On 2018/12/21 at 12:47 PM, Rautenk said:

And yes, very interesting few suggestions on how the Axpert can be made "legal" as long is it is separated from the AC-Grid it falls under UPS regulations of SANS10142, so your change over switch (break-before-make) is the way to go here, but then there is a few problems that comes with that! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ3_OyOl06Y

@RautenkIs this not the answer then for the Axpert connected to grid and solar?

From this article: Eskoms Jan Oberholzer - The utility has a lot of work

To this report: http://www.ee.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Eskom-comments-to-DoE-on-Draft-IRP-2018.pdf

interesting to note the comments about renewables, specifically rooftop solar - right there where we all are at here.

That Eskom does not know how much rooftop solar is installed, assuming 300-400 MW
More studies needed to verify whether renewables ... will provide the energy security we get from base load stations
And Techical studies must be done to determine how to maintain grid stability as levels or renewables increase

Makes more and more sense why we need to register, if we are grid tied.

 

On 2019/01/03 at 2:03 PM, flamegrilled said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ3_OyOl06Y

@RautenkIs this not the answer then for the Axpert connected to grid and solar?

Hmmm, Grey area. I'll have to check the regulations. If this is SANS approved. Mostly it request a specific SANS approved change-over. 

The City of Cape Town's Embedded Generation form actually does have a diagram (from SANS10142) that explains where and how to put in the automatic change-over. 

@Rautenk Thank you. Do you perhaps have a link where we can view the Coct diagram and equipment required . I am sure many off grid Axpert users will be happy to get this change over switched method provided in the YouTube link approved. Providers of these inverter models should also be encouraged then to sell the "kit" as it could be packaged. The Axpert users are being nailed now so there should be a  kit to patch the "hole". 

TTT has provided a link to that diagram before... and as I recall it wasn't very useful.

I looked through the whole thing again just two days ago, considering both NRS097-2-1 and SANS 10142-2-1. The former says that if you're using a UPS as an embedded generator (you are), then SANS tells you what is needed. SANS says you must have a changeover that ticks certain boxes, those being 1) sufficiently interlocking, and 2) must switch both live and neutral. The Axpert does neither.

I spent a little time to make sure of that second requirement, but it seems that must be correct. There is one loophole: If you have three phase power and the backup feeds in at the same main supply point, then you are allowed to leave the neutrals connected. See here:

But the moment this feeds only a part of the installation OR you are single phase...

And then further...

This particular section doesn't relate only to transfer switches but to all disconnecting devices. If my understanding is correct, then it also applies to transfer switches.

BUT... and this is where most of my thinking has been... you could also attempt to do it the other way. Even though the inverter does not feed into the grid, you could attempt to prove that even if it DID it complies fully for a grid-connected inverter. And the more I think about it... there is a chance that this can be done. The requirements requires merely that there must be two series disconnection switches (there are) and that one of them must be a physical switch that switches both live and neutral (the "safety switch" in the Axpert switches both live and neutral), so technically you only need to show that it will always open this switch within 0.5 seconds after the grid fails, or more specifically, when it goes out of bounds, and then it might well comply.

But I suspect a testing house needs to do this testing.

 

 

Edited January 8, 20197 yr by plonkster

Seriously don't understand that when the Voltronics email said they sell Axperts as OFF-GRID inverters, that a stock standard off the shelf Sparky installed generator disconnect setup is not used.

I know we males always want to try all sides around the tree... left, right, over, under ... but at some time you simply go through it. 

Had a Interlock that solved the problem for Axperts. Today there must be better devices.

Being off-grid also makes the registration easier and cheaper ... 

Nike it! (Just do it) ... and get the stock standard off the shelf decades old Sparky generator disconnect installed and be done.

5 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Seriously don't understand that when the Voltronics email said they sell Axperts as OFF-GRID inverters, that a stock standard off the shelf Sparky installed generator disconnect setup is not used.

