12 minutes ago, weber said:

Is a Capetown-approved standalone PV system, as shown in the following brochure, allowed to have a power inlet so it can be charged from a petrol generator?

https://www.westerncape.gov.za/energy-security-game-changer/files/atoms/files/Energy-PV-Brochure.pdf

Yes it is.

On 2018/07/20 at 4:45 PM, The Terrible Triplett said:

Just in, Engineers cost for signing off a grid-tied system, this is fair.

Qualifications: Pr.Eng. , MSc. Eng (Electronics)
Fees:
Band 1: Fixed fee for systems smaller than 2.5kW: R 2 500 (R 2 875.00 incl)
Band 2: Above 2.5kW the cost is an additional R0.50c per Watt up to 10kW. (R 4 312.50 + R 2 875.00) 
Band 3: Per additional Watt above 10kW it lowers to R0.20c. (etc)
So a 10kw system would cost R 6 250 + VAT = R 7 187.50 incl VAT

Now that makes sense to me, not a flat R10k stock standard price irrespective of the size of the system, or whether it is on/off grid.

One still has to sort the CoC before engineer arrives.

If you want the details, PM me, for it is not a good idea to leave salient details wide open.

 

Note: Off-grid needs no engineers report, I quote CoCT email:
For an off grid system you need to complete the off grid declaration form attached and provide CoC. The City will investigate to determine if the system is off grid if so, provide an approval letter. There’s no need to appoint an Engineer for an off-grid system.

 

If any one knows the court cases I had with CoCT then get you system approved. Although the courts thus far went 98% in my favour the time wasted is unbelevable.  When you deal with councils you always have to remember ego = 1/knowledge*wisdom.
They do not mind dragging you in court and waste your time. They get paid to act like that even if you are right.
My 2c do it right and save time you might win $ but loose time

2 minutes ago, Erastus said:

If any one knows the court cases I had with CoCT then get you system approved.

Can you give us a precis of what transpired or a link to a judgement.

 

The court case is still ongoing. But many things.  :

1. They did not have 3 years meter readings.
2. They had faulty readings according to them we used 72Kwh per day
3. I asked my meter to get a calibration certificate so the meter went missing.
4. They tried to convince me that an 7 digit Landys & Gear meter clocked over in 3 years meaning I use like R 160K electricity a month.
5. They then cut water and electricity calculated that I ow +/- R380 K
6. They then send me an isolation certificate  to proof the accuracy of the missing meter ( 4 years later) with a date of 2001 on the certificate
7. I installed solar and all hell broke loose
8. They send 58 staff of the council to investigate my property
9. They then tried to sell my house on a public auction and that was stopped by the Sheriff as the council acted like the Mafia
10. Drug manufacturing, illegal gas connection, illegal solar system illegal electrical system running a prostitution and ...
11. They then gone into the records and find I had a concrete retainer wall and not a terraforce. They then charge me because they did not approve that and my swimming pool swimming pool was easy
12. CoCt then insisted I must get core drilling done for the wall to be approved ( +/- R110k)
13. This is ongoing over a period of 14 years. When they cut my power I lost all my show koi
14. Slowly but surely the tide turned and by grace and only grace the court turned a guilty verdict into a court order against the council to prove the wall that saved me the core drilling
15. I had to get my electricity certification redone because the council had to replace the missing meter.
16. They the realize that my house was illegally approved and that my erf has a 4.5M height restriction on it. Thus my water tanks and solar is illegal.

That is in short what I endure.

When you dealing with CoCT remember they are out to get you not to work with you.

This is a very short and cryptic summary

Currently the CoCT has lost +/-R70K on legal fees, they now (last week) dropped all charges on electricity and issued a new summons .
Thus far they credit +/- R300K

Therefore if I can make a suggestion make sure you do it right even if they are 10)% wrong they have the ability to absorb your time because they have no ethics.
Like the one said we are the law we can do this to you

You will also find interesting that they argued in court that my solar system is illegal because if it is standing up right it is higher than 1.5M. Thus any solar panel mounted on a roof with a length longer than 1.5M according to CoCT is illegal. According to the building inspectors this is a problem. SO if you have 2 panels mounted on one frame then the combined height is 3.2M and illegal.

