Things like Napit Codebreakers will also need to be updated to reflect the information in

PAS 63100:2024

as will OnSite Guide maybe. 

Chris Pearson said:

I do not quite understand the 200 m² limit to the scope - the loft space of a larger house is unlikely to be any safer than one of a small house.

No-one said it's safe in an attic in a larger house, just that there are agreed limitations for this Edition of the PAS for other reasons that I explained.

Chris Pearson said:

On a more practical note, does it matter electrically where the battery is sited please? (I had thought that it would make sense to keep all the DC bits together.)

'Electrically' is a strange word to use, because it does matter that overcurrent protection is provided very close to the battery (wherever the battery is sited), and further that we don't have wires floating around outside enclosures that have no overcurrent protection.

Yes, keeping DC together is a great idea, but in practice there are other issues that might take precedence.

It's a fine balance, because unprotected solar PV cables running through premises are also a potential concern.

Definitely an interesting debate.

I'm a little concerned about the focus on "why not the loft", given other "in plain sight" issues that the PAS highlights.

For example, it's not unusual at the moment to see a gG NH-type fuseholder, that can be simply pulled on-load, even by children, to be installed. Or monoblocs (sometimes simply placed on the floor) plugged together using the Amphenol-type "press and pull" battery terminals, again accessible to just anyone, including children or young people, to open on-load.

These practices are also non-conformant to PAS 63100, and affect systems not installed in lofts too.

Sergio Fernandez said:

OnSite Guide maybe.

Possibly, but domestic storage and PV are not well covered at the moment in OSG.

gkenyon said:

Quite simply, the lack of a standard for domestic lithium batteries causes their selection to be a "non-standard approach" as far as BS 7671 is concerned.

The Abstract to BS EN IEC 63056, which is apparently under the umbrella of BS EN IEC 62619 states:

“Examples of appliances that are within the scope of this document are:

• telecommunications,

• central emergency lighting and alarm systems,

• stationary engine starting,

• photovoltaic systems,

• home (residential) energy storage systems (HESS), and

• large energy storage: on-grid/off-grid.”

So I do wonder if they are outside scope for BS7671? 

If a manufacturer supplies a complete solution, PCE, battery storage, all functional equipment monitoring and management as a ‘certified’ product, does BS7671 care or apply to the internals of said product? 

gkenyon said:

BS EN IEC 62485 series

I did look up that standard - I got to part 3 - Vehicles and then part 5 - which excludes lithium based batteries…

I might need a mortgage or at least shared in BSI soon! Ha! 

gkenyon said:

Hope this is useful ... please keep providing feedback as it will help standards develop as we use them.

Love a good debate! 

Thanks

Martyn

Still struggling with this ‘new’ forum, massive downgrade from the good ol’ days. 

Sadly does seem to have been missed by a  not insignificant number - the socials have started to pick up on it now…

I missed the comment phase…

Martyn said:

the socials have started to pick up on it now…

Yes, I think it featured in a popular electrical industry news bulletin earlier this week.

I guess people are obsessing with lofts because it is going to prevent a lot of installations going forward on a cost basis. Personally I'm more bothered by the prohibiting of siting in basements that don't have access to the outside of a building (i mean what basements do? Oh of course the ones in America)
I was surprised that the issue of weight of batteries in lofts was not dealt with by enforcing a structure report similar to that required of solar panels on pitched roofs. I get the compartment issue but again theres a lot more lithium ion batteries in the US which is probably why they prefer locating the battery outside.

Also seems a little excessive to enforce LD2 level fire detection throughout the building if installing an inverter in the loft, or a battery in a permitted place indoors. I would have thought LD3 “plus” an additional linked detector where the ESS is sited would be adequate. 

All items that could be more realistically adopted and easily explained to the consumer.

Id prefer an evidence led cost benefit approach to managing risk. 

Im more worried about toddlers sticking usb leads in their mouths than i am with their ability to remove an Amphenol connector. You need strong hands for those. That said i take your point about being able to remove ‘on load’.

DA said:

i mean what basements do? Oh of course the ones in America

Basement flats in cities?

DA said:

Im more worried about toddlers sticking usb leads in their mouths than i am with their ability to remove an Amphenol connector. You need strong hands for those. That said i take your point about being able to remove ‘on load’.

It's not toddlers per-say, children covers up to age 18 at the moment. Equally relevant in this consideration, is that Intentionally causing an arc can be used to intentionally cause a fire, which is far less of a problem with most of our AC stuff ... but more problematic if you provide easy access to a source of DC arcs.

DA said:

Id prefer an evidence led cost benefit approach to managing risk. 

There's a huge issue with that. By definition, to get the evidence, we have to wait until things start going wrong, perhaps people losing their lives.

And then we are quick to say "we are always too late in the UK".

However, isn't there evidence in the fact that some insurance companies are starting to see increased risks in EV, Solar and Battery?

DA said:

Also seems a little excessive to enforce LD2 level fire detection throughout the building if installing an inverter in the loft, or a battery in a permitted place indoors. I would have thought LD3 “plus” an additional linked detector where the ESS is sited would be adequate. 

But this is already in BS 5839-6, as noted in the 2nd Edition of the IET CoP for EESS ... so it's already in standards, and nothing new!!!!

The system by definition can no longer be LD3 once you put the "additional detector" in there. You've added a "high risk room".

Why would a standard for fire protection of domestic battery storage installations not align with the provisions of the standard for domestic fire detection and fire alarm systems?

basements that don't have access to the outside of a building (i mean what basements do?

Actually it's quite common in this part of the world - being rather hilly, many places are built on a slope, so it's quite common to have have the front door at ground level at the front and the back door/basement/cellar access "basement" level at the back.

   - Andy.