I still think you should not read too much into the "off grid" term. Most online sellers list Victron inverters in the "off grid" section simply because they don't know these are hybrid. Others will call a thing off-grid because it isn't hybrid... but it doesn't necessarily mean they don't intend you to ever connect "a" grid somewhere. In the case of the voltronics... it has an AC-input and a built-in charger. Quite clearly they intended for the grid to be connected at least SOME of the time! :-)

But it might be that in some places a particular device is only USEFUL when installed in a certain manner, and I actually agree with you, it is easy to do it. The only caveat is that you can then not use AC for charging... which in many cases is perfectly fine: Lots of people already don't want to use AC for charging.

Then you simply build a changeover switch using two interlocked contactors, and you control them with a BMV. Problem solved.

6 hours ago, plonkster said:

But I suspect a testing house needs to do this testing.

And then you have a NRS097-2-1:2017 tested inverter and would be called a Hybrid system and you can use the Change Over device as you noted.

There is a better drawing in the "new" version of SANS taking UPS and EG into consideration and showing how to connect the switch. Note that for CoCT this would need to be a NRS type tested inverter type. I wanted to mention that the Neutral Switching is determined by the type of earthing that you have.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Rautenk said:

the Neutral Switching is determined by the type of earthing that you have

If I read this correctly, it depends on whether the inverter bonds N-PE. If the inverter doesn't bond it, then it is in fact safer not to disconnect the neutral (and thereby leave the existing bond in place).

Thanks for your reply, this certainly makes it a lot clearer. My only question is: Does this also apply for single phase (I assume not)?

I would assume that Single Phase would have the same requirements.

Stating this though, if your Munic bonding is not good you might have to introduce a N-PE bonding, to actually have your earth leakage trip... I have been shown examples where an Axpert has been installed and earthing was done wrong (no N-PE bridge either) then when earthleakage tester was used no results.

 

Always test and when you are still unsure test again... The next Einsteins life may depend on it... 

On 2019/01/08 at 9:13 AM, The Terrible Triplett said:

Seriously don't understand that when the Voltronics email said they sell Axperts as OFF-GRID inverters, that a stock standard off the shelf Sparky installed generator disconnect setup is not used.

I know we males always want to try all sides around the tree... left, right, over, under ... but at some time you simply go through it. 

Had a Interlock that solved the problem for Axperts. Today there must be better devices.

Being off-grid also makes the registration easier and cheaper ... 

Nike it! (Just do it) ... and get the stock standard off the shelf decades old Sparky generator disconnect installed and be done.

This is probably to cover them from any legal actions.

Sure, this should be fixable, as you say, with the changeover setup used for generators, BUT will COCT accept it? Only time will tell, i.e. when they start implementing this bylaw.

9 minutes ago, SilverNodashi said:

BUT will COCT accept it?

Yes they will as it is now not connected to the grid/DB, powering separate circuits, and registered as a off-grid installation. 

All the boxes are therefor ticked. 

On 2018/11/29 at 1:13 PM, Craigw200 said:

Sho this is going to make for a complicated few months.

As a solar installer, we have countless systems, and many of them are not on the 'approved inverter list'.

 

I spoke with Leon Swart from COCT today and he basically said that he has a minimum of 30 applications on his desk every day

I'm guessing there will be a huge surge in applications in the next month.

I expect there will be quite a bit of a delay in this process

35 minutes ago, Steven Burnett said:

I'm guessing there will be a huge surge in applications in the next month.

I expect there will be quite a bit of a delay in this process

Let's see how it goes. Cape Townians will go where no man has gone with their Axperts

Listen to Ted Blom on CliifCentral, where Gareth says "New level stupid ..." when talking about coal supply and Eskom not even thinking about it, the new board that is.