When you try and argue with these people who can not understand maths it is very difficult. I was warned  by the magistrate for misleading the court ..." a samoesa is a triangle ".. therefore there is not a perpendicular

Edited September 18, 20187 yr by Erastus

@weber do you have the same problems with connecting Axperts as grid-tied in Australia. If one runs in standalone mode as shown in the City of Cape Town pamphlet, and then switch the stand alone load between grid and Axpert output, there should not be any legal implications. I recall the @Coulomb mentioned a remotely controlable changeover switch. Is that what you guys use and would you mind posting details of how you handle the problem. That is assuming the problem exists in Australia. @Coulomb if you have a different switch the same information of your setup would also be much appreciated.

I realize that all battery charging will have to be solar but that would not be a problem. I only do a bit of grid charging in the evening to keep the charge voltage at maximum, which is lower than my T105 bulk charge voltage, for some 90 minutes on advice from Trojan. I fortunately live in a rural municipality, bordering on C of CT to the north and registration of standalone installations is not required.

2 hours ago, weber said:

allowed to have a power inlet so it can be charged from a petrol generator?

I don't see why not...

59 minutes ago, Erastus said:

This is a very short and cryptic summary

Sounds to me someone wants you out ... does your property have any value that someone else is after?

With me you are preaching to the choir having heard what happens when your system is not properly installed and registered. Easy one is a fine and forced removal ... going to court is bad bad news. Seldom there is a clear smiling winner in the end.

See, with any legal action, there are 5 sides to the story:
1) The truth
2) One's own perceived version of the truth
3) One's attorneys interpretation of one's perceived version of the truth.
4) The oppositions attorneys interpretation of their perceived version of the truth
5) What the judge / magistrate says the truth is ... 

And then they use big Latin words too. 

Like my attorney always says: If a client comes to him with a case "as a matter of principal", he smiles widely. Easy money. 
After explaining in detail the potential costs, the chances of winning / losing, the hardships ahead, the escalating costs, if the client still insists "as a matter of principal" to continue, he then asks for 50% of the costs upfront. He does this to save the client money, seriously, he does. It is there to ensure that he does not end up being out of pocket nor him having to pay the advocates their fees, when the client runs out of money.

Because by the time that 50% (or less) is spent on legal fees, 99.99% of the time the "matter of principal" has "left the building".

You @Erastus , in my book, you are a very brave man for going to court this long. Respect.

1 minute ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Sounds to me someone wants you out ... does your property have any value that someone else is after?

With me you are preaching to the choir having heard what happens when your system is not properly installed and registered. Easy one is a fine and forced removal ... going to court is bad bad news. Seldom there is a clear smiling winner in the end.

See, with any legal action, there are 5 sides to the st

6 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Sounds to me someone wants you out ... does your property have any value that someone else is after?

With me you are preaching to the choir having heard what happens when your system is not properly installed and registered. Easy one is a fine and forced removal ... going to court is bad bad news. Seldom there is a clear smiling winner in the end.

See, with any legal action, there are 5 sides to the story:
1) The truth
2) One's own perceived version of the truth
3) One's attorneys interpretation of one's perceived version of the truth.
4) The oppositions attorneys interpretation of their perceived version of the truth
5) What the judge / magistrate says the truth is ... 

And then they use big Latin words too. 

Like my attorney always says: If a client comes to him with a case "as a matter of principal", he smiles widely. Easy money. 
After explaining in detail the potential costs, the chances of winning / losing, the hardships ahead, the escalating costs, if the client still insists "as a matter of principal" to continue, he then asks for 50% of the costs upfront. He does this to save the client money, seriously, he does. It is there to ensure that he does not end up being out of pocket nor him having to pay the advocates their fees, when the client runs out of money.

Because by the time that 50% (or less) is spent on legal fees, 99.99% of the time the "matter of principal" has "left the building".

