Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 13 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 4443 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

PV submain cables: 712.521.101

Jam

Hi all,

To paraphrase the regulation (not a verbatim quote, my emphasis), "Cables on the DC side shall be selected so as to minise risk of faults. This shall be achieved by (i) single-core cables having a non-metallic sheath or (ii) singles in individual conduits. Other types of wiring system providing an equivalent level of safety are not precluded"

So... this appears to be a conflict between a "shall be XX" and "other options are available".

  1. Should this really be read as "This could be achieved by"?
  2. Does a cable construction such as single core two layers of insuation* under a wire/tape armour with non-metallic sheath give you an option for burial of larger DC main/submains? I feel like it strictly does, but isn't what the authors had in mind when drafting the description... but I also think it gives the same degree of safety (or potentially improved)

*No, I don't mean bedding

I note that this is a watered down version of the DFPC that didn't have the opt-out clause.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Parents
  • 0

    Thanks for that Graham - very interesting.

    Was there a slight slip on slide 8 though? It seems to show a separate EESS connected to the same way in the CU as a the PV inverter - shouldn't they be on separate ways (712.551.7.2 - as the EESS will be current-using when charging).

       - Andy.

Reply
  • 0

    Thanks for that Graham - very interesting.

    Was there a slight slip on slide 8 though? It seems to show a separate EESS connected to the same way in the CU as a the PV inverter - shouldn't they be on separate ways (712.551.7.2 - as the EESS will be current-using when charging).

       - Andy.

Children
  • 0 in reply to AJJewsbury

    Yes, this is a transform error in the graphics. THe original drawing (in the CoP it's taken from) shows separate ways.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines