Ed Throws Trade Bodies Into Chaos Over DIY Solar!

psychicwarrior said:

Cue another early amendment and Section in BS7671 and   another 'membership' level in the brilliant CPSs for the trade to do DIY Solar installs.

BS7671 AMD5 does have a ring to it.  JPEL64 must be fuming

Chris Pearson said:

That's a bit harsh. Perhaps if the manufacturers wish to market the systems in UK, they should have been finding a way to make them compliant with BS 7671, etc.

Why does a system that is not permanently installed, and plugs in to a socket, even need to comply with BS7671? My kettle doesn't comply with BS7671 either.

It might be easier to have this discussion in one thread instead of two. Granted a 'balcony' PV system is not part of the installation, but 551.7.2(ii) forbids its connection to a final circuit with a plug and socket.

551.7.2(ii) forbids its connection to a final circuit with a plug and socket.

Curiously a circuit with only a generator connected to it wouldn't count as a final circuit - as it has no current-using equipment (or sockets for current-using equipment) - and that prohibition doesn't apply to non-final circuits. Probably not what was intended, but...

Then there's the question of whether a plug-in appliance generator (presumably complying with some suitable equipment standard) are deemed to be part of the BS 7671 installation at all - The scope of 551 talks about "installations which incorporate generating sets" - the dictionary meaning of incorporate could be read either way to my mind - whether something that could be unplugged at a whim is really an part of the whole, or merely a temporary addition to it.

   - Andy.

I think that the Government's press release makes it clear that existing ordinary BS 1363 sockets would be used:

The free solar power can be used directly through a mains socket like any other device, without an installation cost ..."[my emphasis].

However, let's park that for the moment.

AJJewsbury said:

Curiously a circuit with only a generator connected to it wouldn't count as a final circuit

Agreed. However, if you were to use a plug and socket, it would have to be distinct from BS 1363, etc., so why not the special German one?

The German socket appears to have female contacts, so would comply with the definition of a socket-outlet, but a socket-inlet could be defined.

On this basis, indent 1 of 551.7.2 applies, so we do not have to worry about sub-paragraph (ii) of indent 2.

AJJewsbury said:

The scope of 551 talks about "installations which incorporate generating sets"

It is an interesting choice of word. An alternative might be, "embody". Also, 550.1 refers to, "... equipment ... intended to be part of the fixed installation." 

There I struggle. If any generating set which is plugged in is out of scope of Chapter 55, sub-paragraph (ii) of 551.7.2 is otiose.

Interesting debate!

As I said on the other thread on this topic this is not a matter for BS 7671 so no new amendment is needed.

I also pointed out placing these devices on the UK market is unlawful.

I forgot to mention that BS 1363 for 13A sockets does not permit them to be used for connecting a generator.

Assuming that Mrs Trellis has purchased one of these answer to all our energy problems and she plugs it in to a socket and it has a Type A bi-directional RCD, and it has anti-islanding, and there is a fault to earth and the RCD trips off happy days. But what if Mrs Trellis is so impressed with her free source of electricity and she buys another one and plugs it in to a socket on the same circuit or a multi-way extension lead what could possibly go wrong with that?

The same store that was mentioned in the press does bags of assorted cable ties that will be needed to hand the device out of the window when Mrs Trellis has done her wind uplift calculation.

Of course if Mrs Trellis  lives in a tower block HRB she, and all her neighbours, will seek consent from the fire engineer who produced the fire strategy for the building? Careful how you drill the facia cladding Mrs Trellis when you try to get the panel to face the sun at the correct angle to get your full 400W.

Of course if you asked the relevant Minister for an explanation on what questions he asked before he made his bold strategy you will get a comprehensive answer including the details of the safety study by competent engineers not big business sales executives. Probably a bit like asking the Minister of Defence how many warships we have and getting Um Err, and he did not get asked the bonus question which was and how many warships do we have that could go to sea at immediate notice? The answer to the bonus question is none but don't worry as Germany has lent us one so we take part in a NATO exercise.

You can tell that I do not have any confidence  in any of our politicians of any party to be truthful and do anything useful.

I once worked for a former conservative MP and his stock answers to questions was, "I don't carry that level of detail around in my head" and "I won't trouble you with the detail".

You can expect full shelves of plug in solar at all the usual warehouse outlets and on line with brisk sales to the gullible public. Quickly followed by plug in battery storage from the far East.

JP

John Peckham said:

answer to all our energy problems

If 1.2 million of these are installed, that would be 1 GW on full output, which is what comes ashore just down the road in IFA2.

Biggest problem with solar is that the sun does not shine enough when you need it most, i.e. in December and January.

Chris Pearson said:

If 1.2 million of these are installed, that would be 1 GW on full output, which is what comes ashore just down the road in IFA2.

Biggest problem with solar is that the sun does not shine enough when you need it most, i.e. in December and January.

It's the distinction between energy and power - those solar systems provide a quantity of energy each year, reducing the amount required from fossil fueled sources and so they act as a fuel saving measure, reducing UK consumption of gas/LNG, reducing carbon emissions. But yes, they are not firm, dispatchable power generation so do not reduce the amount of firm, dispatchable generating capacity to any significant degree.

Of course, that starts to change if these are installed with battery storage, which is firm/dispatchable.

John Peckham said:

Of course if you asked the relevant Minister for an explanation on what questions he asked before he made his bold strategy you will get a comprehensive answer including the details of the safety study by competent engineers not big business sales executives.

There are engineers with a "can do" attitude, and ones with a "can't do" attitude. The latter are the ones who will tell you that you can't do something, even when someone else is already doing it.

I appreciate that every little helps, but the notion that wind and solar can provide enough leccy here in temperate Europe seems fanciful.

I'd like to see a lot more nuclear.

Chris Pearson said:

I appreciate that every little helps, but the notion that wind and solar can provide enough leccy here in temperate Europe seems fanciful.

I'd like to see a lot more nuclear

I don't think anyone is arguing wind and solar can meet all of Europe's electricity needs, but what is argued is that wind and solar can meet some portion of that demand, a growing portion, thereby reducing the amount we need to obtain from burning fossil fuels, with fossil fuels (in the UK with it's limited hydro/elec storage) providing the firm, dispatchable, flexible generation to fill in the gaps of renewables output. 

From the engineering perspective, that's a very defensible position, it's perfectly possible. The critique is more economic, the costs of that renewable generation and the overall system costs from the greater total generating capacity required to handle the intermittency.

Nuclear has the benefit of being a steady source of generation, presumably with lower system costs from less need for back-up and better use of the transmission network, but the problem is the very high cost and significant financial and engineering risks associated with nuclear power plant construction, plus the very long construction times.

Chris Pearson said:

I appreciate that every little helps, but the notion that wind and solar can provide enough leccy here in temperate Europe seems fanciful.

I'd like to see a lot more nuclear

I don't think anyone is arguing wind and solar can meet all of Europe's electricity needs, but what is argued is that wind and solar can meet some portion of that demand, a growing portion, thereby reducing the amount we need to obtain from burning fossil fuels, with fossil fuels (in the UK with it's limited hydro/elec storage) providing the firm, dispatchable, flexible generation to fill in the gaps of renewables output. 

From the engineering perspective, that's a very defensible position, it's perfectly possible. The critique is more economic, the costs of that renewable generation and the overall system costs from the greater total generating capacity required to handle the intermittency.

Nuclear has the benefit of being a steady source of generation, presumably with lower system costs from less need for back-up and better use of the transmission network, but the problem is the very high cost and significant financial and engineering risks associated with nuclear power plant construction, plus the very long construction times.