You @Erastus , in my book, you are a very brave man for going to court this long. Respect.

ory:
1) The truth
2) One's own perceived version of the truth
3) One's attorneys interpretation of one's perceived version of the truth.
4) The oppositions attorneys interpretation of their perceived version of the truth
5) What the judge / magistrate says the truth is ... 

And then they use big Latin words too. 

Like my attorney always says: If a client comes to him with a case "as a matter of principal", he smiles widely. Easy money. 
After explaining in detail the potential costs, the chances of winning / losing, the hardships ahead, the escalating costs, if the client still insists "as a matter of principal" to continue, he then asks for 50% of the costs upfront. He does this to save the client money, seriously, he does. It is there to ensure that he does not end up being out of pocket nor him having to pay the advocates their fees, when the client runs out of money.

Because by the time that 50% (or less) is spent on legal fees, 99.99% of the time the "matter of principal" has "left the building".

You @Erastus , in my book, you are a very brave man for going to court this long. Respect.

I had no option trust me. They have the right to criminally charge you then it is suffer  suffer suffer and they ear a salary to let you suffer

3 minutes ago, Erastus said:

I had no option trust me. They have the right to criminally charge you then it is suffer  suffer suffer and they ear a salary to let you suffer

And then there is that yes. Ouch!

I once had a legal problem, not of my making, but I had to handle it. So I asked a few people what is the least painful and most cost effective way to sort it. All agreed on the same advice. So I paid the price and walked away. In that process the opposing parties attorney realised they had been misled and blatantly lied to. They dropped their client like a hot potato. Thank you for decent attorneys.

But I was still out of pocket and a lot of time wasted with the the accompanying stress, all because of one person lying.

Years later a 2nd person tried their luck, everyone involved knew the person was misrepresenting the facts i.e. lying again! This time I was wiser. First I called together the a full "battalion" of impressive names, BS before brains see, intimidate your opponent with seriously impressive force - being fully prepared t use it.

Then I went and pulled a clever move by getting their attorney "disqualified" to represent them as I knew they had a relationship stretching over decades, and that attorney was damn good.

The opposing attorney realised instantly what I did. He gave me one seriously wicked smile, and said: Clever move.

In the end, for under R1k, the problem was resolved in an instant, me and the perceived aggrieved party, as agreed by all the legal minds from both sides, could now resolved the matter amicably and fairly.

My point, never think there is just one option.

 

So, back on topic. With the solar and regulations around it, I am pretty sure CoCT is going to make some examples of non-regulation adhering solar users when their deadline has been reached, as they have done all they can to be "fair" with most of us ignoring it all for years now.

Any legal fees paid is a waste of ones heard earned cash, as their is no "clever" way out of it. Do it right or don't do it at all - the Gov is losing income if more and more people are going solar. Eskom needs you. No, sorry, Eskom needs your continued contribution to their slush fund. Farting and thunder comes to mind.

21 hours ago, ebrsa said:

@weber do you have the same problems with connecting Axperts as grid-tied in Australia. If one runs in standalone mode as shown in the City of Cape Town pamphlet, and then switch the stand alone load between grid and Axpert output, there should not be any legal implications. I recall the @Coulomb mentioned a remotely controlable changeover switch. Is that what you guys use and would you mind posting details of how you handle the problem. That is assuming the problem exists in Australia. @Coulomb if you have a different switch the same information of your setup would also be much appreciated.

I realize that all battery charging will have to be solar but that would not be a problem. I only do a bit of grid charging in the evening to keep the charge voltage at maximum, which is lower than my T105 bulk charge voltage, for some 90 minutes on advice from Trojan. I fortunately live in a rural municipality, bordering on C of CT to the north and registration of standalone installations is not required.

No. We don't have the same problem with Axperts (or PIPs as we call them) in Australia. Your electricity authorities are seriously paranoid.

You say "connecting Axperts as grid-tied", but that's actually impossible since "grid-tied" implies the ability to feed power back into the grid, and Axperts are not capable of doing that, despite what @Coulomb wrote in this post in which he gave aid and comfort to the enemy (and which I argued against to no avail at the time). But I know that you really just mean "connecting Axperts as fed from the grid".