But it seems that Ted has a "dog in the fight", disgruntled losing Eskom business, but then again Ted offered his services to Eskom pro-bono 5 years ago ... and they never took him up on his offer.
But then I have never heard of people paying R5 pkW in Cape Town. Anyone?
Then again the renewable players named in the interview, from whom Eskom MUST buy ... mmmmm ... :

• Cyril via via Shanduka Energy
• Mr Motsepe via African Rainbow
• Mr Gadebe

Bottom line: According to Ted, unless a knowledgeable task team is brought in and they change the business model, max R0.40c per Kw that Eskom sells at, their is no chance Eskom will survive. We, the tax and electricity payers, are going to cough up more and more each year.

Here, listen to it yourself: http://cliffcentral.com/gcs/gareths-guests/ted-blom/

Makes me wonder that CoCT is actually preemptive in wanting to see how many system are in place already, and planned, because as we stand today, I've heard, CoCT can run without Eskom supply if the load is low enough, thanks to Steenbras (CoCT owned) as Palmiet is owned by Eskom.

And not forgetting that CoCT wants to "meet its target for renewable energy to make up 20% of total energy used in the city by 2020".

Makes it so much more reasonable to force users who want to connect to the municipal grid, to use the right equipment and follow the regulations ... future proofing for when CoCT goes "off-grid". 

Edited January 11, 20197 yr by Guest

2 hours ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

And not forgetting that CoCT wants to "meet its target for renewable energy to make up 20% of total energy used in the city by 2020".

Does anyone else feel a little "used"? I mean... this is a bit like those reports that go roughly "under the leadership of XXX we did this and that"... so even if XXX was a complete idiot, anything good that happened during his tenure is lumped into the whole and claimed as a success :-)

So even if the city meets their 20%... it might not be because they are particularly wonderful. I mean at least there is some incentive and it is better than in many other places... but using your residents' get-off-the-grid efforts to boost your own renewable creds remains a little... well... abusive :-)

1 hour ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Makes it so much more reasonable to force users who want to connect to the municipal grid, to use the right equipment and follow the regulations ... future proofing for when CoCT goes "off-grid". 

I'd be more a fan of the OZ approach, where people want to register and comply as there is an incentive.  

And why not? There is a real economic justification or worth having people make there own or make their excess power available.

R170 billion for an unfinished Medupi!

Sometimes, i like to do some sanity check sums with theses big numbers that keep on being used, it keeps things in perspective.

What would that buy in solar?

OK, lets say a 2kW system installed costs R100K, that's 1.7 million houses that could've been done.

Making 3400 MW, and making it where it was needed, avoiding the 15% losses in transmission.

That's worth 3910MW at the power station door, which incidentally is just about spot on what the 5 commissioned machines at Medupi are capable of.

I absolutely concede, that life is not as idealistic as that, I am just demonstrating that the in-feed tarrif rates are a finger in the eye it is for people who have actually forked out their own R100K.

Those people have actually outlaid a proportionally equivalent amount of capital per kW.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, phil.g00 said:

... , where people want to register and comply as there is an incentive.  

First though that popped into my mind is the ones who cannot afford solar, i.e. the majority, going on strike shouting under a red banner by hauling out the racist card, calling it a racist scheme. 

Where is Jhb / Pta / Durban / PE / Bloem ito their renewables? Jhb is the one penalizing the end users, to not go grid tied, not CoCT. In Cpt just don't feed, NERSA being the problem..

Seriously, no jokes. Someone will see the other problems and ... hold on, here it is ...

1 hour ago, plonkster said:

... little... well... abusive :-)

See!!! Case point, not the racist card, but the abusive card. Someone is going to bitch and moan about something. :-) 

If the DA in CPT looses in the next election, watch then how hard the "new ones" are going to claim "credit" for all the renewable efforts in Cape Town, and they will not allow feedback under any form or type of incentive, ever.

 

Guys, you cannot win when politicians and big bucks are involved, EVER. This fiasco is so huge, everything else pales in comparison.

As such, the part that was the focus is that Eskom does not seem to "get it" under Cyril's new team and that it appears that Cyril and Co is somewhere involved in renewables, at a premium price per kwh. That maybe CoCT is aiming to go "off-grid" - I mean, Lille and Zille did at one stage say they want to go to the Con Court to challenge the constitution ito where CoCT can buy power from - before they "washed out" in the last drought.

