0 members (),
21
guests, and
3
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382 Likes: 7
Member
|
Ironic that the "Sunshine State" is lite on solar??
John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
The government subsidies dried up
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382 Likes: 7
Member
|
We average 2-3 solar permit apps a week.
The commercial jobs have almost died. I have one (1) in the last 9 months.
John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
What is the subsidy there?
Florida just put a few bucks in the subsidy pot in January and it was gone in less than 2 hours.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382 Likes: 7
Member
|
Greg: Sorry to say, I have no clue. We just inspect.
John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 613
Member
|
I've seen some line side connections for Solar PV in residential 100 & 200 amp service panels ahead of the Main on the SE conductors. IMO it is sloppy and dangerous. Typically you only have a short section of SE wiring that connects to the Main. Now you add additional un-fused SE conductors to that panel that workers/homeowners must be careful of. It would be safer to add a J-box between the meter and the main to splice the SE cable.
Now under the new rule 705.31 in 2014 you can run those un-fused SE conductors up to 10 feet in the building...which conflicts with 230.70(A)(1) which was to limit the length of un-fused SE conductors inside a building.
I think something should be written to prohibit those Line Side Connections inside a Panel...at least in the homeowner environment.
705.31 should be removed...IMO
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
I agree. I was surprised when John pointed it out to me. I thought we were trying to get away from excessive amounts of SE inside the house. I smell solar contractors getting a short cut in the code to make their bids less. I guess I have to go look at the ROP and see where this came from.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382 Likes: 7
Member
|
Guys: I agree with you on the 'unprotected' tap from the service conductors to the solar AC disconnect, being a possible safety issue for those unfamiliar with solar grid tie.
Hence the 'both line & load sides of this disco may be HOT'
As to length, my inspector and I use the 'same' as service conductors practice. We are still '11 NEC.
FYI, I am not a 'lover' of the line tap; however I have to accept it IF it is compliant.
John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
I understand that if it is code, we are stuck with it but the breaker on the load end of this solar tap is still a service disconnect. If this wire starts getting very long, you have to ask if the disconnects are grouped.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 613
Member
|
If this wire starts getting very long, you have to ask if the disconnects are grouped. Some AHJ's don't consider it a "Service Disconnect"...they consider it a "PV Disconnect" and therefore grouping is not required. Placards denoting each other would be installed at both locations of equipment if not grouped. I disagree and prefer grouping like you.
Last edited by shortcircuit; 01/20/15 06:43 PM.
|
|
|
Posts: 46
Joined: March 2013
|
|
|
|