conductors. I'm talking
about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12" wide and that has a top
and rungs every 12". The main facilities that use it in the United States
are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don't get to work with
it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without all
the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and worrying
about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best electricians
have problems with this stuff.



I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring
them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray
outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor
combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a building.
It's all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of rooftop
conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use conduit
if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice soon.
Hopefully sooner than later.



Bill.



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William
Miller
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



Bill:

I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and
true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't
know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors
in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow
and ice and falling objects.

Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the
necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the
benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the
industry.

Respectfully,

William Miller

PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building
envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them. Thoughtful
installers will do the same.

Wm


At 10:15 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:



Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us

William,

I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I have
rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no clue
how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in
general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for good
reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.

The sooner we get away from conduit-particularly for long feeder runs-the
better.

In Europe they don't have problems with their rooftop wiring systems because
everything is in tray.

For those that don't allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just
remember that if it isn't called cable tray, then 392 doesn't apply. The NEC
would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no
sense.

We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is ancient
and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not mean it is
correct. That's why we try to fix it every three years.

Bill.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/53e419eb/attachment.htm>
Andrew Truitt
2013-03-27 14:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation over time when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight resistant" labeling, USE-2 (and I assume PV wire though I haven't seen it yet) does show wear after years of exposure to direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use cable trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed] conduit when exposed to direct UV?

- Andrew Truitt


Sent from my iPad
Post by Bill Brooks
William,
I have all the respect in the world for you, but I?m not referring to ?basket tray?, which is only appropriate for small conductors. I?m talking about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12? wide and that has a top and rungs every 12?. The main facilities that use it in the United States are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don?t get to work with it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without all the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best electricians have problems with this stuff.
I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a building. It?s all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of rooftop conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use conduit if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice soon. Hopefully sooner than later.
Bill.
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William Miller
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow and ice and falling objects.
Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.
Respectfully,
William Miller
PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them. Thoughtful installers will do the same.
Wm
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long feeder runs?the better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop wiring systems because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just remember that if it isn?t called cable tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not mean it is correct. That?s why we try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130327/85a21234/attachment.htm>
Allan Sindelar
2013-03-27 15:50:36 UTC
Permalink
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130327/ec2aa53b/attachment.htm>
John Berdner
2013-03-27 16:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Exposed single conductor sunlight resistant cable in cable trays are widely used in PV systems outside the US.
There is a very large installed base of systems with good long term performance data using this type of construction.
We should not discount the advantages of wire cable trays just because we are unfamiliar with it.

Look at data cabling - Characterized by many, relatively small, cables over long distances with periodic drops.
Sounds a lot like PV source circuits (other than voltage and current in the wires of course).
There are lots of videos out there showing how to pull 10's of pairs of wires simultaneously in cable trays.
IMHO, we need to look at ideas like this to reduce installation cost and time.

Installation costs are becoming the tall pole in the tent and new thinking is needed.
As systems are falling to sub $3.00 /Watt all-in, running wire in conduit will simply not be cost effective.
Running wire in conduit is one of the reasons PV installation costs in the US are double (or more) of those in Europe.
As one of my former German colleagues noted:
"It is only in the US where you need first to be a plumber before you can be an electrician"

Best Regards,

John Berdner
General Manager, North America

SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
3347 Gateway Boulevard, Fremont CA 94538 USA (*Please note of our new address.)
T: 510.498.3200, X 747
M: 530.277.4894

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Allan Sindelar
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:51 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

Andrew,
We have used #10 USE-2 for about 16 years, and our high-elevation New Mexico sun is quite intense. I have yet to see any degradation exceeding fading discoloration on any conductors from that far back, even when directly exposed to sunlight. No cracking, peeling, delaminating, or hardening.
Allan
Allan Sindelar
Allan at positiveenergysolar.com<mailto:Allan at positiveenergysolar.com>
NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic Installer
NABCEP Certified Technical Sales Professional
New Mexico EE98J Journeyman Electrician
Founder and Chief Technology Officer
Positive Energy, Inc.
3209 Richards Lane (note new address)
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
505 424-1112
www.positiveenergysolar.com<http://www.positiveenergysolar.com/>


On 3/27/2013 8:41 AM, Andrew Truitt wrote:
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation over time when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight resistant" labeling, USE-2 (and I assume PV wire though I haven't seen it yet) does show wear after years of exposure to direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use cable trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed] conduit when exposed to direct UV?

- Andrew Truitt


Sent from my iPad

On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:55 PM, "Bill Brooks" <billbrooks7 at yahoo.com<mailto:billbrooks7 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
William,

I have all the respect in the world for you, but I'm not referring to "basket tray", which is only appropriate for small conductors. I'm talking about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12" wide and that has a top and rungs every 12". The main facilities that use it in the United States are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don't get to work with it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without all the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best electricians have problems with this stuff.

I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a building. It's all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of rooftop conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use conduit if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice soon. Hopefully sooner than later.

Bill.

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William Miller
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

Bill:

I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow and ice and falling objects.

Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.

Respectfully,

William Miller

PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them. Thoughtful installers will do the same.

Wm


At 10:15 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:


Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us

William,

I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.

The sooner we get away from conduitparticularly for long feeder runsthe better.

In Europe they don't have problems with their rooftop wiring systems because everything is in tray.

For those that don't allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just remember that if it isn't called cable tray, then 392 doesn't apply. The NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no sense.

We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not mean it is correct. That's why we try to fix it every three years.

Bill.



_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>




_______________________________________________

List sponsored by Home Power magazine



List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>



Check out participant bios:

www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity who is the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure or any type of use under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee, agent, or representative responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately to the sender.
P Please think of the environment before printing this email

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130327/6d510522/attachment.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-28 18:03:46 UTC
Permalink
I am working on a large installation in a country that uses 230/400V 60Hz
for the grid, so we had to look to Europe for the inverters and work 1000V.
I spent some time on the phone with SMA Germany to discuss the reqiurements
in Germany and to understand the design methodology the inverters were
designed for.
First of all, the inverters are gorgeous. The first one we installed is a
3Ph 17KW with 6 sets string inputs, 2 x MPPT. They connect the strings
directly to the inverters, no disconnects. The inverters have a Electronic
Solar Switch on the bottom, pull it down and the strings are disconnected.
We are using 26 module strings or that install, which massively reduces
cabling and components.
I showed the engineer a photo of our larger installs, he laughed at the use
of "pipes" for the cables.
We install massive AC disconnects, they use a little isolator about the
size of a Coke can.
Everything is a multi-core cable.

I also read a guide to the British Standards on PV installation, and their
approach to grounding is absolutely different.
Since PV conductors are all isolated now, they don't even want you to
ground the array structures, in fact they describe grounding as a shock
hazard. Very different mentality.

I might think that the US way is likely safer if we were comparing with
China or the third world, but this is Germany. I think they know
electricity.

Chris


On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM, John Berdner
Post by John Berdner
Exposed single conductor sunlight resistant cable in cable trays are
widely used in PV systems outside the US.****
There is a very large installed base of systems with good long term
performance data using this type of construction.****
We should not discount the advantages of wire cable trays just because we
are unfamiliar with it.****
** **
Look at data cabling ? Characterized by many, relatively small, cables
over long distances with periodic drops.****
Sounds a lot like PV source circuits (other than voltage and current in
the wires of course).****
There are lots of videos out there showing how to pull 10?s of pairs of
wires simultaneously in cable trays.****
IMHO, we need to look at ideas like this to reduce installation cost and
time.****
** **
Installation costs are becoming the tall pole in the tent and new thinking
is needed.****
As systems are falling to sub $3.00 /Watt all-in, running wire in conduit
will simply not be cost effective.****
Running wire in conduit is one of the reasons PV installation costs in the
US are double (or more) of those in Europe.****
As one of my former German colleagues noted:****
?It is only in the US where you need first to be a plumber before you can
be an electrician?****
** **
Best Regards,****
** **
John Berdner****
General Manager, North America****
** **
SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.****
3347 Gateway Boulevard, Fremont CA 94538 USA *(*Please note of our new
address.)*
T: 510.498.3200, X 747****
M: 530.277.4894 ****
** **
re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Allan Sindelar
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:51 AM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray****
** **
Andrew,
We have used #10 USE-2 for about 16 years, and our high-elevation New
Mexico sun is quite intense. I have yet to see any degradation exceeding
fading discoloration on any conductors from that far back, even when
directly exposed to sunlight. No cracking, peeling, delaminating, or
hardening.
Allan****
*Allan Sindelar*
Allan at positiveenergysolar.com
NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic Installer
NABCEP Certified Technical Sales Professional
New Mexico EE98J Journeyman Electrician
Founder and Chief Technology Officer
*Positive Energy, Inc.*
3209 Richards Lane (note new address)
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
*505 424-1112*
www.positiveenergysolar.com ****
** **
** **
On 3/27/2013 8:41 AM, Andrew Truitt wrote:****
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation over time
when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight resistant" labeling, USE-2
(and I assume PV wire though I haven't seen it yet) does show wear after
years of exposure to direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use
cable trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed] conduit
when exposed to direct UV?****
** **
- Andrew Truitt****
Sent from my iPad****
****
William,****
****
I have all the respect in the world for you, but I?m not referring to
?basket tray?, which is only appropriate for small conductors. I?m talking
about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12? wide and that has a top
and rungs every 12?. The main facilities that use it in the United States
are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don?t get to work with
it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without
all the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and
worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best
electricians have problems with this stuff.****
****
I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring
them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray
outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor
combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a
building. It?s all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of
rooftop conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use
conduit if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice
soon. Hopefully sooner than later.****
****
Bill.****
****
*From:* re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [
mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org<re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>]
*On Behalf Of *William Miller
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray****
****
I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and
true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't
know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors
in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow
and ice and falling objects.
Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the
necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the
benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.
Respectfully,
William Miller
PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building
envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them.
Thoughtful installers will do the same.
Wm
****
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I
have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no
clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea
in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for
good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long feeder runs?the better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop wiring systems
because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just
remember that if it isn?t called cable tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The
NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes
no sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is
ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not
mean it is correct. That?s why we try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
****
****
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org****
****
_______________________________________________****
List sponsored by Home Power magazine****
** **
List Address: RE-wrenches at 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****
** **
** **
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are intended only
for the use of the individual or entity who is the intended recipient and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure or any type of use under applicable law. If the reader of this
e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee, agent, or
representative responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying, or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately to the sender.
*P* Please think of the environment before printing this email
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130328/820238e4/attachment.htm>
Bill Loesch
2013-03-29 10:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Hi Chris,

Thanks for a glimpse of how our German brethren handle PV design &
installation. After all, who has more experience with design, execution,
and funding than the Germans? There remains an arrogance that the US has
a lock on how best to do any number of things. Hopefully, this
antiquated attitude will change, soon; hopefully, before we are all
reduced to asking the equivalent of, "Would you like to Supersize that
meal?"

Best wishes on your install. Please keep us informed of how others
around the world better handle these items.

Bill Loesch
Solar 1 - Saint Louis Solar
Post by Chris Mason
I am working on a large installation in a country that uses 230/400V
60Hz for the grid, so we had to look to Europe for the inverters and
work 1000V.
I spent some time on the phone with SMA Germany to discuss the
reqiurements in Germany and to understand the design methodology the
inverters were designed for.
First of all, the inverters are gorgeous. The first one we installed
is a 3Ph 17KW with 6 sets string inputs, 2 x MPPT. They connect the
strings directly to the inverters, no disconnects. The inverters have
a Electronic Solar Switch on the bottom, pull it down and the strings
are disconnected.
We are using 26 module strings or that install, which massively
reduces cabling and components.
I showed the engineer a photo of our larger installs, he laughed at
the use of "pipes" for the cables.
We install massive AC disconnects, they use a little isolator about
the size of a Coke can.
Everything is a multi-core cable.
I also read a guide to the British Standards on PV installation, and
their approach to grounding is absolutely different.
Since PV conductors are all isolated now, they don't even want you to
ground the array structures, in fact they describe grounding as a
shock hazard. Very different mentality.
I might think that the US way is likely safer if we were comparing
with China or the third world, but this is Germany. I think they know
electricity.
Chris
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM, John Berdner
Exposed single conductor sunlight resistant cable in cable trays
are widely used in PV systems outside the US.
There is a very large installed base of systems with good long
term performance data using this type of construction.
We should not discount the advantages of wire cable trays just
because we are unfamiliar with it.
Look at data cabling ? Characterized by many, relatively small,
cables over long distances with periodic drops.
Sounds a lot like PV source circuits (other than voltage and
current in the wires of course).
There are lots of videos out there showing how to pull 10?s of
pairs of wires simultaneously in cable trays.
IMHO, we need to look at ideas like this to reduce installation cost and time.
Installation costs are becoming the tall pole in the tent and new
thinking is needed.
As systems are falling to sub $3.00 /Watt all-in, running wire in
conduit will simply not be cost effective.
Running wire in conduit is one of the reasons PV installation
costs in the US are double (or more) of those in Europe.
?It is only in the US where you need first to be a plumber before
you can be an electrician?
Best Regards,
John Berdner
General Manager, North America
SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
3347 Gateway Boulevard, Fremont CA 94538 USA */(*Please note of
our new address.)/*
T: 510.498.3200, X 747 <tel:510.498.3200%2C%20X%20747>
M: 530.277.4894 <tel:530.277.4894>
*From:*re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>] *On Behalf Of
*Allan Sindelar
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:51 AM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Andrew,
We have used #10 USE-2 for about 16 years, and our high-elevation
New Mexico sun is quite intense. I have yet to see any degradation
exceeding fading discoloration on any conductors from that far
back, even when directly exposed to sunlight. No cracking,
peeling, delaminating, or hardening.
Allan
*Allan Sindelar*
Allan at positiveenergysolar.com <mailto:Allan at positiveenergysolar.com>
NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic Installer
NABCEP Certified Technical Sales Professional
New Mexico EE98J Journeyman Electrician
Founder and Chief Technology Officer
*Positive Energy, Inc.*
3209 Richards Lane (note new address)
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
*505 424-1112 <tel:505%20424-1112>*
www.positiveenergysolar.com <http://www.positiveenergysolar.com/>
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation
over time when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight
resistant" labeling, USE-2 (and I assume PV wire though I
haven't seen it yet) does show wear after years of exposure to
direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use cable
trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed]
conduit when exposed to direct UV?
- Andrew Truitt
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:55 PM, "Bill Brooks"
William,
I have all the respect in the world for you, but I?m not
referring to ?basket tray?, which is only appropriate for
small conductors. I?m talking about legitimate cable tray
that can be up to 12? wide and that has a top and rungs
every 12?. The main facilities that use it in the United
States are large industrial facilities. Most electricians
don?t get to work with it. It is clearly superior to EMT
and is at least as good as IMC without all the hassle of
threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and
worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling.
Even the best electricians have problems with this stuff.
I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder
runs. We can bring them in the building and build a rack
for the conduit or run covered tray outside. As the 2014
NEC will require, you will have to use contactor combiners
or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a
building. It?s all doable. My recommendation after seeing
the aftermath of rooftop conduit by good electricians is
to put cable tray on roofs and use conduit if you bring
the feeders indoors. It will become common practice soon.
Hopefully sooner than later.
Bill.
*From:*re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On
Behalf Of *William Miller
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not
abandoned a tried and true practice just because some
practitioners don't do it right. I don't know how one can
justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors
in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy
basket. Consider snow and ice and falling objects.
Too many installers entered the PV field without first
acquiring the necessary skills as journeymen or women
electricians. I don't see the benefit of rewriting the
code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.
Respectfully,
William Miller
PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter
the building envelope at the first appropriate location to
avoid adding them. Thoughtful installers will do the same.
Wm
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true
on rooftops. I have rarely seen good conduit runs on
rooftops. Most electricians have no clue how to work with
expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in
general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done
indoors for good reason. We are the crazy people doing
things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long
feeder runs?the better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop
wiring systems because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less
than 1/0, just remember that if it isn?t called cable
tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The NEC would allow us to
use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no
sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement,
and it is ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it
is in the code, does not mean it is correct. That?s why we
try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>
www.members.re-wrenches.org
<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org <mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm <http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>
www.members.re-wrenches.org <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are
intended only for the use of the individual or entity who is the
intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure or any type of use under
applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended
recipient, or the employee, agent, or representative responsible
for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or
other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately to the sender.
*P* Please think of the environment before printing this email
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>
www.members.re-wrenches.org <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com <http://www.cometenergysystems.com>
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6206 - Release Date: 03/26/13
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6206 - Release Date: 03/26/13
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130329/22721932/attachment.htm>
Bill Hoffer
2013-03-29 16:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Re-Wrenches

