This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EV CHARGING EQUIPMENT

I am hearing from my network of contractors, that have actually read the new 722, that they have been asking charging equipment manufactures for documentary proof to comply with Note 5 of 722.411.4.


They are getting knocked back for asking or in one case a Declaration that says the particular device complies with BS 7671. I think that is wrong to declare that as BS 7671 is an installation safety standard and not a product standard. I believe that as a minimum the equipment must comply with the Low Voltage Directive and be CE marked. I also believe that manufacturers have to issue a Declaration of Conformity. 


BS 7671 722 has numerous references to the various standards required such as BS EN 61851 that the equipment must comply with. I am thinking it may be illegal to offer the sale of equipment that does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and is not CE marked?


I am hoping the countries top man of equipment safety standards, Paul Skyrme , sees this post and will come on and give us his expert view?


Has any forum member asked for a Declaration of Conformity from EV charging equipment manufacturers and received one?
Parents

  • davezawadi:

    You have hit the nail on the head there Graham. In fact there is no completely safe way to charge class 1 electric vehicles when the supply system is TNC-S. The whole system is "unsafe" in all usage once we start on the "what if" scenarios. For every other use we deem the TNC-S system "safe enough" for normal consumers, and the number of accidents is tiny, and usually stems from stupidity of some kind (taking the heater or radio in the bath for example). The current obsession with RCD protection and AFDDs is another part of this attempt to stop any conceivable risk at any cost, something which is  obviously an impossible goal. At the moment there are not many Ecars, so the way to make charging safe is simply to set the goal as making all new ones class 2. They can make RH drive cars, so why not class 2 ones (although this is probably not needed in Japan with 100V nominal mains often less than 90V). Now is the time for leadership, there will be no sales for months so now is the time made available to tweek a bit of electronics in a fairly simple way. In fact for a sensible fee I will do the work for them! Then PROBLEM GONE forever! All over the world, now that really is an improvement in a time of crisis. The remaining older class 1 cars will not present much risk, and nothing needs to be done to existing charging points, it is just that new ones will be simpler and safer in use. We can make virus tests, drugs, ventilators etc very quickly once there is a good reason to do so, there seems to me to be a very good reason to fix EVs. We can also throw 722 away to the annals of history to everyone's great delight.




    That would be great, but that's the product standard for the vehicle, which is outside the remit of this Forum (and indeed BS 7671).


    However, as I said in another post over the weekend, events are already overtaking this, in the form of standards for WPT for EVs, and R&D into alternatives to batteries.


    I do agree that, if at all possible, an alternative to a Class I vehicle would be preferable, but there may be a good reason why the standards specify earthing of the vehicle - finding out the reasons why the EV standards are the way they are is probably a good start ...

Reply

  • davezawadi:

    You have hit the nail on the head there Graham. In fact there is no completely safe way to charge class 1 electric vehicles when the supply system is TNC-S. The whole system is "unsafe" in all usage once we start on the "what if" scenarios. For every other use we deem the TNC-S system "safe enough" for normal consumers, and the number of accidents is tiny, and usually stems from stupidity of some kind (taking the heater or radio in the bath for example). The current obsession with RCD protection and AFDDs is another part of this attempt to stop any conceivable risk at any cost, something which is  obviously an impossible goal. At the moment there are not many Ecars, so the way to make charging safe is simply to set the goal as making all new ones class 2. They can make RH drive cars, so why not class 2 ones (although this is probably not needed in Japan with 100V nominal mains often less than 90V). Now is the time for leadership, there will be no sales for months so now is the time made available to tweek a bit of electronics in a fairly simple way. In fact for a sensible fee I will do the work for them! Then PROBLEM GONE forever! All over the world, now that really is an improvement in a time of crisis. The remaining older class 1 cars will not present much risk, and nothing needs to be done to existing charging points, it is just that new ones will be simpler and safer in use. We can make virus tests, drugs, ventilators etc very quickly once there is a good reason to do so, there seems to me to be a very good reason to fix EVs. We can also throw 722 away to the annals of history to everyone's great delight.




    That would be great, but that's the product standard for the vehicle, which is outside the remit of this Forum (and indeed BS 7671).


    However, as I said in another post over the weekend, events are already overtaking this, in the form of standards for WPT for EVs, and R&D into alternatives to batteries.


    I do agree that, if at all possible, an alternative to a Class I vehicle would be preferable, but there may be a good reason why the standards specify earthing of the vehicle - finding out the reasons why the EV standards are the way they are is probably a good start ...

Children
No Data