I challenge @Coulomb, or anyone, to modify an Axpert/PIP to deliberately short-circuit the contacts on both its Safety relays (as shown in Coulomb's schematic) to simulate the unlikely event of both their contacts welding, or the even more fantastical notion of the relay-controlling part of the software "going wrong" while the inverting part continues to work just fine. Then get it running in battery mode (i.e. inverting), and turn on a circuit breaker that connects the grid to its AC input and see what happens. I predict it will either trip the circuit breaker or blow the inverter output stage, or both. Either way, it will stop "pushing power into the mains" within a fraction of a second.

Sure, if the contacts decided to weld during a "high impedance grid" scenario, it would keep running just fine and zap any careless Eskom worker. But what's going to weld the contacts if the grid is high impedance? And the software deciding to have a psychotic break, just when the grid happens to be high impedance, is so unlikely that if all our appliances had to be engineered for such unlikely events, we couldn't afford them.

But I see that you guys are stuck with those regulations, and the only way I can see your Axperts being legal is if their AC input is connected to nothing other than a generator inlet socket (same as a caravan inlet), and their AC output is connected to nothing other than a distribution board to which the grid is not connected. You can't even use the changeover contactor (really just normally open and normally closed contacts wired as a changeover) that Coulomb and I use (that you ask about above). I don't think you can even use a manual changeover switch unless you have it engineer approved. They are worried about its grid contacts welding too, or the electricity jumping the gap! The only way I can see that you can switch the loads on that distribution board between Axpert and grid is to use another caravan inlet to feed that distribution board. Then have a socket outlet on the Axpert's AC output and run a lead between the two. Then if you need to shut down the Axpert temporarily, you can power the distribution board from the grid for the duration. No risk of any welded contacts or jumping electricity there.

Edited September 19, 20187 yr by weber

2 hours ago, weber said:

Sure, if the contacts decided to weld during a "high impedance grid" scenario, it would keep running just fine and zap any careless Eskom worker. But what's going to weld the contacts if the grid is high impedance? And the software deciding to have a psychotic break, just when the grid happens to be high impedance, is so unlikely that if all our appliances had to be engineered for such unlikely events, we couldn't afford them.

I've said this before, somewhere else, I was actually quoting something that I read that I cannot again find now, but it has been said that it's not clear if the amount of effort spent on anti-islanding and the level to which it is being taken is really worth the money it costs. That great Nanny-state known as the UK doesn't even have regs this severe. Love this things from Steve Hughes.

"Amsterdam... is your bike wet? Well, you're on the wrong bit, mate!"

 

Thanks a great deal @weber for your very informative explanation. Having had to live with the downright stupidity of various governments and their agencies in this country for all my life was nothing short of trying. I wholeheartedly agree with your views although I don't have your level of knowledge of the intricacies of the Axpert circuitry and firmware. Perhaps I mostly feel much more murderous most of the time. That being said, it would seem that a changeover switch of some description to switch a load between the Axpert and the grid would make the grade. @The Terrible Triplett posted illustrations of one he had built by an engineer and which complied with local requirements and used it for several years. What is incomprehensible is that the Axpert, when used as a UPS and without solar panels connected, appears to be just fine. Connect solar panels and it suddenly becomes a hydrogen bomb capable of blowing the continent into oblivion. 

I will just have to search for a compliant changeover switch as thawouwhich ould appear to be the only way I can legally continue to use my 2 Axperts. Provided the Axperts with solar panels and batteries as well as the load is isolated from the grid and therefor standalone, it would be legal. The ICC-Pi control program that I use, have recently had 3 switches added that will switch depending on SOC of the batteries or on a time schedule. All the is now required is a RPi controlled CO switch and I am home and dry with a system that does not need the outrageous expenses of certification for a grid connected or tied system. Such a certification will apparently have to be repeated should I at some stage decide to sell my house. None of that nonsense will be required if it is a standalone system, at least for now. That was the reason for enquiring about the changeover switch mentioned by @Coulomb earlier in this thread. Any information will be much appreciated.