I have done numerous Mountaintop telecommunication PV systems, and they use
outdoor rated cabling in cable trays extensively on their towers into their
control rooms. If it can survive the UV, snow wind and ice rime buildup
there I am sure it can handle many of the roof top locations easily. I am
guessing that they may have used conduit in the early days, but found it
more cost effective and less maintenance in the long run to run cable tray.
The only real difference might be the exposure to heat on a roof, which
should be better in open cable tray than stuffed in a conduit! There is a
real advantage to being able to visually inspect and replace damaged wires
easily before a potential fault occurs or for that matter to track down and
isolate a fault. Europeans think that we are crazy putting conductors in
metal conduit and prefer to use outdoor rated conductors where they are
separated by air to reduce potential for faults across current carrying
wire and being able to visually inspect for damage to the conductors.
Conduit bending is a true art that many electricians pride themselves in,
so I can see they reluctance to change, but there is certainly enough
evidence that cable trays and outdoor rated wires are a good idea from
around the world and the telecommunications industry. We should learn from
the Europeans and Telecommunication industires, who by the way have less
problems with faults and much lower installation costs!

Bill
Post by Bill Loesch
Hi Chris,
Thanks for a glimpse of how our German brethren handle PV design &
installation. After all, who has more experience with design, execution,
and funding than the Germans? There remains an arrogance that the US has a
lock on how best to do any number of things. Hopefully, this antiquated
attitude will change, soon; hopefully, before we are all reduced to asking
the equivalent of, "Would you like to Supersize that meal?"
Best wishes on your install. Please keep us informed of how others around
the world better handle these items.
Bill Loesch
Solar 1 - Saint Louis Solar
I am working on a large installation in a country that uses 230/400V 60Hz
for the grid, so we had to look to Europe for the inverters and work 1000V.
I spent some time on the phone with SMA Germany to discuss the
reqiurements in Germany and to understand the design methodology the
inverters were designed for.
First of all, the inverters are gorgeous. The first one we installed is a
3Ph 17KW with 6 sets string inputs, 2 x MPPT. They connect the strings
directly to the inverters, no disconnects. The inverters have a Electronic
Solar Switch on the bottom, pull it down and the strings are disconnected.
We are using 26 module strings or that install, which massively reduces
cabling and components.
I showed the engineer a photo of our larger installs, he laughed at the
use of "pipes" for the cables.
We install massive AC disconnects, they use a little isolator about the
size of a Coke can.
Everything is a multi-core cable.
I also read a guide to the British Standards on PV installation, and
their approach to grounding is absolutely different.
Since PV conductors are all isolated now, they don't even want you to
ground the array structures, in fact they describe grounding as a shock
hazard. Very different mentality.
I might think that the US way is likely safer if we were comparing with
China or the third world, but this is Germany. I think they know
electricity.
Chris
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM, John Berdner <John.Berdner at solaredge.com
Post by John Berdner
Exposed single conductor sunlight resistant cable in cable trays are
widely used in PV systems outside the US.
There is a very large installed base of systems with good long term
performance data using this type of construction.
We should not discount the advantages of wire cable trays just because we
are unfamiliar with it.
Look at data cabling ? Characterized by many, relatively small, cables
over long distances with periodic drops.
Sounds a lot like PV source circuits (other than voltage and current in
the wires of course).
There are lots of videos out there showing how to pull 10?s of pairs of
wires simultaneously in cable trays.
IMHO, we need to look at ideas like this to reduce installation cost and time.
Installation costs are becoming the tall pole in the tent and new thinking is needed.
As systems are falling to sub $3.00 /Watt all-in, running wire in conduit
will simply not be cost effective.
Running wire in conduit is one of the reasons PV installation costs in
the US are double (or more) of those in Europe.
?It is only in the US where you need first to be a plumber before you can
be an electrician?
Best Regards,
John Berdner
General Manager, North America
SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
3347 Gateway Boulevard, Fremont CA 94538 USA *(*Please note of our new
address.)*
T: 510.498.3200, X 747 <510.498.3200%2C%20X%20747>
M: 530.277.4894
re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Allan Sindelar
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:51 AM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Andrew,
We have used #10 USE-2 for about 16 years, and our high-elevation New
Mexico sun is quite intense. I have yet to see any degradation exceeding
fading discoloration on any conductors from that far back, even when
directly exposed to sunlight. No cracking, peeling, delaminating, or
hardening.
Allan
*Allan Sindelar*
Allan at positiveenergysolar.com
NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic Installer
NABCEP Certified Technical Sales Professional
New Mexico EE98J Journeyman Electrician
Founder and Chief Technology Officer
*Positive Energy, Inc.*
3209 Richards Lane (note new address)
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
*505 424-1112 <505%20424-1112>*
www.positiveenergysolar.com
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation over time
when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight resistant" labeling, USE-2
(and I assume PV wire though I haven't seen it yet) does show wear after
years of exposure to direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use
cable trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed] conduit
when exposed to direct UV?
- Andrew Truitt
Sent from my iPad
William,
I have all the respect in the world for you, but I?m not referring to
?basket tray?, which is only appropriate for small conductors. I?m talking
about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12? wide and that has a top
and rungs every 12?. The main facilities that use it in the United States
are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don?t get to work with
it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without
all the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and
worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best
electricians have problems with this stuff.
I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring
them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray
outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor
combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a
building. It?s all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of
rooftop conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use
conduit if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice
soon. Hopefully sooner than later.
Bill.
*From:* re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [
mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org<re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>]
*On Behalf Of *William Miller
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried
and true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I
don't know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage
conductors in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket.
Consider snow and ice and falling objects.
Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the
necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the
benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.
Respectfully,
William Miller
PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building
envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them.
Thoughtful installers will do the same.
Wm
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I
have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no
clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea
in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for
good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long feeder runs?the better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop wiring systems
because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just
remember that if it isn?t called cable tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The
NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes
no sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is
ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not
mean it is correct. That?s why we try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are intended only
for the use of the individual or entity who is the intended recipient and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure or any type of use under applicable law. If the reader of this
e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee, agent, or
representative responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying, or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately to the sender.
*P* Please think of the environment before printing this email
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at 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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6206 - Release Date: 03/26/13
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6206 - Release Date: 03/26/13
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Bill Hoffer PE
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer?
Sunergy Engineering Services PLLC
2504 Columbia Ave NW
East Wenatchee WA 98802-3941
bhoffer at sunergyengineeringservices.com Cell:(509)679-6165
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130329/0f613d1e/attachment.htm>
Jay Peltz
2013-03-31 01:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Hi Bill
I'm with you all the way. I love to do things
Telecomm style. Very clean, safe and better IMHO.

1000v PV wire can be bought at PV cables.com

Cheers

Jay

Peltz Power.
David Katz
2013-03-31 03:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Jay,
That URL for 1000 volt cable and 2000 volt cable is PV-cables.com
David Katz

Sent from my iPhone
Post by Jay Peltz
Hi Bill
I'm with you all the way. I love to do things
Telecomm style. Very clean, safe and better IMHO.
1000v PV wire can be bought at PV cables.com
Cheers
Jay
Peltz Power.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
Chris Mason
2013-03-31 13:21:58 UTC
Permalink
As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated equipment
will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To avoid problems
and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the manufacturers
need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost
more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse
holders and connectors.
Post by Jay Peltz
Hi Bill
I'm with you all the way. I love to do things
Telecomm style. Very clean, safe and better IMHO.
1000v PV wire can be bought at PV cables.com
Cheers
Jay
Peltz Power.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/498b3f0a/attachment.htm>
David Katz
2013-03-31 03:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Jay,
That URL for 1000 volt cable and 2000 volt cable is PV-cables.com
David Katz

Sent from my iPhone
Post by Jay Peltz
Hi Bill
I'm with you all the way. I love to do things
Telecomm style. Very clean, safe and better IMHO.
1000v PV wire can be bought at PV cables.com
Cheers
Jay
Peltz Power.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
Chris Mason
2013-03-31 13:21:58 UTC
Permalink
As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated equipment
will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To avoid problems
and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the manufacturers
need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost
more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse
holders and connectors.
Post by Jay Peltz
Hi Bill
I'm with you all the way. I love to do things
Telecomm style. Very clean, safe and better IMHO.
1000v PV wire can be bought at PV cables.com
Cheers
Jay
Peltz Power.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/498b3f0a/attachment-0001.htm>
Jay Peltz
2013-03-31 01:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Hi Bill
I'm with you all the way. I love to do things
Telecomm style. Very clean, safe and better IMHO.

1000v PV wire can be bought at PV cables.com

Cheers

Jay

Peltz Power.
Bill Hoffer
2013-03-29 16:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Re-Wrenches

I have done numerous Mountaintop telecommunication PV systems, and they use
outdoor rated cabling in cable trays extensively on their towers into their
control rooms. If it can survive the UV, snow wind and ice rime buildup
there I am sure it can handle many of the roof top locations easily. I am
guessing that they may have used conduit in the early days, but found it
more cost effective and less maintenance in the long run to run cable tray.
The only real difference might be the exposure to heat on a roof, which
should be better in open cable tray than stuffed in a conduit! There is a
real advantage to being able to visually inspect and replace damaged wires
easily before a potential fault occurs or for that matter to track down and
isolate a fault. Europeans think that we are crazy putting conductors in
metal conduit and prefer to use outdoor rated conductors where they are
separated by air to reduce potential for faults across current carrying
wire and being able to visually inspect for damage to the conductors.
Conduit bending is a true art that many electricians pride themselves in,
so I can see they reluctance to change, but there is certainly enough
evidence that cable trays and outdoor rated wires are a good idea from
around the world and the telecommunications industry. We should learn from
the Europeans and Telecommunication industires, who by the way have less
problems with faults and much lower installation costs!

Bill
Post by Bill Loesch
Hi Chris,
Thanks for a glimpse of how our German brethren handle PV design &
installation. After all, who has more experience with design, execution,
and funding than the Germans? There remains an arrogance that the US has a
lock on how best to do any number of things. Hopefully, this antiquated
attitude will change, soon; hopefully, before we are all reduced to asking
the equivalent of, "Would you like to Supersize that meal?"
Best wishes on your install. Please keep us informed of how others around
the world better handle these items.
Bill Loesch
Solar 1 - Saint Louis Solar
I am working on a large installation in a country that uses 230/400V 60Hz
for the grid, so we had to look to Europe for the inverters and work 1000V.
I spent some time on the phone with SMA Germany to discuss the
reqiurements in Germany and to understand the design methodology the
inverters were designed for.
First of all, the inverters are gorgeous. The first one we installed is a
3Ph 17KW with 6 sets string inputs, 2 x MPPT. They connect the strings
directly to the inverters, no disconnects. The inverters have a Electronic
Solar Switch on the bottom, pull it down and the strings are disconnected.
We are using 26 module strings or that install, which massively reduces
cabling and components.
I showed the engineer a photo of our larger installs, he laughed at the
use of "pipes" for the cables.
We install massive AC disconnects, they use a little isolator about the
size of a Coke can.
Everything is a multi-core cable.
I also read a guide to the British Standards on PV installation, and
their approach to grounding is absolutely different.
Since PV conductors are all isolated now, they don't even want you to
ground the array structures, in fact they describe grounding as a shock
hazard. Very different mentality.
I might think that the US way is likely safer if we were comparing with
China or the third world, but this is Germany. I think they know
electricity.
Chris
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM, John Berdner <John.Berdner at solaredge.com
Post by John Berdner
Exposed single conductor sunlight resistant cable in cable trays are
widely used in PV systems outside the US.
There is a very large installed base of systems with good long term
performance data using this type of construction.
We should not discount the advantages of wire cable trays just because we
are unfamiliar with it.
Look at data cabling ? Characterized by many, relatively small, cables
over long distances with periodic drops.
Sounds a lot like PV source circuits (other than voltage and current in
the wires of course).
There are lots of videos out there showing how to pull 10?s of pairs of
wires simultaneously in cable trays.
IMHO, we need to look at ideas like this to reduce installation cost and time.
Installation costs are becoming the tall pole in the tent and new thinking is needed.
As systems are falling to sub $3.00 /Watt all-in, running wire in conduit
will simply not be cost effective.
Running wire in conduit is one of the reasons PV installation costs in
the US are double (or more) of those in Europe.
?It is only in the US where you need first to be a plumber before you can
be an electrician?
Best Regards,
John Berdner
General Manager, North America
SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
3347 Gateway Boulevard, Fremont CA 94538 USA *(*Please note of our new
address.)*
T: 510.498.3200, X 747 <510.498.3200%2C%20X%20747>
M: 530.277.4894
re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Allan Sindelar
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:51 AM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Andrew,
We have used #10 USE-2 for about 16 years, and our high-elevation New
Mexico sun is quite intense. I have yet to see any degradation exceeding
fading discoloration on any conductors from that far back, even when
directly exposed to sunlight. No cracking, peeling, delaminating, or
hardening.
Allan
*Allan Sindelar*
Allan at positiveenergysolar.com
NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic Installer
NABCEP Certified Technical Sales Professional
New Mexico EE98J Journeyman Electrician
Founder and Chief Technology Officer
*Positive Energy, Inc.*
3209 Richards Lane (note new address)
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
*505 424-1112 <505%20424-1112>*
www.positiveenergysolar.com
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation over time
when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight resistant" labeling, USE-2
(and I assume PV wire though I haven't seen it yet) does show wear after
years of exposure to direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use
cable trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed] conduit
when exposed to direct UV?
- Andrew Truitt
Sent from my iPad
William,
I have all the respect in the world for you, but I?m not referring to
?basket tray?, which is only appropriate for small conductors. I?m talking
about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12? wide and that has a top
and rungs every 12?. The main facilities that use it in the United States
are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don?t get to work with
it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without
all the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and
worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best
electricians have problems with this stuff.
I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring
them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray
outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor
combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a
building. It?s all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of
rooftop conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use
conduit if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice
soon. Hopefully sooner than later.
Bill.
*From:* re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [
mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org<re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>]
*On Behalf Of *William Miller
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried
and true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I
don't know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage
conductors in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket.
Consider snow and ice and falling objects.
Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the
necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the
benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.
Respectfully,
William Miller
PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building
envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them.
Thoughtful installers will do the same.
Wm
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I
have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no
clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea
in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for
good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long feeder runs?the better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop wiring systems
because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just
remember that if it isn?t called cable tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The
NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes
no sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is
ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not
mean it is correct. That?s why we try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are intended only
for the use of the individual or entity who is the intended recipient and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure or any type of use under applicable law. If the reader of this
e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee, agent, or
representative responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying, or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately to the sender.
*P* Please think of the environment before printing this email
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at 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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6206 - Release Date: 03/26/13
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6206 - Release Date: 03/26/13
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Bill Hoffer PE
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer?
Sunergy Engineering Services PLLC
2504 Columbia Ave NW
East Wenatchee WA 98802-3941
bhoffer at sunergyengineeringservices.com Cell:(509)679-6165
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130329/0f613d1e/attachment-0001.htm>
Bill Loesch
2013-03-29 10:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Hi Chris,

