The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

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

Another change in AMD2 - 551.7.2 - embedded parallel generation

551.7.2 is the one that says where you have some kind generating set (e.g. embedded generation) connected directly to a final circuit (i.e. a circuit that also has current-consuming equipment or sockets connected) then the conductors of the final circuit need to be rated for the sum of the protective device and the generated current - Iz ≥ In + Ig

I've long argued both that the laws of physics aren't peculiar to final circuits and that there overload of conductors can be avoided in more subtle ways in many circumstances - e.g. by feeding the mains supply and generator from opposite ends of a conductor.

They've now extended 551.7.2 so that the same logic is now to be applied to 'a low voltage switchgear and controlgear assembly' - which I presume includes CUs and DBs, which seems a bit odd to me.

Firstly it still seems to neglect distribution circuits (which can serve loads as well as the generator - e.g. an PV CU henley'd into the tails with the normal CU).

Secondly it seems to outlaw the normal practice of connecting PV and similar to a way in the main CU unless the DNO's fuse can be shown to be <<100A or the assembly is rated for In+Ig (e.g. 100A + 16A for the PV so 116A) - which as far as I know only the fictitious 'Concept' CU range was. Even if the PV is connected to the opposite end of the bus-bar from the main incomer and so overloading of any part seems impossible, it would still not comply.

Are there going to be lots of PV installations getting C2s on the next EICRs for lack of overload protection?

      - Andy.

Parents
  • In the case of a final circuit I can see the logic of requiring that the cable be rated for the total of the embedded generation and the OCPD.

    Depending on the exact layout, which may change, then parts of the circuit could be loaded to a total of the PV production AND the OCPD.

    iIn the case of a distribution circuit then it depends on the location of the embedded generation. If a 63 amp Fuse AND a 16 amp PV inverter feed the origin of the circuit, then it could be loaded to 79 amps and the cable rating should reflect this.

    If however the grid tie inverter is located at the load end of the 63 amp distribution circuit then the TOTAL LOAD could reach 79 amps, but the cable used for the distribution circuit cant be loaded to more than 63 amps.  

Reply
  • In the case of a final circuit I can see the logic of requiring that the cable be rated for the total of the embedded generation and the OCPD.

    Depending on the exact layout, which may change, then parts of the circuit could be loaded to a total of the PV production AND the OCPD.

    iIn the case of a distribution circuit then it depends on the location of the embedded generation. If a 63 amp Fuse AND a 16 amp PV inverter feed the origin of the circuit, then it could be loaded to 79 amps and the cable rating should reflect this.

    If however the grid tie inverter is located at the load end of the 63 amp distribution circuit then the TOTAL LOAD could reach 79 amps, but the cable used for the distribution circuit cant be loaded to more than 63 amps.  

Children
No Data