3 hours ago, weber said:

No. We don't have the same problem with Axperts (or PIPs as we call them) in Australia. Your electricity authorities are seriously paranoid.

You say "connecting Axperts as grid-tied", but that's actually impossible since "grid-tied" implies the ability to feed power back into the grid, and Axperts are not capable of doing that, despite what @Coulomb wrote in this post in which he gave aid and comfort to the enemy (and which I argued against to no avail at the time). But I know that you really just mean "connecting Axperts as fed from the grid".

I challenge @Coulomb, or anyone, to modify an Axpert/PIP to deliberately short-circuit the contacts on both its Safety relays (as shown in Coulomb's schematic) to simulate the unlikely event of both their contacts welding, or the even more fantastical notion of the relay-controlling part of the software "going wrong" while the inverting part continues to work just fine. Then get it running in battery mode (i.e. inverting), and turn on a circuit breaker that connects the grid to its AC input and see what happens. I predict it will either trip the circuit breaker or blow the inverter output stage, or both. Either way, it will stop "pushing power into the mains" within a fraction of a second.

Sure, if the contacts decided to weld during a "high impedance grid" scenario, it would keep running just fine and zap any careless Eskom worker. But what's going to weld the contacts if the grid is high impedance? And the software deciding to have a psychotic break, just when the grid happens to be high impedance, is so unlikely that if all our appliances had to be engineered for such unlikely events, we couldn't afford them.

But I see that you guys are stuck with those regulations, and the only way I can see your Axperts being legal is if their AC input is connected to nothing other than a generator inlet socket (same as a caravan inlet), and their AC output is connected to nothing other than a distribution board to which the grid is not connected. You can't even use the changeover contactor (really just normally open and normally closed contacts wired as a changeover) that Coulomb and I use (that you ask about above). I don't think you can even use a manual changeover switch unless you have it engineer approved. They are worried about its grid contacts welding too, or the electricity jumping the gap! The only way I can see that you can switch the loads on that distribution board between Axpert and grid is to use another caravan inlet to feed that distribution board. Then have a socket outlet on the Axpert's AC output and run a lead between the two. Then if you need to shut down the Axpert temporarily, you can power the distribution board from the grid for the duration. No risk of any welded contacts or jumping electricity there.

I have to say, looking at it from your point of view, and I have thought about it a couple of times, makes the Axperts useless in just about most installations. Few people use them as off-grid inverters. Why, if it has an AC input, would be used without AC input?  But ya, I think we can conclude that the Axperts are indeed useless offgrid inverters. Voltronic confirmed this, probably to cover themselves from a legal perspective. Yet all their brochures / manuals indicate that a grid can be connected to it. 

 

17 minutes ago, ebrsa said:

Thanks a great deal @weber for your very informative explanation. Having had to live with the downright stupidity of various governments and their agencies in this country for all my life was nothing short of trying. I wholeheartedly agree with your views although I don't have your level of knowledge of the intricacies of the Axpert circuitry and firmware. Perhaps I mostly feel much more murderous most of the time. That being said, it would seem that a changeover switch of some description to switch a load between the Axpert and the grid would make the grade. @The Terrible Triplett posted illustrations of one he had built by an engineer and which complied with local requirements and used it for several years. What is incomprehensible is that the Axpert, when used as a UPS and without solar panels connected, appears to be just fine. Connect solar panels and it suddenly becomes a hydrogen bomb capable of blowing the continent into oblivion. 

I will just have to search for a compliant changeover switch as thawouwhich ould appear to be the only way I can legally continue to use my 2 Axperts. Provided the Axperts with solar panels and batteries as well as the load is isolated from the grid and therefor standalone, it would be legal. The ICC-Pi control program that I use, have recently had 3 switches added that will switch depending on SOC of the batteries or on a time schedule. All the is now required is a RPi controlled CO switch and I am home and dry with a system that does not need the outrageous expenses of certification for a grid connected or tied system. Such a certification will apparently have to be repeated should I at some stage decide to sell my house. None of that nonsense will be required if it is a standalone system, at least for now. That was the reason for enquiring about the changeover switch mentioned by @Coulomb earlier in this thread. Any information will be much appreciated.

Thanks for a good laugh plonkster (and Steve).

Hi ebrsa. Yes that nonsense about it being fine so long as it doesn't have solar connected, certainly puts the lie to their supposed concerns.

Coulomb described the only "changeover switch" that we use, in this post. It is simply a contactor with 63 A contacts (2xNO + 2xNC) and a 230 Vac coil. It goes in the distribution board, where it occupies 4 DIN rail positions.The coil is powered from the Axpert's AC output and it is wired as a changeover whose common terminals feed the load circuit breakers in that distribution board. When its coil is powered by the output of the Axpert, it feeds the Axpert output to the loads, and when the coil is not powered it feeds the grid to the loads. There should be a 5 A inline fuse between the Axpert active and the coil.

There is one important detail Coulomb didn't mention. It must switch the Axpert's neutral, but not the grid's neutral. So it's only a changeover for the actives. For the neutrals, it's just a normally-open from the Axpert. The grid neutral is always connected to the loads neutral.

That frees up a normally-closed contact, which we then connect in parallel with the other normally-closed contact that is switching the grid active. This makes the grid contacts even less likely to weld, since two 63 A contacts are sharing the current. But you need to use "diagonal takeoff" to ensure they have some chance of sharing the current equally.

I can explain further if you wish. But I can't see this being acceptable to your regime without auxiliary contacts (or some other means) for preventing it from operating if the grid contacts are welded.

18 minutes ago, SilverNodashi said:

I have to say, looking at it from your point of view, and I have thought about it a couple of times, makes the Axperts useless in just about most installations. Few people use them as off-grid inverters. Why, if it has an AC input, would be used without AC input?  But ya, I think we can conclude that the Axperts are indeed useless offgrid inverters. Voltronic confirmed this, probably to cover themselves from a legal perspective. Yet all their brochures / manuals indicate that a grid can be connected to it.

Hi SilverNodashi. I don't understand how you got any of that from what I wrote. It is only the draconian South African regulations that make Axperts (nearly) useless as on-grid solar UPSs. They are still perfectly good off-grid inverters, even in South Africa. In that case the AC input is for backup from a fuel generator.

Just now, weber said:

Hi SilverNodashi. I don't understand how you got any of that from what I wrote. It is only the draconian South African regulations that make Axperts (nearly) useless as on-grid solar UPSs. They are still perfectly good off-grid inverters, even in South Africa. In that case the AC input is for backup from a fuel generator.

True, but since we're referring to the South African regulations, they are useless in most case. Most people have them installed with AC feed-in from Eskom. 

40 minutes ago, ebrsa said:

What is incomprehensible is that the Axpert, when used as a UPS and without solar panels connected, appears to be just fine.

No, I think we need to draw a line here. 

The problem does not lie with CoCT / NERSA or our Regime and their regulations (as lekker as it is to pass the blame). 

The issue is Caveat emptor.

Voltronic sells a UPS with a MPPT as a OFF-GRID solar inverter, That was clearly stated in a email to me, from their sales department.

 

12 minutes ago, SilverNodashi said:

... makes the Axperts useless in just about most installations. ... Why, if it has an AC input, would be used without AC input?

Ditto! Soemtimes it pays to pay more for a inverter. :-)

Silver, it is a UPS, needing AC in and AC out.
Does the Axpert UPS meet the required standards for UPS'es?  I don't know for I cannot find any paperwork whatsoever anywhere saying such. APC as an example have paperwork.

 

Have the local importers misrepresented the units? Who sold them? Axperts where initially mostly sold by IT companies under the banner of a UPS.

Fact that an opportunity presented itself to connect it to a DB board and smile all the way with panels, how can that not be the owners problem and responsibility? Did ANYONE check their local regs? No, they did not. Not until CoCT gave a deadline, did all of us really check the regulations, wherever we are.

 

So, the bare bones question is: Do all Axperts connected to a DB board have CoC's? My bet is no, they do not.
Gets worse.
Electricians who signed them off with a CoC, was that as a UPS? Did they follow the EXISTING decades old regulation for UPS / DB board connections?
Or did they sign off as a grid connect solar inverter? Did that Sparkie check the local rules and regs, or did he and the owner say: Bleh, lets do it!? Stuff them!

My thinking is, and I stand to be corrected, that IF Sparkies connected them as a UPS, meeting all the EXISTING UPS regs, then today all of those installations would have been seen as OFF GRID solar, as Voltronic sells the unit as a OFF GRID solar inverter.

How can we blame regulations if we have flaunted them, not read them, took a chance?
Axperts where bought because of price ... without fully investigating it.

Where has the advice we have given each other here on the forum: "Goedkoop koop is duurkoop"? (Buying cheap can become expensive.)

Be honest guys: You knowingly bought a OFF GRID solar inverter. And if you did not know that: Caveat emptor.

 

50 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Voltronic sells a UPS with a MPPT as a OFF-GRID solar inverter, That was clearly stated in a email to me, from their sales department.

Yes, but as we have seen the terminology is used very loosely across all walks of solardom. When they say off-grid they don't necessarily mean "Don't connect this to the grid", they clearly intend for the AC-in to be used for an alternate connection, and since their primary market is UPSes it would imply that connection would be the grid. What they mean by off-grid is likely that it isn't grid-interactive (as opposed to their other inverter, the Infini). Now I fully understand that legally this gets them off the hook, because it is sufficiently loosely defined that you can't pin them down, but I'm pretty sure that in 2014(ish) when these things started flowing into the country nobody read off-grid in the manner that we are forced to read it now :-)

The legality of these items should have been checked years ago, even for UPS use. But we had bigger problems to solve, so it never happened. And for the non-solar connected ones it may never happen.

58 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

How can we blame regulations if we have flaunted them

Hindsight is 20/20. I think I am somewhat properly informed on this matter, and until very recently I was certain these units (being proper UPSes, right?) would sign off, because they appeared to be within the letter of the regulations. How can we then fault others for making this mistake?

You are right though, about the caveat emptor thing, in the end the final responsiblity does end up with the buyer... even if the buyer wasn't fully informed through no reasonable fault of his own.

15 minutes ago, plonkster said:

I was certain these units (being proper UPSes, right?) would sign off

Therein the assumption. (ass u me) ... and of-course caveat emptor thing.

We can debate the terminology and interpretations, it fly's over my head. 
Debating the mechanics of how they are supposed to work, no proof or paperwork to back that, had no interest for me, still flying over me head.

No hindsight at all:
My initial instinctive distrust from the 1st day I saw them arriving with PWM's and later MPPT's, at a price that defied belief, Strike 1. But ok, benefit and doubt, right?
Then Strike 2 - firmware - done not by Voltronic but by external very lever guys.
Then Strike 3 - brand was copied and pasted, re-branded in most cases, you name it. How will that ever fly with any regulation, ever?
Recently did I make the effort on behalf of whomever, not myself, to check the paperwork from Voltronics. There was none that I could find that carried any weight. Hole in one!

So no, I never could fathom how the above would ever have been allowed to connect to the grid, legally, ever.

And then there is the harping on it being a UPS right?
Like I have said over and over: UPS + DB board = UPS / Generator regulations. 

Have the Sparkies, WHO KNOW THE REGULATIONS, connect them as per UPS / GENERATOR regulations.

Sorted. 

Being off-grid ... that is not for sissies. Luckily we don't have to get generators as we have "ESKOM AS BACKUP".
(If that does not ring a bell I don't know what will.) 

FWIW,

If I had an Axpert today with a CoC in hand, one that is not for a UPS connection to my DB board, there would have been a conversation taking place.

In my mind I would be just as liable as the Sparkie. How?  
Me for not making sure I fully understood what I bought, as it is inside my private house, where I can now smoke weed.
And the Sparkie for not knowing the regulations.