Thanks for a glimpse of how our German brethren handle PV design &
installation. After all, who has more experience with design, execution,
and funding than the Germans? There remains an arrogance that the US has
a lock on how best to do any number of things. Hopefully, this
antiquated attitude will change, soon; hopefully, before we are all
reduced to asking the equivalent of, "Would you like to Supersize that
meal?"

Best wishes on your install. Please keep us informed of how others
around the world better handle these items.

Bill Loesch
Solar 1 - Saint Louis Solar
Post by Chris Mason
I am working on a large installation in a country that uses 230/400V
60Hz for the grid, so we had to look to Europe for the inverters and
work 1000V.
I spent some time on the phone with SMA Germany to discuss the
reqiurements in Germany and to understand the design methodology the
inverters were designed for.
First of all, the inverters are gorgeous. The first one we installed
is a 3Ph 17KW with 6 sets string inputs, 2 x MPPT. They connect the
strings directly to the inverters, no disconnects. The inverters have
a Electronic Solar Switch on the bottom, pull it down and the strings
are disconnected.
We are using 26 module strings or that install, which massively
reduces cabling and components.
I showed the engineer a photo of our larger installs, he laughed at
the use of "pipes" for the cables.
We install massive AC disconnects, they use a little isolator about
the size of a Coke can.
Everything is a multi-core cable.
I also read a guide to the British Standards on PV installation, and
their approach to grounding is absolutely different.
Since PV conductors are all isolated now, they don't even want you to
ground the array structures, in fact they describe grounding as a
shock hazard. Very different mentality.
I might think that the US way is likely safer if we were comparing
with China or the third world, but this is Germany. I think they know
electricity.
Chris
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM, John Berdner
Exposed single conductor sunlight resistant cable in cable trays
are widely used in PV systems outside the US.
There is a very large installed base of systems with good long
term performance data using this type of construction.
We should not discount the advantages of wire cable trays just
because we are unfamiliar with it.
Look at data cabling ? Characterized by many, relatively small,
cables over long distances with periodic drops.
Sounds a lot like PV source circuits (other than voltage and
current in the wires of course).
There are lots of videos out there showing how to pull 10?s of
pairs of wires simultaneously in cable trays.
IMHO, we need to look at ideas like this to reduce installation cost and time.
Installation costs are becoming the tall pole in the tent and new
thinking is needed.
As systems are falling to sub $3.00 /Watt all-in, running wire in
conduit will simply not be cost effective.
Running wire in conduit is one of the reasons PV installation
costs in the US are double (or more) of those in Europe.
?It is only in the US where you need first to be a plumber before
you can be an electrician?
Best Regards,
John Berdner
General Manager, North America
SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
3347 Gateway Boulevard, Fremont CA 94538 USA */(*Please note of
our new address.)/*
T: 510.498.3200, X 747 <tel:510.498.3200%2C%20X%20747>
M: 530.277.4894 <tel:530.277.4894>
*From:*re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>] *On Behalf Of
*Allan Sindelar
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:51 AM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Andrew,
We have used #10 USE-2 for about 16 years, and our high-elevation
New Mexico sun is quite intense. I have yet to see any degradation
exceeding fading discoloration on any conductors from that far
back, even when directly exposed to sunlight. No cracking,
peeling, delaminating, or hardening.
Allan
*Allan Sindelar*
Allan at positiveenergysolar.com <mailto:Allan at positiveenergysolar.com>
NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic Installer
NABCEP Certified Technical Sales Professional
New Mexico EE98J Journeyman Electrician
Founder and Chief Technology Officer
*Positive Energy, Inc.*
3209 Richards Lane (note new address)
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
*505 424-1112 <tel:505%20424-1112>*
www.positiveenergysolar.com <http://www.positiveenergysolar.com/>
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation
over time when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight
resistant" labeling, USE-2 (and I assume PV wire though I
haven't seen it yet) does show wear after years of exposure to
direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use cable
trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed]
conduit when exposed to direct UV?
- Andrew Truitt
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:55 PM, "Bill Brooks"
William,
I have all the respect in the world for you, but I?m not
referring to ?basket tray?, which is only appropriate for
small conductors. I?m talking about legitimate cable tray
that can be up to 12? wide and that has a top and rungs
every 12?. The main facilities that use it in the United
States are large industrial facilities. Most electricians
don?t get to work with it. It is clearly superior to EMT
and is at least as good as IMC without all the hassle of
threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and
worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling.
Even the best electricians have problems with this stuff.
I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder
runs. We can bring them in the building and build a rack
for the conduit or run covered tray outside. As the 2014
NEC will require, you will have to use contactor combiners
or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a
building. It?s all doable. My recommendation after seeing
the aftermath of rooftop conduit by good electricians is
to put cable tray on roofs and use conduit if you bring
the feeders indoors. It will become common practice soon.
Hopefully sooner than later.
Bill.
*From:*re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On
Behalf Of *William Miller
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not
abandoned a tried and true practice just because some
practitioners don't do it right. I don't know how one can
justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors
in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy
basket. Consider snow and ice and falling objects.
Too many installers entered the PV field without first
acquiring the necessary skills as journeymen or women
electricians. I don't see the benefit of rewriting the
code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.
Respectfully,
William Miller
PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter
the building envelope at the first appropriate location to
avoid adding them. Thoughtful installers will do the same.
Wm
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true
on rooftops. I have rarely seen good conduit runs on
rooftops. Most electricians have no clue how to work with
expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in
general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done
indoors for good reason. We are the crazy people doing
things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long
feeder runs?the better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop
wiring systems because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less
than 1/0, just remember that if it isn?t called cable
tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The NEC would allow us to
use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no
sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement,
and it is ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it
is in the code, does not mean it is correct. That?s why we
try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>
www.members.re-wrenches.org
<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org <mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm <http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>
www.members.re-wrenches.org <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are
intended only for the use of the individual or entity who is the
intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure or any type of use under
applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended
recipient, or the employee, agent, or representative responsible
for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or
other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately to the sender.
*P* Please think of the environment before printing this email
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>
www.members.re-wrenches.org <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com <http://www.cometenergysystems.com>
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6206 - Release Date: 03/26/13
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6206 - Release Date: 03/26/13
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130329/22721932/attachment-0001.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-28 18:03:46 UTC
Permalink
I am working on a large installation in a country that uses 230/400V 60Hz
for the grid, so we had to look to Europe for the inverters and work 1000V.
I spent some time on the phone with SMA Germany to discuss the reqiurements
in Germany and to understand the design methodology the inverters were
designed for.
First of all, the inverters are gorgeous. The first one we installed is a
3Ph 17KW with 6 sets string inputs, 2 x MPPT. They connect the strings
directly to the inverters, no disconnects. The inverters have a Electronic
Solar Switch on the bottom, pull it down and the strings are disconnected.
We are using 26 module strings or that install, which massively reduces
cabling and components.
I showed the engineer a photo of our larger installs, he laughed at the use
of "pipes" for the cables.
We install massive AC disconnects, they use a little isolator about the
size of a Coke can.
Everything is a multi-core cable.

I also read a guide to the British Standards on PV installation, and their
approach to grounding is absolutely different.
Since PV conductors are all isolated now, they don't even want you to
ground the array structures, in fact they describe grounding as a shock
hazard. Very different mentality.

I might think that the US way is likely safer if we were comparing with
China or the third world, but this is Germany. I think they know
electricity.

Chris


On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM, John Berdner
Post by John Berdner
Exposed single conductor sunlight resistant cable in cable trays are
widely used in PV systems outside the US.****
There is a very large installed base of systems with good long term
performance data using this type of construction.****
We should not discount the advantages of wire cable trays just because we
are unfamiliar with it.****
** **
Look at data cabling ? Characterized by many, relatively small, cables
over long distances with periodic drops.****
Sounds a lot like PV source circuits (other than voltage and current in
the wires of course).****
There are lots of videos out there showing how to pull 10?s of pairs of
wires simultaneously in cable trays.****
IMHO, we need to look at ideas like this to reduce installation cost and
time.****
** **
Installation costs are becoming the tall pole in the tent and new thinking
is needed.****
As systems are falling to sub $3.00 /Watt all-in, running wire in conduit
will simply not be cost effective.****
Running wire in conduit is one of the reasons PV installation costs in the
US are double (or more) of those in Europe.****
As one of my former German colleagues noted:****
?It is only in the US where you need first to be a plumber before you can
be an electrician?****
** **
Best Regards,****
** **
John Berdner****
General Manager, North America****
** **
SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.****
3347 Gateway Boulevard, Fremont CA 94538 USA *(*Please note of our new
address.)*
T: 510.498.3200, X 747****
M: 530.277.4894 ****
** **
re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Allan Sindelar
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:51 AM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray****
** **
Andrew,
We have used #10 USE-2 for about 16 years, and our high-elevation New
Mexico sun is quite intense. I have yet to see any degradation exceeding
fading discoloration on any conductors from that far back, even when
directly exposed to sunlight. No cracking, peeling, delaminating, or
hardening.
Allan****
*Allan Sindelar*
Allan at positiveenergysolar.com
NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic Installer
NABCEP Certified Technical Sales Professional
New Mexico EE98J Journeyman Electrician
Founder and Chief Technology Officer
*Positive Energy, Inc.*
3209 Richards Lane (note new address)
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
*505 424-1112*
www.positiveenergysolar.com ****
** **
** **
On 3/27/2013 8:41 AM, Andrew Truitt wrote:****
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation over time
when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight resistant" labeling, USE-2
(and I assume PV wire though I haven't seen it yet) does show wear after
years of exposure to direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use
cable trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed] conduit
when exposed to direct UV?****
** **
- Andrew Truitt****
Sent from my iPad****
****
William,****
****
I have all the respect in the world for you, but I?m not referring to
?basket tray?, which is only appropriate for small conductors. I?m talking
about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12? wide and that has a top
and rungs every 12?. The main facilities that use it in the United States
are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don?t get to work with
it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without
all the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and
worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best
electricians have problems with this stuff.****
****
I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring
them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray
outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor
combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a
building. It?s all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of
rooftop conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use
conduit if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice
soon. Hopefully sooner than later.****
****
Bill.****
****
*From:* re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [
mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org<re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org>]
*On Behalf Of *William Miller
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray****
****
I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and
true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't
know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors
in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow
and ice and falling objects.
Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the
necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the
benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.
Respectfully,
William Miller
PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building
envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them.
Thoughtful installers will do the same.
Wm
****
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I
have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no
clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea
in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for
good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long feeder runs?the better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop wiring systems
because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just
remember that if it isn?t called cable tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The
NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes
no sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is
ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not
mean it is correct. That?s why we try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
****
****
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org****
****
_______________________________________________****
List sponsored by Home Power magazine****
** **
List Address: RE-wrenches at 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****
** **
** **
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are intended only
for the use of the individual or entity who is the intended recipient and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure or any type of use under applicable law. If the reader of this
e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee, agent, or
representative responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying, or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately to the sender.
*P* Please think of the environment before printing this email
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130328/820238e4/attachment-0001.htm>
Andrew Truitt
2013-03-28 17:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Interesting Allan. My understanding has been that its good practice to shield even Sunlight Resistant conductors from UV, but maybe that is not as important as I thought. Are you confident that your exposed USE-2 insulation will hold up for the full lifespan of the systems? What about compounding UV damage with other environmental conditions like hail, wind vibration, ice... There is also the question of damage from wildlife. I am all for reducing installation costs and learning from other trades and countries, however our systems do have certain unique energy production characteristics and should last 30+ years so there are cases when we do need to take additional steps to maximize long-term safety.

Which reminds me: is anyone aware of any work being done to develop standardized O&M protocols for commercial PV systems?


- Andrew Truitt


Sent from my iPhone
Post by John Berdner
Andrew,
We have used #10 USE-2 for about 16 years, and our high-elevation New Mexico sun is quite intense. I have yet to see any degradation exceeding fading discoloration on any conductors from that far back, even when directly exposed to sunlight. No cracking, peeling, delaminating, or hardening.
Allan
Allan Sindelar
Allan at positiveenergysolar.com
NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic Installer
NABCEP Certified Technical Sales Professional
New Mexico EE98J Journeyman Electrician
Founder and Chief Technology Officer
Positive Energy, Inc.
3209 Richards Lane (note new address)
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
505 424-1112
www.positiveenergysolar.com
Post by Andrew Truitt
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation over time when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight resistant" labeling, USE-2 (and I assume PV wire though I haven't seen it yet) does show wear after years of exposure to direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use cable trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed] conduit when exposed to direct UV?
- Andrew Truitt
Sent from my iPad
Post by Bill Brooks
William,
I have all the respect in the world for you, but I?m not referring to ?basket tray?, which is only appropriate for small conductors. I?m talking about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12? wide and that has a top and rungs every 12?. The main facilities that use it in the United States are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don?t get to work with it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without all the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best electricians have problems with this stuff.
I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a building. It?s all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of rooftop conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use conduit if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice soon. Hopefully sooner than later.
Bill.
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William Miller
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow and ice and falling objects.
Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.
Respectfully,
William Miller
PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them. Thoughtful installers will do the same.
Wm
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long feeder runs?the better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop wiring systems because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just remember that if it isn?t called cable tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not mean it is correct. That?s why we try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130328/154f3412/attachment.htm>
Allan Sindelar
2013-03-28 23:10:03 UTC
Permalink
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130328/7537878d/attachment.htm>
Allan Sindelar
2013-03-28 23:10:03 UTC
Permalink
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130328/7537878d/attachment-0001.htm>
John Berdner
2013-03-27 16:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Exposed single conductor sunlight resistant cable in cable trays are widely used in PV systems outside the US.
There is a very large installed base of systems with good long term performance data using this type of construction.
We should not discount the advantages of wire cable trays just because we are unfamiliar with it.

