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

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
  • 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.

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

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

Children
No Data