There is a case to be made for a electrician not qualified to do a solar / UPS to DB connection, but then they should walk away. My latest Sparkie told me in no uncertain terms, he cannot give me a CoC for the solar side, only the AC connections he is making.
 

Take the cannabis ruling, allow me some authors freedom to make a point.

The judge said:

 

“A very high level of protection is given to the individual’s intimate personal sphere of life and the maintenance of its basic preconditions and there is a final untouchable sphere of human freedom that is beyond interference from any public authority. So much so that, in regard to this most intimate core of privacy, no justifiable limitation thereof can take place… This inviolable core is left behind once an individual enters into relationships with persons outside this closest intimate sphere; the individual’s activities then acquire a social dimension and the right of privacy in this context becomes subject to limitation.”

What you do inside your home, is your private business. The state must not interfere there, so you can have your Axpert and do as you please inside your home.

Now, he also says, if you move outside that sacred sphere, then your right to privacy changes a wee bit - as in you are now entering a relationship outside your home ... connecting to the national grid, a public owned grid.

So the State cannot barge into your home and demand to see what you did at your DB board, no.

However, everyone can see the panels on your roof right. So now they have to ask, in the public interest of the grid: Please tell us HOW you are using them panels?

You can chose to ignore them, but at what cost?
I say you do not want to open your front door to officials with legitimate paperwork in hand, as you have been perceived to have broken a law/s or disregarded legitimate regulations.

1 minute ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

initial instinctive distrust

I had that too. It was too good to be true. But my disagreement was always on the fact that it is just too cheap... and that is never a good base for a disagreement (are you saying I should pay more!?) The question was always: But what is the catch?

Bad design? Sure, the first versions had capacitors in them that were a little low on voltage, but they fixed that.

Does it have cheap and nasty components? Well, they did cheap out here and there but overall it was not too bad. Better than some pictures we saw of a badly rusted Imeon.

Cheap and nasty build quality? Again, no. Even the screws in the case are threaded (instead of just ramming in a self-cutting).

Reliability? Sure, there appears to be a single-digit percentage of failures. Seems most of them survive the warranty period (which is what, one or two years?).

Support? Well yes, there's very little of that from the manufacturer, though I am told Mustek is not too bad.

But despite all that, it just never really tripped the I-told-you-so response for me. Much as I want all of you to come over to the blue side, I can't bring myself to say it :-)

4 minutes ago, plonkster said:

... never really tripped the I-told-you-so response for me. Much as I want all of you to come over to the blue side, I can't bring myself to say it :-)

Nor here and ditto.

I will admit I do keep the smile that wants to appear, firmly in check ... because I heard just one too many argument about vis a vis price / value / too expensive.

Going off-grid like in JHB, till they adjust their regs (we hope), makes perfect sense no matter what inverter one uses. Axperts fits that bill 100% spot on!

Going off grid like in Cpt and surrounds ... no no no ... go grid tied with self consumption on a pre-paid meter.

That is, I sent the suggestion in again, and it has been passed up the chain I am told, that is till CoCT gets it right to buy power from anyone, they then installs a bi-directional meter free of charge, removed the connection fee and buys power back from us at going Eskom rates, VAT incl if you are VAT registered, on the condition that you give then 1kw per day (negotiable) free of charge to them use as they see fit.

 

They did indeed have certification as a UPS. At least under the MPP Solar brand (as the PIP-4048MS). That's the Axpert MKS 5K-48.

http://www.mppsolar.com/manual/CE/EMC-PIP%204048MS%20report.pdf
http://www.mppsolar.com/manual/CE/LVD-PIP%204048MS-report.pdf

Plonkster's totally right about the term "off-grid" inverter meaning simply "not capable of feeding power into the grid", no matter whether it is actually on the grid or not. That usage is pretty much forced on us by the poor choice of the terms "grid-tied" and "grid-connected" to mean "capable of feeding power into the grid". Although one alternative is to call them "stand-alone" rather than "off-grid" inverters. And the others should have been called "grid-feed" inverters.

Edited September 19, 20187 yr by weber

Hi Gents

Could we keep the non technical posts at :

Thanks all! 

Jay