Look at data cabling - Characterized by many, relatively small, cables over long distances with periodic drops.
Sounds a lot like PV source circuits (other than voltage and current in the wires of course).
There are lots of videos out there showing how to pull 10's of pairs of wires simultaneously in cable trays.
IMHO, we need to look at ideas like this to reduce installation cost and time.

Installation costs are becoming the tall pole in the tent and new thinking is needed.
As systems are falling to sub $3.00 /Watt all-in, running wire in conduit will simply not be cost effective.
Running wire in conduit is one of the reasons PV installation costs in the US are double (or more) of those in Europe.
As one of my former German colleagues noted:
"It is only in the US where you need first to be a plumber before you can be an electrician"

Best Regards,

John Berdner
General Manager, North America

SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
3347 Gateway Boulevard, Fremont CA 94538 USA (*Please note of our new address.)
T: 510.498.3200, X 747
M: 530.277.4894

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Allan Sindelar
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:51 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

Andrew,
We have used #10 USE-2 for about 16 years, and our high-elevation New Mexico sun is quite intense. I have yet to see any degradation exceeding fading discoloration on any conductors from that far back, even when directly exposed to sunlight. No cracking, peeling, delaminating, or hardening.
Allan
Allan Sindelar
Allan at positiveenergysolar.com<mailto:Allan at positiveenergysolar.com>
NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic Installer
NABCEP Certified Technical Sales Professional
New Mexico EE98J Journeyman Electrician
Founder and Chief Technology Officer
Positive Energy, Inc.
3209 Richards Lane (note new address)
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
505 424-1112
www.positiveenergysolar.com<http://www.positiveenergysolar.com/>


On 3/27/2013 8:41 AM, Andrew Truitt wrote:
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation over time when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight resistant" labeling, USE-2 (and I assume PV wire though I haven't seen it yet) does show wear after years of exposure to direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use cable trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed] conduit when exposed to direct UV?

- Andrew Truitt


Sent from my iPad

On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:55 PM, "Bill Brooks" <billbrooks7 at yahoo.com<mailto:billbrooks7 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
William,

I have all the respect in the world for you, but I'm not referring to "basket tray", which is only appropriate for small conductors. I'm talking about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12" wide and that has a top and rungs every 12". The main facilities that use it in the United States are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don't get to work with it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without all the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best electricians have problems with this stuff.

I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a building. It's all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of rooftop conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use conduit if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice soon. Hopefully sooner than later.

Bill.

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William Miller
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

Bill:

I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow and ice and falling objects.

Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.

Respectfully,

William Miller

PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them. Thoughtful installers will do the same.

Wm


At 10:15 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:


Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us

William,

I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.

The sooner we get away from conduitparticularly for long feeder runsthe better.

In Europe they don't have problems with their rooftop wiring systems because everything is in tray.

For those that don't allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just remember that if it isn't called cable tray, then 392 doesn't apply. The NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no sense.

We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not mean it is correct. That's why we try to fix it every three years.

Bill.



_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>




_______________________________________________

List sponsored by Home Power magazine



List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:RE-wrenches at 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<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>



Check out participant bios:

www.members.re-wrenches.org<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity who is the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure or any type of use under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee, agent, or representative responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately to the sender.
P Please think of the environment before printing this email

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130327/6d510522/attachment-0001.htm>
Andrew Truitt
2013-03-28 17:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Interesting Allan. My understanding has been that its good practice to shield even Sunlight Resistant conductors from UV, but maybe that is not as important as I thought. Are you confident that your exposed USE-2 insulation will hold up for the full lifespan of the systems? What about compounding UV damage with other environmental conditions like hail, wind vibration, ice... There is also the question of damage from wildlife. I am all for reducing installation costs and learning from other trades and countries, however our systems do have certain unique energy production characteristics and should last 30+ years so there are cases when we do need to take additional steps to maximize long-term safety.

Which reminds me: is anyone aware of any work being done to develop standardized O&M protocols for commercial PV systems?


- Andrew Truitt


Sent from my iPhone
Post by John Berdner
Andrew,
We have used #10 USE-2 for about 16 years, and our high-elevation New Mexico sun is quite intense. I have yet to see any degradation exceeding fading discoloration on any conductors from that far back, even when directly exposed to sunlight. No cracking, peeling, delaminating, or hardening.
Allan
Allan Sindelar
Allan at positiveenergysolar.com
NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic Installer
NABCEP Certified Technical Sales Professional
New Mexico EE98J Journeyman Electrician
Founder and Chief Technology Officer
Positive Energy, Inc.
3209 Richards Lane (note new address)
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
505 424-1112
www.positiveenergysolar.com
Post by Andrew Truitt
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation over time when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight resistant" labeling, USE-2 (and I assume PV wire though I haven't seen it yet) does show wear after years of exposure to direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use cable trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed] conduit when exposed to direct UV?
- Andrew Truitt
Sent from my iPad
Post by Bill Brooks
William,
I have all the respect in the world for you, but I?m not referring to ?basket tray?, which is only appropriate for small conductors. I?m talking about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12? wide and that has a top and rungs every 12?. The main facilities that use it in the United States are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don?t get to work with it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without all the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best electricians have problems with this stuff.
I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a building. It?s all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of rooftop conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use conduit if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice soon. Hopefully sooner than later.
Bill.
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William Miller
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow and ice and falling objects.
Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.
Respectfully,
William Miller
PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them. Thoughtful installers will do the same.
Wm
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long feeder runs?the better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop wiring systems because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just remember that if it isn?t called cable tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not mean it is correct. That?s why we try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130328/154f3412/attachment-0001.htm>
Allan Sindelar
2013-03-27 15:50:36 UTC
Permalink
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130327/ec2aa53b/attachment-0001.htm>
Andrew Truitt
2013-03-27 14:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Bill - What is your take in conductor insulation degradation over time when exposed to UV? Regardless of the "sunlight resistant" labeling, USE-2 (and I assume PV wire though I haven't seen it yet) does show wear after years of exposure to direct sunlight. Maybe best practice would be to use cable trays where conductors are shaded and [properly installed] conduit when exposed to direct UV?

- Andrew Truitt


Sent from my iPad
Post by Bill Brooks
William,
I have all the respect in the world for you, but I?m not referring to ?basket tray?, which is only appropriate for small conductors. I?m talking about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12? wide and that has a top and rungs every 12?. The main facilities that use it in the United States are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don?t get to work with it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without all the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and worrying about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best electricians have problems with this stuff.
I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a building. It?s all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of rooftop conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use conduit if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice soon. Hopefully sooner than later.
Bill.
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William Miller
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow and ice and falling objects.
Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.
Respectfully,
William Miller
PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them. Thoughtful installers will do the same.
Wm
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long feeder runs?the better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop wiring systems because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just remember that if it isn?t called cable tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not mean it is correct. That?s why we try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130327/85a21234/attachment-0001.htm>
Bill Brooks
2013-03-27 05:55:17 UTC
Permalink
William,



I have all the respect in the world for you, but I'm not referring to
"basket tray", which is only appropriate for small conductors. I'm talking
about legitimate cable tray that can be up to 12" wide and that has a top
and rungs every 12". The main facilities that use it in the United States
are large industrial facilities. Most electricians don't get to work with
it. It is clearly superior to EMT and is at least as good as IMC without all
the hassle of threaded fittings and setting up expansion joints and worrying
about 20 years of conductors thermal cycling. Even the best electricians
have problems with this stuff.



I am talking about projects with 800 foot long feeder runs. We can bring
them in the building and build a rack for the conduit or run covered tray
outside. As the 2014 NEC will require, you will have to use contactor
combiners or some other means to shut down the conductors inside a building.
It's all doable. My recommendation after seeing the aftermath of rooftop
conduit by good electricians is to put cable tray on roofs and use conduit
if you bring the feeders indoors. It will become common practice soon.
Hopefully sooner than later.



Bill.



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William
Miller
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



Bill:

I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and
true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't
know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors
in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow
and ice and falling objects.

Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the
necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the
benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the
industry.

Respectfully,

William Miller

PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building
envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding them. Thoughtful
installers will do the same.

Wm


At 10:15 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:



Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us

William,

I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I have
rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no clue
how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in
general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for good
reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.

The sooner we get away from conduit-particularly for long feeder runs-the
better.

In Europe they don't have problems with their rooftop wiring systems because
everything is in tray.

For those that don't allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just
remember that if it isn't called cable tray, then 392 doesn't apply. The NEC
would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no
sense.

We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is ancient
and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not mean it is
correct. That's why we try to fix it every three years.

Bill.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/53e419eb/attachment-0001.htm>
William Miller
2013-03-27 04:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Bill:

I have to disagree with you on this one. We can not abandoned a tried and
true practice just because some practitioners don't do it right. I don't
know how one can justify saying that encapsulating high voltage conductors
in a conduit is less safe than exposed in a flimsy basket. Consider snow
and ice and falling objects.

Too many installers entered the PV field without first acquiring the
necessary skills as journeymen or women electricians. I don't see the
benefit of rewriting the code to accommodate a lack of skills in the industry.

Respectfully,

William Miller

PS: The temperature adders always encourage us to enter the building
envelope at the first appropriate location to avoid adding
them. Thoughtful installers will do the same.

Wm
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CE29A6.37CC5110"
Content-Language: en-us
William,
I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I
have rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no
clue how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea
in general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for
good reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.
The sooner we get away from conduit?particularly for long feeder runs?the
better.
In Europe they don?t have problems with their rooftop wiring systems
because everything is in tray.
For those that don?t allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just
remember that if it isn?t called cable tray, then 392 doesn?t apply. The
NEC would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This
makes no sense.
We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is
ancient and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not
mean it is correct. That?s why we try to fix it every three years.
Bill.
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William Miller
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:30 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Of course, I understand that you are not saying we can willfully disregard
the Code in anticipation of future clarification. I was just
extrapolating on your idea.
If we want an exception based on a predicted update in the code, we are at
the mercy of the AHJ who may or may not be convinced. I think most AHJs
are willing to diverge from the Code in a more strict interpretation, but
not the reverse. Right now, as I read it, unless the leads are 1/0 or
larger, we are forbade.
I treat PV systems like rooftop AC units. The voltages and currents are
similar, if not more severe. I don't believe you could or should run
power to a rooftop AC unit in cable tray. Conduit is a tried and true
practice and I recommend it.
William Miller
Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.
There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.
The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language
is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are
willing to let installers build to the most current standard.
That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.
This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is
prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna
correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any
day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin'
to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...
Thanks!
William Miller
PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.
wm
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay
for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
<mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org/>www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
<mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
<http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
<http://www.members.re-wrenches.org/>www.members.re-wrenches.org
Miller Solar
Voice :805-438-5600
email: <mailto:william at millersolar.com>william at millersolar.com
http://millersolar.com
License No. C-10-773985
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6205 - Release Date: 03/26/13
Miller Solar
Voice :805-438-5600
email: william at millersolar.com
http://millersolar.com
License No. C-10-773985
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130326/b1510b79/attachment-0001.htm>
Bill Brooks
2013-03-26 05:15:11 UTC
Permalink
William,



I would strongly disagree that conduit is tried and true on rooftops. I have
rarely seen good conduit runs on rooftops. Most electricians have no clue
how to work with expansion joints. Conduit on rooftops is a bad idea in
general. Most conduit runs in big buildings are all done indoors for good
reason. We are the crazy people doing things on the roof.



The sooner we get away from conduit-particularly for long feeder runs-the
better.



In Europe they don't have problems with their rooftop wiring systems because
everything is in tray.



For those that don't allow cable tray for anything less than 1/0, just
remember that if it isn't called cable tray, then 392 doesn't apply. The NEC
would allow us to use treated lumber in place of cable tray. This makes no
sense.



We did some research on the origin of the 1/0 requirement, and it is ancient
and no longer relevant. Just because it is in the code, does not mean it is
correct. That's why we try to fix it every three years.



Bill.





From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William
Miller
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:30 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



David:

Of course, I understand that you are not saying we can willfully disregard
the Code in anticipation of future clarification. I was just extrapolating
on your idea.

If we want an exception based on a predicted update in the code, we are at
the mercy of the AHJ who may or may not be convinced. I think most AHJs are
willing to diverge from the Code in a more strict interpretation, but not
the reverse. Right now, as I read it, unless the leads are 1/0 or larger, we
are forbade.

I treat PV systems like rooftop AC units. The voltages and currents are
similar, if not more severe. I don't believe you could or should run power
to a rooftop AC unit in cable tray. Conduit is a tried and true practice
and I recommend it.

William Miller


At 06:01 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:



Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.


There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.

The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is
more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing
to let installers build to the most current standard.

That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.




On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, William Miller wrote:




David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited
by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that
pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I
might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway.
Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm


At 03:46 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:




So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for
source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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 <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org/>


_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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 <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org/>

Miller Solar
Voice :805-438-5600
email: william at millersolar.com
http://millersolar.com <http://millersolar.com/>
License No. C-10-773985

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/d1d9f43a/attachment-0001.htm>
Bill Brooks
2013-03-26 02:53:30 UTC
Permalink
All,



Here is the language that has been accepted into the 2014 NEC:



690.31(C)(2)



(2) Cable Trays. PV source circuits and PV output circuits using
single-conductor cable listed and labeled as Photovoltaic (PV) wire of all
sizes with or without a Cable Tray marking/rating shall be permitted in
cable trays installed in outdoor locations provided the cables are supported
at intervals not to exceed 30cm (12 in.) and secured at intervals not to
exceed 1.4m (4.5').



I hope this helps. It is a very big deal.



Bill.







From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David
Brearley
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:01 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.




There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.



The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is
more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing
to let installers build to the most current standard.



That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.









On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, William Miller wrote:





David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited
by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that
pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I
might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway.
Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm


At 03:46 PM 3/25/2013, you wrote:




So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for
source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/8ee885c3/attachment-0001.htm>
William Miller
2013-03-26 04:29:40 UTC
Permalink
David:

Of course, I understand that you are not saying we can willfully disregard
the Code in anticipation of future clarification. I was just extrapolating
on your idea.

If we want an exception based on a predicted update in the code, we are at
the mercy of the AHJ who may or may not be convinced. I think most AHJs
are willing to diverge from the Code in a more strict interpretation, but
not the reverse. Right now, as I read it, unless the leads are 1/0 or
larger, we are forbade.

I treat PV systems like rooftop AC units. The voltages and currents are
similar, if not more severe. I don't believe you could or should run power
to a rooftop AC unit in cable tray. Conduit is a tried and true practice
and I recommend it.

William Miller
Post by David Brearley
Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be
missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.
There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that
being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some
jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were
made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the
explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.
The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more
fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with
technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for
existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are
confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language
is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are
willing to let installers build to the most current standard.
That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum
requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a
friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.
Post by William Miller
This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is
prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna
correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any
day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin'
to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...
Thanks!
William Miller
PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.
wm
Post by David Brearley
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out
that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is
okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
<mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
Miller Solar
Voice :805-438-5600
email: william at millersolar.com
http://millersolar.com
License No. C-10-773985
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/86a19533/attachment-0001.htm>
David Brearley
2013-03-26 01:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Ouch. I promise I'm not advocating for anything like that. What I may be missing is the Code reference that says "no cable tray on roofs" or similar.

There is so much room for improvement in wire management practices, that being able to use cable tray seems like a step forward. I understand some jurisdictions do not allow it, but it appears as though Code changes were made specifically to address this. It's boring stuff, but you can read the explanation of the Code changes in the ROP and ROC documents.

The Code changes a lot with regards to PV system, and Article 690 is more fluid than other articles. Some of this is the Code trying to keep up with technology. In other cases the Code evolves based on new applications for existing products. Often it changes because some areas of the Code are confusing for electricians and inspectors alike. If the new Code language is more clear in its intent than previous versions, some inspectors are willing to let installers build to the most current standard.

That's all I'm advocating for: Trying to understand how the minimum requirements outlined in Code evolve over time so that you can have a friendly and informed conversation with your AHJ over a donut.
This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do anyway. Unless I am missing something...
Thanks!
William Miller
PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.
wm
Post by David Brearley
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/6bf810b5/attachment-0001.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-26 00:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Again, don't have any inspectors, so it is down to me to decide if the use
is reasonable and safe.

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM, David Brearley <
Post by David Brearley
Uses permitted. 392.10(B)(1) requires that single conductor cable in cable
tray be size 1/0 or larger.
Here's the deal, though. NEC 2014 will add "Service Entrance Cable: Types
SE and USE" to Table 392.10(A). It is not in that table now, which is why
inspectors turn to 392.10(B). That means that under 390.10(A) in NEC 2014,
Type USE conductor can be used in cable tray according to the methods
outlined in Article 338. And references in 690.31 make it clear?if it isn't
already? that PV Wire and USE-2 can generally be used interchangeably in PV
systems, and that cable tray is accepted for source circuit conductors.
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay
for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
What part of 392 would be a problem?
Post by Glenn Burt
I think you will find it difficult to adhere to Article 392 and use a
cable tray on a rooftop with source circuit conductors, if that is your
hope.****
** **
-Glenn****
** **
re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Mason
*Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 3:08 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* [RE-wrenches] Cable tray****
** **
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
****
** **
--
Chris Mason****
** **
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/a3a2833d/attachment.htm>
William Miller
2013-03-25 23:26:43 UTC
Permalink
David:

This is great news. Now, whenever I want to do something that is
prohibited by code, I can just say that the Code Making Panel is gonna
correct that pesky code section (insert your problem citation here) any day
now, so I might as well be allowed to do whatever it was I was fixin' to do
anyway. Unless I am missing something...

Thanks!

William Miller

PS: Just kidding. Hope no offense is taken.

wm
Post by David Brearley
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay
for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/77e4b8c1/attachment-0001.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-26 00:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Again, don't have any inspectors, so it is down to me to decide if the use
is reasonable and safe.

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM, David Brearley <
Post by David Brearley
Uses permitted. 392.10(B)(1) requires that single conductor cable in cable
tray be size 1/0 or larger.
Here's the deal, though. NEC 2014 will add "Service Entrance Cable: Types
SE and USE" to Table 392.10(A). It is not in that table now, which is why
inspectors turn to 392.10(B). That means that under 390.10(A) in NEC 2014,
Type USE conductor can be used in cable tray according to the methods
outlined in Article 338. And references in 690.31 make it clear?if it isn't
already? that PV Wire and USE-2 can generally be used interchangeably in PV
systems, and that cable tray is accepted for source circuit conductors.
So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that
the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay
for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
What part of 392 would be a problem?
Post by Glenn Burt
I think you will find it difficult to adhere to Article 392 and use a
cable tray on a rooftop with source circuit conductors, if that is your
hope.****
** **
-Glenn****
** **
re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Mason
*Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 3:08 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* [RE-wrenches] Cable tray****
** **
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
****
** **
--
Chris Mason****
** **
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/a3a2833d/attachment-0001.htm>
Glenn Burt
2013-03-25 22:34:37 UTC
Permalink
392.3(B)1



This was also pointed out in a recent article in Solar Pro talking about
Wire Management issues.



From: Chris Mason [mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:17 PM
To: glenn.burt at glbcc.com; RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



What part of 392 would be a problem?

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Glenn Burt <glenn.burt at glbcc.com> wrote:

I think you will find it difficult to adhere to Article 392 and use a cable
tray on a rooftop with source circuit conductors, if that is your hope.



-Glenn



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Chris Mason
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:08 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason




_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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
--
Chris Mason

President, Comet Systems Ltd

www.cometenergysystems.com

Cell: 264.235.5670

Skype: netconcepts

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/453dc5b0/attachment-0001.htm>
David Brearley
2013-03-25 22:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Uses permitted. 392.10(B)(1) requires that single conductor cable in cable tray be size 1/0 or larger.

Here's the deal, though. NEC 2014 will add "Service Entrance Cable: Types SE and USE" to Table 392.10(A). It is not in that table now, which is why inspectors turn to 392.10(B). That means that under 390.10(A) in NEC 2014, Type USE conductor can be used in cable tray according to the methods outlined in Article 338. And references in 690.31 make it clear?if it isn't already? that PV Wire and USE-2 can generally be used interchangeably in PV systems, and that cable tray is accepted for source circuit conductors.

So if you ever get called on 392.10(B)(2), I think you can point out that the Code Making Panels have been busy clarifying that cable tray is okay for source circuit conductors. Unless I'm missing something....
Post by Chris Mason
What part of 392 would be a problem?
I think you will find it difficult to adhere to Article 392 and use a cable tray on a rooftop with source circuit conductors, if that is your hope.
-Glenn
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Chris Mason
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:08 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/31f9b19c/attachment-0001.htm>
Exeltech
2013-03-31 16:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Hello Chris,
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)

It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.

Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus bigger
parts or products).? Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher dielectric rating).
This results in more rigorous (consequently more expensive) UL testing.? Etc.
All adds up.

Dan


--- On Sun, 3/31/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AM

As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated equipment will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To avoid problems and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the manufacturers need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/f5c2e2e2/attachment.htm>
Ryan
2013-03-31 18:49:04 UTC
Permalink
I have to agree with Dan. Making disconnects that can open 1000vdc under
load as compared to 600vdc under load will be far more pricey. To "Rate"
all gear for 1000vdc will be prohibitive.


Ryan

Ryan Stankevitz
Technical Support Manager
MidNite Solar Inc.
ryan at midnitesolar.com
360-403-7207 XT 151
Skype ID ryan.midnite
Post by Exeltech
Hello Chris,
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)
It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.
Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus bigger
parts or products). Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher
dielectric rating).
This results in more rigorous (consequently more expensive) UL
testing. Etc.
All adds up.
Dan
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AM
As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated
equipment will find its way into installations it is not rated
for. To avoid problems and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more
inventory, the manufacturers need to move all their product to
1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire
than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/d16a58d8/attachment.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-31 21:34:00 UTC
Permalink
And yet, in Europe, it is.
Post by Ryan
I have to agree with Dan. Making disconnects that can open 1000vdc under
load as compared to 600vdc under load will be far more pricey. To "Rate"
all gear for 1000vdc will be prohibitive.
Ryan
Ryan Stankevitz
Technical Support Manager
MidNite Solar Inc.ryan at midnitesolar.com360-403-7207 XT 151
Skype ID ryan.midnite
Hello Chris,
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)
It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.
Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus bigger
parts or products). Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher
dielectric rating).
This results in more rigorous (consequently more expensive) UL testing.
Etc.
All adds up.
Dan
--- On *Sun, 3/31/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com><cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com><cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org><re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AM
As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated
equipment will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To
avoid problems and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the
manufacturers need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it
does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects,
fuses, fuse holders and connectors.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at 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 at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/e645b03d/attachment.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-31 21:34:00 UTC
Permalink
And yet, in Europe, it is.
Post by Ryan
I have to agree with Dan. Making disconnects that can open 1000vdc under
load as compared to 600vdc under load will be far more pricey. To "Rate"
all gear for 1000vdc will be prohibitive.
Ryan
Ryan Stankevitz
Technical Support Manager
MidNite Solar Inc.ryan at midnitesolar.com360-403-7207 XT 151
Skype ID ryan.midnite
Hello Chris,
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)
It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.
Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus bigger
parts or products). Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher
dielectric rating).
This results in more rigorous (consequently more expensive) UL testing.
Etc.
All adds up.
Dan
--- On *Sun, 3/31/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com><cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com><cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org><re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AM
As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated
equipment will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To
avoid problems and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the
manufacturers need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it
does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects,
fuses, fuse holders and connectors.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at 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 at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/e645b03d/attachment-0001.htm>
John Berdner
2013-03-31 18:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Dan:

I have to disagree with your statement regarding costs and voltage.
While clearance and creepage distances increase at 1000V this makes only some things larger.
Example: The control electronics and all ac output circuitry remain the same.
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases, the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
The result is that the product >>might be a little larger<< but its power rating will be higher and it will likely be more efficient.
For a given current level the higher voltage might increase the unit price slightly but the $/Watt will almost certainly decrease.
Conversely if power is held constant the current will be lower and so the product may in fact be cheaper that a 600V product of the same power rating.

Once we get past the unit price for components there is no doubt that system costs for 1000V are significantly lower than for 600V.

Let's review...

Ohms law:
P=V*I, so for a given power level voltage and current are inversely linked linearly - if the voltage increases the current decreases.
P=I^2 * R, so for a given power level, increasing the voltage decreases the current and decreases the losses by square of the change.
1000/600 = 1.667 => P_loss= 1.6667^2, so for a given power level and given piece of wire, the losses are 2.777 times lower at 1000V than at 600V.

Wire and Ampacity:
The ampacity of a wire is based on current not voltage
Higher voltages mean 1.667 times more power on a given piece of wire in a given conduit (yes the conduit might need to be bigger due to fill factor - it depends).
Another way of saying this is 1000 Vdc gives you a 40% reduction in wiring costs for a given power level compared to 600Vdc.
Small gauge PV wire is already available from multiple sources with 1000 and 2000 V ratings for a small premium over 600 V wire.
Why ? - Current = conductive materials = expensive. Voltage = insulating materials = inexpensive.
Larger gauge PV wire and USE-2 is still a bit hard to find but are both available in commonly used PV sizes from multiple sources

Fuses and Combiners:
kW per string is a key cost metric for installed BOS costs and more is better.
Fundamentally, series trumps parallel every time.
Higher voltages = longer strings = more power per string = less strings, fuses and holders (combiner inputs).
1000 V string fuses / holders are available from multiple sources and are competitive with 600V counterparts.

Switches:
1000V switchgear cost is still lagging in the US but we are starting to see more reasonably priced equipment on the horizon.

Summary:
1000V PV is well proven outside the US.
In the US the tide is turning and we are rapidly headed to 1000V commercial systems.
The Codes and Standards are already in place and we are beginning to see reasonably priced 1000 Vdc rated components.
1000Vdc Listed Modules, 1000/2000Vdc UL 4703 PV wire, Listed 1000Vdc string fuses and holders, Listed 1000Vdc inverters are all available today.

I believe 600Vdc commercial and utility scale systems will rapidly become uncompetitive and, within a few years, the exception rather than the rule.

Best Regards,

John Berdner
General Manager, North America

SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
3347 Gateway Boulevard, Fremont CA 94538 USA (*Please note of our new address.)
T: 510.498.3200, X 747
M: 530.277.4894

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Exeltech
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:10 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

Hello Chris,
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)

It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.

Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus bigger
parts or products). Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher dielectric rating).
This results in more rigorous (consequently more expensive) UL testing. Etc.
All adds up.

Dan


--- On Sun, 3/31/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com>> wrote:

From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AM
As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated equipment will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To avoid problems and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the manufacturers need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors.


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity who is the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure or any type of use under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee, agent, or representative responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately to the sender.
P Please think of the environment before printing this email
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/d3502809/attachment.htm>
Ryan
2013-03-31 18:49:04 UTC
Permalink
I have to agree with Dan. Making disconnects that can open 1000vdc under
load as compared to 600vdc under load will be far more pricey. To "Rate"
all gear for 1000vdc will be prohibitive.


Ryan

Ryan Stankevitz
Technical Support Manager
MidNite Solar Inc.
ryan at midnitesolar.com
360-403-7207 XT 151
Skype ID ryan.midnite
Post by Exeltech
Hello Chris,
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)
It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.
Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus bigger
parts or products). Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher
dielectric rating).
This results in more rigorous (consequently more expensive) UL
testing. Etc.
All adds up.
Dan
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AM
As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated
equipment will find its way into installations it is not rated
for. To avoid problems and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more
inventory, the manufacturers need to move all their product to
1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire
than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
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
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/d16a58d8/attachment-0001.htm>
John Berdner
2013-03-31 18:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Dan:

I have to disagree with your statement regarding costs and voltage.
While clearance and creepage distances increase at 1000V this makes only some things larger.
Example: The control electronics and all ac output circuitry remain the same.
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases, the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
The result is that the product >>might be a little larger<< but its power rating will be higher and it will likely be more efficient.
For a given current level the higher voltage might increase the unit price slightly but the $/Watt will almost certainly decrease.
Conversely if power is held constant the current will be lower and so the product may in fact be cheaper that a 600V product of the same power rating.

Once we get past the unit price for components there is no doubt that system costs for 1000V are significantly lower than for 600V.

Let's review...

Ohms law:
P=V*I, so for a given power level voltage and current are inversely linked linearly - if the voltage increases the current decreases.
P=I^2 * R, so for a given power level, increasing the voltage decreases the current and decreases the losses by square of the change.
1000/600 = 1.667 => P_loss= 1.6667^2, so for a given power level and given piece of wire, the losses are 2.777 times lower at 1000V than at 600V.

Wire and Ampacity:
The ampacity of a wire is based on current not voltage
Higher voltages mean 1.667 times more power on a given piece of wire in a given conduit (yes the conduit might need to be bigger due to fill factor - it depends).
Another way of saying this is 1000 Vdc gives you a 40% reduction in wiring costs for a given power level compared to 600Vdc.
Small gauge PV wire is already available from multiple sources with 1000 and 2000 V ratings for a small premium over 600 V wire.
Why ? - Current = conductive materials = expensive. Voltage = insulating materials = inexpensive.
Larger gauge PV wire and USE-2 is still a bit hard to find but are both available in commonly used PV sizes from multiple sources

Fuses and Combiners:
kW per string is a key cost metric for installed BOS costs and more is better.
Fundamentally, series trumps parallel every time.
Higher voltages = longer strings = more power per string = less strings, fuses and holders (combiner inputs).
1000 V string fuses / holders are available from multiple sources and are competitive with 600V counterparts.

Switches:
1000V switchgear cost is still lagging in the US but we are starting to see more reasonably priced equipment on the horizon.

Summary:
1000V PV is well proven outside the US.
In the US the tide is turning and we are rapidly headed to 1000V commercial systems.
The Codes and Standards are already in place and we are beginning to see reasonably priced 1000 Vdc rated components.
1000Vdc Listed Modules, 1000/2000Vdc UL 4703 PV wire, Listed 1000Vdc string fuses and holders, Listed 1000Vdc inverters are all available today.

I believe 600Vdc commercial and utility scale systems will rapidly become uncompetitive and, within a few years, the exception rather than the rule.

Best Regards,

John Berdner
General Manager, North America

SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
3347 Gateway Boulevard, Fremont CA 94538 USA (*Please note of our new address.)
T: 510.498.3200, X 747
M: 530.277.4894

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Exeltech
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:10 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray

Hello Chris,
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)

It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.

Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus bigger
parts or products). Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher dielectric rating).
This results in more rigorous (consequently more expensive) UL testing. Etc.
All adds up.

Dan


--- On Sun, 3/31/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com>> wrote:

From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<mailto:re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AM
As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated equipment will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To avoid problems and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the manufacturers need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors.


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity who is the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure or any type of use under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee, agent, or representative responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately to the sender.
P Please think of the environment before printing this email
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/d3502809/attachment-0001.htm>
Exeltech
2013-03-31 23:36:29 UTC
Permalink
John,

My reply didn't deal with anything except specific hardware (per Chris'
mention in his original post), his musings that "he suspects it does not
cost more" to make that leap, and the actual impact on cost for migrating
that hardware from 600Vdc to 1000Vdc.

Nothing was mentioned either by Chris or by me related to control
electronics, power ratings, or power loss.


To Chris' statement:

BEGIN QUOTE:
I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors.
END QUOTE.


All things being equal:

1000V wire in the same gauge as 600V wire will be more expensive than the 600V wire.
If you wish to downsize the conductor, the cost of the metal is likely more expensive
than the insulation, and this is a potential win .. but conductor size wasn't mentioned.
?
1000V disconnects for a given current are going to be more expensive than? 600V
disconnects.

1000V rated fuses are going to be more expensive than 600V for a given current.

1000V fuse holders require larger spacings than 600V, so they too are more money.

1000V connectors require larger creepage and clearances than do 600V parts.
This means they're larger for a given number of contacts and current, thus
more $$$ -- even if just slightly more.? Still more.

This is not to say migrating to 1000V won't happen.? It will, and it is.? Yes, it's
more common in Europe.? Sometimes the USA doesn't lead, but follows.
This is one of those instances.

And to your point:
?
Post by John Berdner
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases,
the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
Referencing I^2 R loss .. yes.? Passive resistive devices at a higher voltage
and lower current do have less loss than their lower-voltage cousins, (again,
all things being equal, but that doesn't mean they're less expensive than
their lower-voltage counterpart.

It's simply not possible to make a blanket statement and have it cover
everything correctly.
Post by John Berdner
Small gauge PV wire is already available from multiple sources with
1000 and 2000 V? ratings for a small premium over 600 V wire.
"... for a small premium over 600V wire."

You admit the wire is more expensive (even if at present).? Still, it's more $.
Will it stay that way?? Likely not, but for NOW .. it's more expensive.
Post by John Berdner
Example: The control electronics and all ac output circuitry remain the same.
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases,
the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
The result is that the product >>might be a little larger<< but its power rating
will be higher and it will likely be more efficient.
This infers reference to the efficiency of switching electronics.? If so, your
statement is incorrect.

Let's consider the solid state switches in an inverter, whether they be
MOSFETs, IGBTs, GaN, etc.

With the devices presently on the market, switching loss goes UP as
the voltage increases.

This will likely change at some future point with new product discoveries,
but for now .. given the parts we have to work with, switching losses are
greater in the higher voltage parts.? I know this flies in the face of common
sense to non-engineers, but it's fact.

If you wish an alternate resource of verification on this, I suggest you
check with anyone else with considerable expertise in the design of
switchmode power supplies.? If my 41 years as a design engineer isn't
adequate here, boB and/or Robin at at Midnight Solar would be an
excellent starting point.? I can point you toward a number of others
who are equally qualified.? Our industry (and even perhaps the Wrench
board) has others as well.

Ultimately .. will higher voltage systems be lower cost per watt overall?
This remains to be seen.? My instincts say it will --- in some circumstances.

An advantage the increased voltage offers (beyond potentially less power loss
in conductors), is the ability to create inverters for 277/480 and beyond.? This
helps by eliminating a transformer, which IS an efficiency loss and added cost
element.? Will 1000Vdc be a win for [say] 120V/240V installations.? Likely not.


As John did point out .. the entire system must be considered.? That goes without
saying.? Whether higher voltage is a win or not depends on the system.? It may be
in some cases, and not in others.? Chris mentioned only specific aspects of the
BOS hardware -- which I addressed.


Regards to all,


Dan Lepinski
Sr. Engineer
Exeltech / Exeltech Solar Products




--- On Sun, 3/31/13, John Berdner <John.Berdner at solaredge.com> wrote:

From: John Berdner <John.Berdner at solaredge.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 1:08 PM



Dan: ?I have to disagree with your statement regarding costs and voltage.While clearance and creepage distances increase at 1000V this makes only some things larger. Example: The control electronics and all ac output circuitry remain the same.Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases, the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.The result is that the product >>might be a little larger<< but its power rating will be higher and it will likely be more efficient.For a given current level the higher voltage might increase the unit price slightly but the $/Watt will almost certainly decrease.Conversely if power is held constant the current will be lower and so the product may in fact be cheaper that a 600V product of the same power rating. ?Once we get past the unit price for components there is no doubt that system costs for 1000V are significantly lower than for 600V. ?Let?s review? ?Ohms law:P=V*I, so
for a given power level voltage and current are inversely linked linearly ? if the voltage increases the current decreases.P=I^2 * R, so for a given power level, increasing the voltage decreases the current and decreases the losses by square of the change.1000/600 = 1.667 => P_loss= 1.6667^2, so for a given power level and given piece of wire, the losses are 2.777 times lower at 1000V than at 600V. ?Wire and Ampacity: The ampacity of a wire is based on current not voltage Higher voltages mean 1.667 times more power on a given piece of wire in a given conduit (yes the conduit might need to be bigger due to fill factor ? it depends).
Another way of saying this is 1000 Vdc gives you a 40% reduction in wiring costs for a given power level compared to 600Vdc.Small gauge PV wire is already available from multiple sources with 1000 and 2000 V ?ratings for a small premium over 600 V wire.Why ? - Current = conductive materials = expensive.? Voltage = insulating materials = inexpensive.Larger gauge PV wire and USE-2 is still a bit hard to find but are both available in commonly used PV sizes from multiple sources ?Fuses and Combiners:kW per string is a key cost metric for installed BOS costs and more is better.Fundamentally, series trumps parallel every time.Higher voltages = longer strings = more power per string = less strings, fuses and holders (combiner inputs).1000 V string fuses / holders are available from multiple sources and are competitive with 600V counterparts. ?Switches:1000V switchgear cost is still lagging in the US but we are starting to see more reasonably priced
equipment on the horizon. ?Summary: 1000V PV is well proven outside the US.In the US the tide is turning and we are rapidly headed to 1000V commercial systems. The Codes and Standards are already in place and we are beginning to see reasonably priced 1000 Vdc rated components.1000Vdc Listed Modules, 1000/2000Vdc UL 4703 PV wire, Listed 1000Vdc string fuses and holders, Listed 1000Vdc inverters are all available today. ?I believe 600Vdc commercial and utility scale systems will rapidly become uncompetitive and, within a few years, the exception rather than the rule. ?Best Regards, ?John BerdnerGeneral Manager, North AmericaSolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
?From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Exeltech
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:10 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray ?Hello Chris,
Post by John Berdner
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)

It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.

Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus bigger parts or products).? Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher dielectric rating).? This results in more rigorous (consequently more expensive) UL testing.? Etc. All adds up.

