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

When is a PEI not a PEI?

"Prosumer" Electrical Installation that is - i.e. an installation that can both produce and consume electricity.

I've been looking over the new Part 8.

It seems to describe quite a sophisticated setup - a "smart" system if you like - dynamically changing things according to some pre-programmed algorithms - maybe to minimise imports, perhaps to export 'when the price is right', deciding whether storage (if present) should accumulate or release, or something else. There even seems to be a specific requirement that a PEI incorporate an 'Electrical Energy Management System' (EEMS) (822.4).

Which got me thinking - how does a conventional ("dumb") grid-tied PV system fit into this? - where the amount of power generated locally is uncontrolled (i.e. just depends on external variables such as sunlight) and the only "management" is what can be achieved using a length of copper and Ohm's Law (i.e. any surplus just gets exported).

Is the idea that such installations should be smarter in future, or is it just that the non-existent management system of a typical PV system can just scrape through as a 'minimal' EEMS?

    - Andy.

Parents
  • but what in particular draws your attention?

    I'm really just trying to understand the general perspective - e.g. if I wanted to install a simple 'traditional' inverter-only grid-connected PV system today (now AMD2 is in force) could I do so and still claim BS 7671 compliance, or would the lack of a specific EEMS mean I would contravene 822.4? Or could I say that the requirements only demand simple control (generate every watt you can, anything not consumed locally to be exported) thus all is required is a length of solid copper and so the requirements (of BS 7671) for a EEMS are satisfied by that, or are such simple systems not intended to be covered by part 8 at all?

    It's a bit like the 'protective equipotential bonding is installed' vs 'the requirements for protective equipotential bonding have been met' debate (461.2) - in an installation with no need of bonding (because there are no extraneous-conductive-parts) the latter would be met but not the former.

       - Andy.

  • or would the lack of a specific EEMS mean I would contravene 822.4

    As you say, some form of management system would be present in the inverter, at least to ensure compliance with Regulation 22 of ESQCR. I don't think Chapter 82 dictates what constitutes an EEMS.

    It's a bit like the 'protective equipotential bonding is installed' vs 'the requirements for protective equipotential bonding have been met' debate (461.2) - in an installation with no need of bonding (because there are no extraneous-conductive-parts) the latter would be met but not the former.

    Yes, a lot of questions are asked about 'main bonding structures outdoors' - yet main bonding only needs to be applied for 'each building' ?

Reply
  • or would the lack of a specific EEMS mean I would contravene 822.4

    As you say, some form of management system would be present in the inverter, at least to ensure compliance with Regulation 22 of ESQCR. I don't think Chapter 82 dictates what constitutes an EEMS.

    It's a bit like the 'protective equipotential bonding is installed' vs 'the requirements for protective equipotential bonding have been met' debate (461.2) - in an installation with no need of bonding (because there are no extraneous-conductive-parts) the latter would be met but not the former.

    Yes, a lot of questions are asked about 'main bonding structures outdoors' - yet main bonding only needs to be applied for 'each building' ?

Children
No Data