We should collectively support that, no?

Now we all know renewable's are not for the poor.

But the poor can benefit for free. 

I have mentioned to CoCT, thrice now, give me a bi-directional meter, tell me what I must feed back per annum for free for them to use as they see fit, so that I can use the grid as storage, selling the surplus at the same price CoCT pays per kw/h excl VAT. Only question is, WHO pays for maintaining the Munic grid?

Edited January 11, 20197 yr by Guest

31 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

See!!! Case point, not the racist card, but the abusive card. Someone is going to bitch and moan about something. :-) 

Hey, I'm not saying don't do it! :-)

It is also somewhat motivated by a similar thing going on with NERSA. Remember that legislation that got sent back a few months ago for being too vague? The one that supposedly meant the government wants to tax the sun? That also has, as one of its goals, the requirement for registration so that all the privately installed capacity can be counted towards the whole, because there were certain national goals set some time ago. In that respect too, I felt that it is a bit unfair to take the efforts of people who not only paid for their own stuff but often did so because of your (aka government's) incompetence and then count it as one of your successes.

Now is this what Cape Town is doing? Perhaps not, so far it actually doesn't look like it. But I'd like to see them come to the party a bit more before they can lay claim to private installed capacity. Now to be fair... perhaps they are hamstrung by legislation (I think that is actually true) and it isn't really possible to do more... so maybe I'm being too hard on them... but even then I still don't think they can use the registration process to discover unknown capacity and then claim their 20% goal as a success based on that. That is just my opinion.

Under the leadership of Jacob Zuma we screwed up Eskom so badly that half the country went Solar. What an amazing success by Jacob Zuma for climate change!

(See what I mean? :-) ).

I don't think the registering is anything that sinister, probably more for statistics sake for planning future demand. Why build more powerstations if the private sector is installing rooftop solar at a faster rate?

2 minutes ago, DeepBass9 said:

I don't think the registering is anything that sinister, probably more for statistics sake for planning future demand. Why build more powerstations if the private sector is installing rooftop solar at a faster rate?

We are too poor to afford this.

Yes, CoCT is hamstrung by NERSA and the Constitution, same as with the water fiasco.

And yes, under Zuma, not by his design, but under his leadership, we did FF ito solar. Most definitely!

If CoCT could they would buy from homeowners tomorrow at the same rate they pay Eskom per kw. Ex VAT obviously. They want to do that one day.

And if they want to claim my panels as part of their 20%, if that is their intention, then go for it. It is not about me, myself and I, it is about CoCT reaching our collective goals, to attract more and better investments, as a city.

I don't see why we always have to be rewarded, given initiatives. Sometimes we can just do it because it is right, the long play.

That is my opinion. :-) 

1 minute ago, DeepBass9 said:

I don't think the registering is anything that sinister, probably more for statistics sake for planning future demand. Why build more powerstations if the private sector is installing rooftop solar at a faster rate?

I normally hold by the mantra that one should not blame malice when incompetence is an adequate explanation. When it comes to government, that is often true. Not that everything they do is bad (of course not), and not that there aren't capable people there (of course there are), just that at the end of it... you usually find the reason something went a certain way was because something was neglected... rather than purposefully planned. This does not mean however that a politician cannot come afterwards and claim success. Which they often do :-)

1 minute ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

If CoCT could they would buy from homeowners tomorrow at the same rate they pay Eskom per kw. Ex VAT obviously. They want to do that one day. 

And if they want to claim my panels as part of their 20%, if that is their intention, then go for it. It is not about me, myself and I, it is about CoCT reaching our collective goals, to attract more and better investments, as a city. 

That's what I meant in my post. I don't mind if you use me as part of your success... but then be a part of that success. In other words make it attractive, or help pay for it (eg rebate system). I concede that CoCT is far ahead of the other cities in this regard, but in my opinion they don't yet get to claim to be a part of that success. Not just yet.