Dan


--- On Sun, 3/31/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AMAs we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated equipment will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To avoid problems and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the manufacturers need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors. ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/14f341a3/attachment.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-04-01 14:23:10 UTC
Permalink
With regards to 600V costs Vs 1000V costs, once 1000V equipment becomes the
norm, it is likely not to cost appreciably more, and the lower cost of
copper will offset any increase.
I bought 1000V SolarBos combiners which are huge, too big to use on my
installation, so I bought the same item from the UK, which are tiny and
easy to install, and half the cost. Something is wrong with the US approach
to 100V equipment and switchgear in general. Why is the european equipment
so much smaller for the same switching current.
Post by Exeltech
John,
My reply didn't deal with anything except specific hardware (per Chris'
mention in his original post), his musings that "he suspects it does not
cost more" to make that leap, and the actual impact on cost for migrating
that hardware from 600Vdc to 1000Vdc.
Nothing was mentioned either by Chris or by me related to control
electronics, power ratings, or power loss.
I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly
disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors.
END QUOTE.
1000V wire in the same gauge as 600V wire will be more expensive than the 600V wire.
If you wish to downsize the conductor, the cost of the metal is likely more expensive
than the insulation, and this is a potential win .. but conductor size wasn't mentioned.
1000V disconnects for a given current are going to be more expensive than
600V
disconnects.
1000V rated fuses are going to be more expensive than 600V for a given current.
1000V fuse holders require larger spacings than 600V, so they too are more money.
1000V connectors require larger creepage and clearances than do 600V parts.
This means they're larger for a given number of contacts and current, thus
more $$$ -- even if just slightly more. Still more.
This is not to say migrating to 1000V won't happen. It will, and it is.
Yes, it's
more common in Europe. Sometimes the USA doesn't lead, but follows.
This is one of those instances.
Post by John Berdner
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases,
the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
Referencing I^2 R loss .. yes. Passive resistive devices at a higher
voltage
and lower current do have less loss than their lower-voltage cousins, (again,
all things being equal, but that doesn't mean they're less expensive than
their lower-voltage counterpart.
It's simply not possible to make a blanket statement and have it cover
everything correctly.
Post by John Berdner
Small gauge PV wire is already available from multiple sources with
1000 and 2000 V ratings for a small premium over 600 V wire.
"... for a small premium over 600V wire."
You admit the wire is more expensive (even if at present). Still, it's
more $.
Will it stay that way? Likely not, but for NOW .. it's more expensive.
Post by John Berdner
Example: The control electronics and all ac output circuitry remain the
same.
Post by John Berdner
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases,
the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
The result is that the product >>might be a little larger<< but its
power rating
Post by John Berdner
will be higher and it will likely be more efficient.
This infers reference to the efficiency of switching electronics. If so,
your
statement is incorrect.
Let's consider the solid state switches in an inverter, whether they be
MOSFETs, IGBTs, GaN, etc.
With the devices presently on the market, switching loss goes UP as
the voltage increases.
This will likely change at some future point with new product discoveries,
but for now .. given the parts we have to work with, switching losses are
greater in the higher voltage parts. I know this flies in the face of
common
sense to non-engineers, but it's fact.
If you wish an alternate resource of verification on this, I suggest you
check with anyone else with considerable expertise in the design of
switchmode power supplies. If my 41 years as a design engineer isn't
adequate here, boB and/or Robin at at Midnight Solar would be an
excellent starting point. I can point you toward a number of others
who are equally qualified. Our industry (and even perhaps the Wrench
board) has others as well.
Ultimately .. will higher voltage systems be lower cost per watt overall?
This remains to be seen. My instincts say it will --- in some
circumstances.
An advantage the increased voltage offers (beyond potentially less power loss
in conductors), is the ability to create inverters for 277/480 and
beyond. This
helps by eliminating a transformer, which IS an efficiency loss and added cost
element. Will 1000Vdc be a win for [say] 120V/240V installations. Likely
not.
As John did point out .. the entire system must be considered. That goes
without
saying. Whether higher voltage is a win or not depends on the system. It
may be
in some cases, and not in others. Chris mentioned only specific aspects
of the
BOS hardware -- which I addressed.
Regards to all,
Dan Lepinski
Sr. Engineer
Exeltech / Exeltech Solar Products
From: John Berdner <John.Berdner at solaredge.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 1:08 PM
I have to disagree with your statement regarding costs and voltage.
While clearance and creepage distances increase at 1000V this makes only
some things larger.
Example: The control electronics and all ac output circuitry remain the same.
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases, the
power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
The result is that the product >>might be a little larger<< but its power
rating will be higher and it will likely be more efficient.
For a given current level the higher voltage might increase the unit price
slightly but the $/Watt will almost certainly decrease.
Conversely if power is held constant the current will be lower and so the
product may in fact be cheaper that a 600V product of the same power rating.
Once we get past the unit price for components there is no doubt that
system costs for 1000V are significantly lower than for 600V.
Let?s review?
P=V*I, so for a given power level voltage and current are inversely linked
linearly ? if the voltage increases the current decreases.
P=I^2 * R, so for a given power level, increasing the voltage decreases
the current and decreases the losses by square of the change.
1000/600 = 1.667 => P_loss= 1.6667^2, so for a given power level and given
piece of wire, the losses are 2.777 times lower at 1000V than at 600V.
The ampacity of a wire is based on current not voltage
Higher voltages mean 1.667 times more power on a given piece of wire in a
given conduit (yes the conduit might need to be bigger due to fill factor ?
it depends).
Another way of saying this is 1000 Vdc gives you a 40% reduction in wiring
costs for a given power level compared to 600Vdc.
Small gauge PV wire is already available from multiple sources with 1000
and 2000 V ratings for a small premium over 600 V wire.
Why ? - Current = conductive materials = expensive. Voltage = insulating
materials = inexpensive.
Larger gauge PV wire and USE-2 is still a bit hard to find but are both
available in commonly used PV sizes from multiple sources
kW per string is a key cost metric for installed BOS costs and more is better.
Fundamentally, series trumps parallel every time.
Higher voltages = longer strings = more power per string = less strings,
fuses and holders (combiner inputs).
1000 V string fuses / holders are available from multiple sources and are
competitive with 600V counterparts.
1000V switchgear cost is still lagging in the US but we are starting to
see more reasonably priced equipment on the horizon.
1000V PV is well proven outside the US.
In the US the tide is turning and we are rapidly headed to 1000V commercial systems.
The Codes and Standards are already in place and we are beginning to see
reasonably priced 1000 Vdc rated components.
1000Vdc Listed Modules, 1000/2000Vdc UL 4703 PV wire, Listed 1000Vdc
string fuses and holders, Listed 1000Vdc inverters are all available today.
I believe 600Vdc commercial and utility scale systems will rapidly become
uncompetitive and, within a few years, the exception rather than the rule.
Best Regards,
John Berdner
General Manager, North America
SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Exeltech
*Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:10 AM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Hello Chris,
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)
It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.
Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus
bigger parts or products). Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher
dielectric rating). This results in more rigorous (consequently more
expensive) UL testing. Etc. All adds up.
Dan
--- On *Sun, 3/31/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<http://mc/compose?to=re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AM
As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated equipment
will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To avoid problems
and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the manufacturers
need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost
more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse
holders and connectors.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130401/06ecb38a/attachment.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-04-01 14:23:10 UTC
Permalink
With regards to 600V costs Vs 1000V costs, once 1000V equipment becomes the
norm, it is likely not to cost appreciably more, and the lower cost of
copper will offset any increase.
I bought 1000V SolarBos combiners which are huge, too big to use on my
installation, so I bought the same item from the UK, which are tiny and
easy to install, and half the cost. Something is wrong with the US approach
to 100V equipment and switchgear in general. Why is the european equipment
so much smaller for the same switching current.
Post by Exeltech
John,
My reply didn't deal with anything except specific hardware (per Chris'
mention in his original post), his musings that "he suspects it does not
cost more" to make that leap, and the actual impact on cost for migrating
that hardware from 600Vdc to 1000Vdc.
Nothing was mentioned either by Chris or by me related to control
electronics, power ratings, or power loss.
I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly
disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors.
END QUOTE.
1000V wire in the same gauge as 600V wire will be more expensive than the 600V wire.
If you wish to downsize the conductor, the cost of the metal is likely more expensive
than the insulation, and this is a potential win .. but conductor size wasn't mentioned.
1000V disconnects for a given current are going to be more expensive than
600V
disconnects.
1000V rated fuses are going to be more expensive than 600V for a given current.
1000V fuse holders require larger spacings than 600V, so they too are more money.
1000V connectors require larger creepage and clearances than do 600V parts.
This means they're larger for a given number of contacts and current, thus
more $$$ -- even if just slightly more. Still more.
This is not to say migrating to 1000V won't happen. It will, and it is.
Yes, it's
more common in Europe. Sometimes the USA doesn't lead, but follows.
This is one of those instances.
Post by John Berdner
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases,
the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
Referencing I^2 R loss .. yes. Passive resistive devices at a higher
voltage
and lower current do have less loss than their lower-voltage cousins, (again,
all things being equal, but that doesn't mean they're less expensive than
their lower-voltage counterpart.
It's simply not possible to make a blanket statement and have it cover
everything correctly.
Post by John Berdner
Small gauge PV wire is already available from multiple sources with
1000 and 2000 V ratings for a small premium over 600 V wire.
"... for a small premium over 600V wire."
You admit the wire is more expensive (even if at present). Still, it's
more $.
Will it stay that way? Likely not, but for NOW .. it's more expensive.
Post by John Berdner
Example: The control electronics and all ac output circuitry remain the
same.
Post by John Berdner
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases,
the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
The result is that the product >>might be a little larger<< but its
power rating
Post by John Berdner
will be higher and it will likely be more efficient.
This infers reference to the efficiency of switching electronics. If so,
your
statement is incorrect.
Let's consider the solid state switches in an inverter, whether they be
MOSFETs, IGBTs, GaN, etc.
With the devices presently on the market, switching loss goes UP as
the voltage increases.
This will likely change at some future point with new product discoveries,
but for now .. given the parts we have to work with, switching losses are
greater in the higher voltage parts. I know this flies in the face of
common
sense to non-engineers, but it's fact.
If you wish an alternate resource of verification on this, I suggest you
check with anyone else with considerable expertise in the design of
switchmode power supplies. If my 41 years as a design engineer isn't
adequate here, boB and/or Robin at at Midnight Solar would be an
excellent starting point. I can point you toward a number of others
who are equally qualified. Our industry (and even perhaps the Wrench
board) has others as well.
Ultimately .. will higher voltage systems be lower cost per watt overall?
This remains to be seen. My instincts say it will --- in some
circumstances.
An advantage the increased voltage offers (beyond potentially less power loss
in conductors), is the ability to create inverters for 277/480 and
beyond. This
helps by eliminating a transformer, which IS an efficiency loss and added cost
element. Will 1000Vdc be a win for [say] 120V/240V installations. Likely
not.
As John did point out .. the entire system must be considered. That goes
without
saying. Whether higher voltage is a win or not depends on the system. It
may be
in some cases, and not in others. Chris mentioned only specific aspects
of the
BOS hardware -- which I addressed.
Regards to all,
Dan Lepinski
Sr. Engineer
Exeltech / Exeltech Solar Products
From: John Berdner <John.Berdner at solaredge.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 1:08 PM
I have to disagree with your statement regarding costs and voltage.
While clearance and creepage distances increase at 1000V this makes only
some things larger.
Example: The control electronics and all ac output circuitry remain the same.
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases, the
power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
The result is that the product >>might be a little larger<< but its power
rating will be higher and it will likely be more efficient.
For a given current level the higher voltage might increase the unit price
slightly but the $/Watt will almost certainly decrease.
Conversely if power is held constant the current will be lower and so the
product may in fact be cheaper that a 600V product of the same power rating.
Once we get past the unit price for components there is no doubt that
system costs for 1000V are significantly lower than for 600V.
Let?s review?
P=V*I, so for a given power level voltage and current are inversely linked
linearly ? if the voltage increases the current decreases.
P=I^2 * R, so for a given power level, increasing the voltage decreases
the current and decreases the losses by square of the change.
1000/600 = 1.667 => P_loss= 1.6667^2, so for a given power level and given
piece of wire, the losses are 2.777 times lower at 1000V than at 600V.
The ampacity of a wire is based on current not voltage
Higher voltages mean 1.667 times more power on a given piece of wire in a
given conduit (yes the conduit might need to be bigger due to fill factor ?
it depends).
Another way of saying this is 1000 Vdc gives you a 40% reduction in wiring
costs for a given power level compared to 600Vdc.
Small gauge PV wire is already available from multiple sources with 1000
and 2000 V ratings for a small premium over 600 V wire.
Why ? - Current = conductive materials = expensive. Voltage = insulating
materials = inexpensive.
Larger gauge PV wire and USE-2 is still a bit hard to find but are both
available in commonly used PV sizes from multiple sources
kW per string is a key cost metric for installed BOS costs and more is better.
Fundamentally, series trumps parallel every time.
Higher voltages = longer strings = more power per string = less strings,
fuses and holders (combiner inputs).
1000 V string fuses / holders are available from multiple sources and are
competitive with 600V counterparts.
1000V switchgear cost is still lagging in the US but we are starting to
see more reasonably priced equipment on the horizon.
1000V PV is well proven outside the US.
In the US the tide is turning and we are rapidly headed to 1000V commercial systems.
The Codes and Standards are already in place and we are beginning to see
reasonably priced 1000 Vdc rated components.
1000Vdc Listed Modules, 1000/2000Vdc UL 4703 PV wire, Listed 1000Vdc
string fuses and holders, Listed 1000Vdc inverters are all available today.
I believe 600Vdc commercial and utility scale systems will rapidly become
uncompetitive and, within a few years, the exception rather than the rule.
Best Regards,
John Berdner
General Manager, North America
SolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Exeltech
*Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:10 AM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
Hello Chris,
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)
It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.
Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus
bigger parts or products). Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher
dielectric rating). This results in more rigorous (consequently more
expensive) UL testing. Etc. All adds up.
Dan
--- On *Sun, 3/31/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org<http://mc/compose?to=re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AM
As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated equipment
will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To avoid problems
and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the manufacturers
need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost
more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse
holders and connectors.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130401/06ecb38a/attachment-0001.htm>
Exeltech
2013-04-01 15:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Conductors rated for 1000V and the same power you have in mind
for the 600V conductors (hence lower current) can indeed use smaller
wire, thus potentially saving on that aspect of the cost, and possibly
making it lower in cost for a given system than the lower-voltage higher
current counterpart.

If the European hardware you bought is fully certified to the required
UL Standards for use in the USA, then product size is simply a matter
of design differences.? Could also be product volume since they are
way ahead of us in the 1000V category.

Issues we as manufacturers in America face when trying to compete with
firms in other countries are: 1) numerous additional costs related to things
like Workman's Comp insurance, social security (for every dollar you have
withheld, the employer matches it), now mandatory health insurance for
some (depending on company size), and so forth.? 2) Strict environmental
regulations that foreign companies may or may not have.? Even if they DO,
we often find enforcement of those rules to be very lax, especially in Asia.
3) Cost of living, thus higher wages in the USA.

.. to name a few.? Ends up being higher-cost products.



Dan


--- On Mon, 4/1/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Monday, April 1, 2013, 9:23 AM

With regards to 600V costs Vs 1000V costs, once 1000V equipment becomes the norm, it is likely not to cost appreciably more, and the lower cost of copper will offset any increase.

I bought 1000V SolarBos combiners which are huge, too big to use on my installation, so I bought the same item from the UK, which are tiny and easy to install, and half the cost. Something is wrong with the US approach to 100V equipment and switchgear in general. Why is the european equipment so much smaller for the same switching current.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130401/3c361cca/attachment.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-04-01 16:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Actually the operational cost in the UK is higher. They have had health
insurance for some time, the US did not invent it. Taxes are higher, in
fact the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the OECD.
Once the US moves to 1000V there will be little cost difference, I am
pretty certain of that.
Post by Exeltech
Conductors rated for 1000V and the same power you have in mind
for the 600V conductors (hence lower current) can indeed use smaller
wire, thus potentially saving on that aspect of the cost, and possibly
making it lower in cost for a given system than the lower-voltage higher
current counterpart.
If the European hardware you bought is fully certified to the required
UL Standards for use in the USA, then product size is simply a matter
of design differences. Could also be product volume since they are
way ahead of us in the 1000V category.
Issues we as manufacturers in America face when trying to compete with
firms in other countries are: 1) numerous additional costs related to things
like Workman's Comp insurance, social security (for every dollar you have
withheld, the employer matches it), now mandatory health insurance for
some (depending on company size), and so forth. 2) Strict environmental
regulations that foreign companies may or may not have. Even if they DO,
we often find enforcement of those rules to be very lax, especially in Asia.
3) Cost of living, thus higher wages in the USA.
.. to name a few. Ends up being higher-cost products.
Dan
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Monday, April 1, 2013, 9:23 AM
With regards to 600V costs Vs 1000V costs, once 1000V equipment becomes
the norm, it is likely not to cost appreciably more, and the lower cost of
copper will offset any increase.
I bought 1000V SolarBos combiners which are huge, too big to use on my
installation, so I bought the same item from the UK, which are tiny and
easy to install, and half the cost. Something is wrong with the US approach
to 100V equipment and switchgear in general. Why is the european equipment
so much smaller for the same switching current.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130401/eecf59b8/attachment.htm>
boB
2013-04-01 18:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Mason
Actually the operational cost in the UK is higher. They have had
health insurance for some time, the US did not invent it. Taxes are
higher, in fact the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the OECD.
Once the US moves to 1000V there will be little cost difference, I am
pretty certain of that.
1000V is definitely coming and we are trying to keep costs as low as
possible.

And, before this has to go to another group that I can't post to, I have to
agree with most of what Dan says about operating in the US.

It is looking like it is only going to get worse to manufacture in the
US. I hope we can
keep the made in the USA label keep coming. A lot of made in USA
equipment is
already only a final assembly and not a significant portion of the
products manufacture.
For example, circuit board assembly in China and then put the rest
together here.

It's not always "what" the restrictions are, (example: health care,
taxes), but "how"
those are implemented.

I have heard of American companies moving to the northern UK Ireland or
Scotland)
because it was cheaper for them to operate there but might be because of
some tax loophole ?
I'm sure that hole will be plugged soon.

We will do our best to keep our products significantly built in the USA.

boB
Post by Chris Mason
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Exeltech <exeltech at yahoo.com
Conductors rated for 1000V and the same power you have in mind
for the 600V conductors (hence lower current) can indeed use smaller
wire, thus potentially saving on that aspect of the cost, and possibly
making it lower in cost for a given system than the lower-voltage higher
current counterpart.
If the European hardware you bought is fully certified to the required
UL Standards for use in the USA, then product size is simply a matter
of design differences. Could also be product volume since they are
way ahead of us in the 1000V category.
Issues we as manufacturers in America face when trying to compete with
firms in other countries are: 1) numerous additional costs related to things
like Workman's Comp insurance, social security (for every dollar you have
withheld, the employer matches it), now mandatory health insurance for
some (depending on company size), and so forth. 2) Strict
environmental
regulations that foreign companies may or may not have. Even if they DO,
we often find enforcement of those rules to be very lax,
especially in Asia.
3) Cost of living, thus higher wages in the USA.
.. to name a few. Ends up being higher-cost products.
Dan
--- On *Mon, 4/1/13, Chris Mason /<cometenergysystems at gmail.com
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com
<mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>>
Date: Monday, April 1, 2013, 9:23 AM
With regards to 600V costs Vs 1000V costs, once 1000V
equipment becomes the norm, it is likely not to cost
appreciably more, and the lower cost of copper will offset any
increase.
I bought 1000V SolarBos combiners which are huge, too big to
use on my installation, so I bought the same item from the UK,
which are tiny and easy to install, and half the cost.
Something is wrong with the US approach to 100V equipment and
switchgear in general. Why is the european equipment so much
smaller for the same switching current.
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com <http://www.cometenergysystems.com>
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130401/946977b0/attachment.htm>
boB
2013-04-01 18:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Mason
Actually the operational cost in the UK is higher. They have had
health insurance for some time, the US did not invent it. Taxes are
higher, in fact the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the OECD.
Once the US moves to 1000V there will be little cost difference, I am
pretty certain of that.
1000V is definitely coming and we are trying to keep costs as low as
possible.

And, before this has to go to another group that I can't post to, I have to
agree with most of what Dan says about operating in the US.

It is looking like it is only going to get worse to manufacture in the
US. I hope we can
keep the made in the USA label keep coming. A lot of made in USA
equipment is
already only a final assembly and not a significant portion of the
products manufacture.
For example, circuit board assembly in China and then put the rest
together here.

It's not always "what" the restrictions are, (example: health care,
taxes), but "how"
those are implemented.

I have heard of American companies moving to the northern UK Ireland or
Scotland)
because it was cheaper for them to operate there but might be because of
some tax loophole ?
I'm sure that hole will be plugged soon.

We will do our best to keep our products significantly built in the USA.

boB
Post by Chris Mason
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Exeltech <exeltech at yahoo.com
Conductors rated for 1000V and the same power you have in mind
for the 600V conductors (hence lower current) can indeed use smaller
wire, thus potentially saving on that aspect of the cost, and possibly
making it lower in cost for a given system than the lower-voltage higher
current counterpart.
If the European hardware you bought is fully certified to the required
UL Standards for use in the USA, then product size is simply a matter
of design differences. Could also be product volume since they are
way ahead of us in the 1000V category.
Issues we as manufacturers in America face when trying to compete with
firms in other countries are: 1) numerous additional costs related to things
like Workman's Comp insurance, social security (for every dollar you have
withheld, the employer matches it), now mandatory health insurance for
some (depending on company size), and so forth. 2) Strict
environmental
regulations that foreign companies may or may not have. Even if they DO,
we often find enforcement of those rules to be very lax,
especially in Asia.
3) Cost of living, thus higher wages in the USA.
.. to name a few. Ends up being higher-cost products.
Dan
--- On *Mon, 4/1/13, Chris Mason /<cometenergysystems at gmail.com
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com
<mailto:cometenergysystems at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
<mailto:re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>>
Date: Monday, April 1, 2013, 9:23 AM
With regards to 600V costs Vs 1000V costs, once 1000V
equipment becomes the norm, it is likely not to cost
appreciably more, and the lower cost of copper will offset any
increase.
I bought 1000V SolarBos combiners which are huge, too big to
use on my installation, so I bought the same item from the UK,
which are tiny and easy to install, and half the cost.
Something is wrong with the US approach to 100V equipment and
switchgear in general. Why is the european equipment so much
smaller for the same switching current.
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com <http://www.cometenergysystems.com>
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130401/946977b0/attachment-0001.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-04-01 16:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Actually the operational cost in the UK is higher. They have had health
insurance for some time, the US did not invent it. Taxes are higher, in
fact the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the OECD.
Once the US moves to 1000V there will be little cost difference, I am
pretty certain of that.
Post by Exeltech
Conductors rated for 1000V and the same power you have in mind
for the 600V conductors (hence lower current) can indeed use smaller
wire, thus potentially saving on that aspect of the cost, and possibly
making it lower in cost for a given system than the lower-voltage higher
current counterpart.
If the European hardware you bought is fully certified to the required
UL Standards for use in the USA, then product size is simply a matter
of design differences. Could also be product volume since they are
way ahead of us in the 1000V category.
Issues we as manufacturers in America face when trying to compete with
firms in other countries are: 1) numerous additional costs related to things
like Workman's Comp insurance, social security (for every dollar you have
withheld, the employer matches it), now mandatory health insurance for
some (depending on company size), and so forth. 2) Strict environmental
regulations that foreign companies may or may not have. Even if they DO,
we often find enforcement of those rules to be very lax, especially in Asia.
3) Cost of living, thus higher wages in the USA.
.. to name a few. Ends up being higher-cost products.
Dan
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Monday, April 1, 2013, 9:23 AM
With regards to 600V costs Vs 1000V costs, once 1000V equipment becomes
the norm, it is likely not to cost appreciably more, and the lower cost of
copper will offset any increase.
I bought 1000V SolarBos combiners which are huge, too big to use on my
installation, so I bought the same item from the UK, which are tiny and
easy to install, and half the cost. Something is wrong with the US approach
to 100V equipment and switchgear in general. Why is the european equipment
so much smaller for the same switching current.
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130401/eecf59b8/attachment-0001.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-22 19:07:37 UTC
Permalink
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130322/c45c41ac/attachment-0001.htm>
Max Balchowsky
2013-03-24 01:33:39 UTC
Permalink
I don't know your exact application, but I've used Carlon wireways for years. Our application most of the time was to use the 4x4 gutter in lieu of metal gutter under the inverters,disconnects, Panelboards, etc.

http://www.carlonsales.com/wiresafe.php

?
Max Balchowsky
Design Engineer
SEE Systems
1048 Irvine Ave Suite 217
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
760-403-6810
"Building a Better Future For The Next Generation"



________________________________
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 12:07 PM
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray


I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.?
--
Chris Mason

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130323/0a1fb746/attachment-0001.htm>
Glenn Burt
2013-03-25 22:12:23 UTC
Permalink
I think you will find it difficult to adhere to Article 392 and use a cable
tray on a rooftop with source circuit conductors, if that is your hope.



-Glenn



From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Chris Mason
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:08 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray



I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
--
Chris Mason



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/280b3b27/attachment-0001.htm>
Chris Mason
2013-03-25 22:17:17 UTC
Permalink
What part of 392 would be a problem?
Post by Glenn Burt
I think you will find it difficult to adhere to Article 392 and use a
cable tray on a rooftop with source circuit conductors, if that is your
hope.****
** **
-Glenn****
** **
re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Mason
*Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 3:08 PM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Subject:* [RE-wrenches] Cable tray****
** **
I'm looking for flat roof cable tray system that is cost effective. We
previously used Cablofil and Cablo-port FSL 12" tray but it is very
expensive for our current application due to the size of the roof. We need
to install about 200' of tray and Cablofil galvanized is eating up the
budget. Can anyone recommend a cheaper alternative.
****
** **
--
Chris Mason****
** **
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
www.members.re-wrenches.org
--
Chris Mason
President, Comet Systems Ltd
www.cometenergysystems.com
Cell: 264.235.5670
Skype: netconcepts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130325/8b9ce0f0/attachment-0001.htm>
Exeltech
2013-03-31 16:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Hello Chris,
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)

It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.

Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus bigger
parts or products).? Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher dielectric rating).
This results in more rigorous (consequently more expensive) UL testing.? Etc.
All adds up.

Dan


--- On Sun, 3/31/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AM

As we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated equipment will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To avoid problems and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the manufacturers need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/f5c2e2e2/attachment-0001.htm>
Exeltech
2013-03-31 23:36:29 UTC
Permalink
John,

My reply didn't deal with anything except specific hardware (per Chris'
mention in his original post), his musings that "he suspects it does not
cost more" to make that leap, and the actual impact on cost for migrating
that hardware from 600Vdc to 1000Vdc.

Nothing was mentioned either by Chris or by me related to control
electronics, power ratings, or power loss.


To Chris' statement:

BEGIN QUOTE:
I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors.
END QUOTE.


All things being equal:

1000V wire in the same gauge as 600V wire will be more expensive than the 600V wire.
If you wish to downsize the conductor, the cost of the metal is likely more expensive
than the insulation, and this is a potential win .. but conductor size wasn't mentioned.
?
1000V disconnects for a given current are going to be more expensive than? 600V
disconnects.

1000V rated fuses are going to be more expensive than 600V for a given current.

1000V fuse holders require larger spacings than 600V, so they too are more money.

1000V connectors require larger creepage and clearances than do 600V parts.
This means they're larger for a given number of contacts and current, thus
more $$$ -- even if just slightly more.? Still more.

This is not to say migrating to 1000V won't happen.? It will, and it is.? Yes, it's
more common in Europe.? Sometimes the USA doesn't lead, but follows.
This is one of those instances.

And to your point:
?
Post by John Berdner
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases,
the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
Referencing I^2 R loss .. yes.? Passive resistive devices at a higher voltage
and lower current do have less loss than their lower-voltage cousins, (again,
all things being equal, but that doesn't mean they're less expensive than
their lower-voltage counterpart.

It's simply not possible to make a blanket statement and have it cover
everything correctly.
Post by John Berdner
Small gauge PV wire is already available from multiple sources with
1000 and 2000 V? ratings for a small premium over 600 V wire.
"... for a small premium over 600V wire."

You admit the wire is more expensive (even if at present).? Still, it's more $.
Will it stay that way?? Likely not, but for NOW .. it's more expensive.
Post by John Berdner
Example: The control electronics and all ac output circuitry remain the same.
Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases,
the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.
The result is that the product >>might be a little larger<< but its power rating
will be higher and it will likely be more efficient.
This infers reference to the efficiency of switching electronics.? If so, your
statement is incorrect.

Let's consider the solid state switches in an inverter, whether they be
MOSFETs, IGBTs, GaN, etc.

With the devices presently on the market, switching loss goes UP as
the voltage increases.

This will likely change at some future point with new product discoveries,
but for now .. given the parts we have to work with, switching losses are
greater in the higher voltage parts.? I know this flies in the face of common
sense to non-engineers, but it's fact.

If you wish an alternate resource of verification on this, I suggest you
check with anyone else with considerable expertise in the design of
switchmode power supplies.? If my 41 years as a design engineer isn't
adequate here, boB and/or Robin at at Midnight Solar would be an
excellent starting point.? I can point you toward a number of others
who are equally qualified.? Our industry (and even perhaps the Wrench
board) has others as well.

Ultimately .. will higher voltage systems be lower cost per watt overall?
This remains to be seen.? My instincts say it will --- in some circumstances.

An advantage the increased voltage offers (beyond potentially less power loss
in conductors), is the ability to create inverters for 277/480 and beyond.? This
helps by eliminating a transformer, which IS an efficiency loss and added cost
element.? Will 1000Vdc be a win for [say] 120V/240V installations.? Likely not.


As John did point out .. the entire system must be considered.? That goes without
saying.? Whether higher voltage is a win or not depends on the system.? It may be
in some cases, and not in others.? Chris mentioned only specific aspects of the
BOS hardware -- which I addressed.


Regards to all,


Dan Lepinski
Sr. Engineer
Exeltech / Exeltech Solar Products




--- On Sun, 3/31/13, John Berdner <John.Berdner at solaredge.com> wrote:

From: John Berdner <John.Berdner at solaredge.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 1:08 PM



Dan: ?I have to disagree with your statement regarding costs and voltage.While clearance and creepage distances increase at 1000V this makes only some things larger. Example: The control electronics and all ac output circuitry remain the same.Although the spacing between the high voltage dc components increases, the power of the device also increases and the losses decrease.The result is that the product >>might be a little larger<< but its power rating will be higher and it will likely be more efficient.For a given current level the higher voltage might increase the unit price slightly but the $/Watt will almost certainly decrease.Conversely if power is held constant the current will be lower and so the product may in fact be cheaper that a 600V product of the same power rating. ?Once we get past the unit price for components there is no doubt that system costs for 1000V are significantly lower than for 600V. ?Let?s review? ?Ohms law:P=V*I, so
for a given power level voltage and current are inversely linked linearly ? if the voltage increases the current decreases.P=I^2 * R, so for a given power level, increasing the voltage decreases the current and decreases the losses by square of the change.1000/600 = 1.667 => P_loss= 1.6667^2, so for a given power level and given piece of wire, the losses are 2.777 times lower at 1000V than at 600V. ?Wire and Ampacity: The ampacity of a wire is based on current not voltage Higher voltages mean 1.667 times more power on a given piece of wire in a given conduit (yes the conduit might need to be bigger due to fill factor ? it depends).
Another way of saying this is 1000 Vdc gives you a 40% reduction in wiring costs for a given power level compared to 600Vdc.Small gauge PV wire is already available from multiple sources with 1000 and 2000 V ?ratings for a small premium over 600 V wire.Why ? - Current = conductive materials = expensive.? Voltage = insulating materials = inexpensive.Larger gauge PV wire and USE-2 is still a bit hard to find but are both available in commonly used PV sizes from multiple sources ?Fuses and Combiners:kW per string is a key cost metric for installed BOS costs and more is better.Fundamentally, series trumps parallel every time.Higher voltages = longer strings = more power per string = less strings, fuses and holders (combiner inputs).1000 V string fuses / holders are available from multiple sources and are competitive with 600V counterparts. ?Switches:1000V switchgear cost is still lagging in the US but we are starting to see more reasonably priced
equipment on the horizon. ?Summary: 1000V PV is well proven outside the US.In the US the tide is turning and we are rapidly headed to 1000V commercial systems. The Codes and Standards are already in place and we are beginning to see reasonably priced 1000 Vdc rated components.1000Vdc Listed Modules, 1000/2000Vdc UL 4703 PV wire, Listed 1000Vdc string fuses and holders, Listed 1000Vdc inverters are all available today. ?I believe 600Vdc commercial and utility scale systems will rapidly become uncompetitive and, within a few years, the exception rather than the rule. ?Best Regards, ?John BerdnerGeneral Manager, North AmericaSolarEdge Technologies, Inc.
?From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Exeltech
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:10 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray ?Hello Chris,
Post by John Berdner
From a manufacturer's perspective .. you're incorrect on all assumptions.
(Sorry.)

It costs more to make higher-voltage anythings.

Higher voltage means: Clearance / creepage distances are larger (thus bigger parts or products).? Insulation must be thicker (or have a higher dielectric rating).? This results in more rigorous (consequently more expensive) UL testing.? Etc. All adds up.

Dan


--- On Sun, 3/31/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 8:21 AMAs we see more 1000V installations, chances are that 600V rated equipment will find its way into installations it is not rated for. To avoid problems and so we don't need two SKUs and lots more inventory, the manufacturers need to move all their product to 1000V ratings. I suspect it does not cost more to make 1000V wire than 600V, similarly disconnects, fuses, fuse holders and connectors. ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130331/14f341a3/attachment-0001.htm>
Exeltech
2013-04-01 15:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Conductors rated for 1000V and the same power you have in mind
for the 600V conductors (hence lower current) can indeed use smaller
wire, thus potentially saving on that aspect of the cost, and possibly
making it lower in cost for a given system than the lower-voltage higher
current counterpart.

If the European hardware you bought is fully certified to the required
UL Standards for use in the USA, then product size is simply a matter
of design differences.? Could also be product volume since they are
way ahead of us in the 1000V category.

Issues we as manufacturers in America face when trying to compete with
firms in other countries are: 1) numerous additional costs related to things
like Workman's Comp insurance, social security (for every dollar you have
withheld, the employer matches it), now mandatory health insurance for
some (depending on company size), and so forth.? 2) Strict environmental
regulations that foreign companies may or may not have.? Even if they DO,
we often find enforcement of those rules to be very lax, especially in Asia.
3) Cost of living, thus higher wages in the USA.

.. to name a few.? Ends up being higher-cost products.



Dan


--- On Mon, 4/1/13, Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Chris Mason <cometenergysystems at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Cable tray
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Date: Monday, April 1, 2013, 9:23 AM

With regards to 600V costs Vs 1000V costs, once 1000V equipment becomes the norm, it is likely not to cost appreciably more, and the lower cost of copper will offset any increase.

I bought 1000V SolarBos combiners which are huge, too big to use on my installation, so I bought the same item from the UK, which are tiny and easy to install, and half the cost. Something is wrong with the US approach to 100V equipment and switchgear in general. Why is the european equipment so much smaller for the same switching current.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130401/3c361cca/attachment-0001.htm>
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...