Posted by mike on April 22, 2012, 11:12 am
Friend of mine in Washington State, USA purchased a solar
grid-tie inverter off ebay.
IT has no stickers on the case.
An email to the vendor requesting info on which third-party
certifications had been achieved came back, "none, costs too much."
My understanding is that anything that supplies power REQUIRES a UL sticker.
And the switcher should need an FCCID.
There are probably other certifications required to tie it to the grid.
He hasn't yet achieved a connection with a utility worker who knows
about grid-tie.
The maximum output is less than the baseline load, so the meter won't
need to run backwards. He just wants to reduce his power bill
and use up some panels wasting away in his garage.
Google searches have turned up no free links to grid-tie standards.
I guess if you're an IEEE member, you can get access to some draft
standards.
Anybody got links to free standards docs?
Opinions on how vendors get away with selling devices that regulations
prevent using?
Discussions of successful small-scale DIY solar grid tie?
Seems risky to build a system only to have it rejected by the utility
over some standard you can't read.
Thanks, mike
Posted by boB on April 23, 2012, 3:23 am
>Friend of mine in Washington State, USA purchased a solar
>grid-tie inverter off ebay.
>IT has no stickers on the case.
>An email to the vendor requesting info on which third-party
>certifications had been achieved came back, "none, costs too much."
>My understanding is that anything that supplies power REQUIRES a UL sticker.
>And the switcher should need an FCCID.
>There are probably other certifications required to tie it to the grid.
>He hasn't yet achieved a connection with a utility worker who knows
>about grid-tie.
>The maximum output is less than the baseline load, so the meter won't
>need to run backwards. He just wants to reduce his power bill
>and use up some panels wasting away in his garage.
>Google searches have turned up no free links to grid-tie standards.
>I guess if you're an IEEE member, you can get access to some draft
>standards.
>Anybody got links to free standards docs?
>Opinions on how vendors get away with selling devices that regulations
>prevent using?
>Discussions of successful small-scale DIY solar grid tie?
>Seems risky to build a system only to have it rejected by the utility
>over some standard you can't read.
>Thanks, mike
Yeah, the inverter has to be listed to the UL1741 standard. which
contains ieee1547 requirements. There are a few NRTLs that
can test to this standard including UL and ETL.
The standards are a big money maker for UL of course. They don't
always make sense but that's what we have. It's for safety but it's
also a big racket.
The electrical inspector would most likely reject the system, even if
the meter does not spin backwards.
boB
Posted by Jim on April 30, 2012, 11:20 pm
Guerilla Solar will make you happy.
On 22 Apr 2012 22:23:01 -0500, boB <K7IQ> wrote:
>>Friend of mine in Washington State, USA purchased a solar
>>grid-tie inverter off ebay.
>>IT has no stickers on the case.
>>An email to the vendor requesting info on which third-party
>>certifications had been achieved came back, "none, costs too much."
>>
>>My understanding is that anything that supplies power REQUIRES a UL sticker.
>>And the switcher should need an FCCID.
>>
>>There are probably other certifications required to tie it to the grid.
>>He hasn't yet achieved a connection with a utility worker who knows
>>about grid-tie.
>>
>>The maximum output is less than the baseline load, so the meter won't
>>need to run backwards. He just wants to reduce his power bill
>>and use up some panels wasting away in his garage.
>>
>>Google searches have turned up no free links to grid-tie standards.
>>I guess if you're an IEEE member, you can get access to some draft
>>standards.
>>
>>Anybody got links to free standards docs?
>>Opinions on how vendors get away with selling devices that regulations
>>prevent using?
>>
>>Discussions of successful small-scale DIY solar grid tie?
>>Seems risky to build a system only to have it rejected by the utility
>>over some standard you can't read.
>>
>>Thanks, mike
>Yeah, the inverter has to be listed to the UL1741 standard. which
>contains ieee1547 requirements. There are a few NRTLs that
>can test to this standard including UL and ETL.
>The standards are a big money maker for UL of course. They don't
>always make sense but that's what we have. It's for safety but it's
>also a big racket.
>The electrical inspector would most likely reject the system, even if
>the meter does not spin backwards.
>boB
Posted by Vaughn on April 23, 2012, 3:57 pm
On 4/22/2012 7:12 AM, mike wrote:
> The maximum output is less than the baseline load, so the meter won't
> need to run backwards. He just wants to reduce his power bill
> and use up some panels wasting away in his garage.
Don't ask, don't tell? Still, with the new smart meters, even a
momentary reverse power flow is likely to set a warning flag with the
utility.
Vaughn
>grid-tie inverter off ebay.
>IT has no stickers on the case.
>An email to the vendor requesting info on which third-party
>certifications had been achieved came back, "none, costs too much."
>My understanding is that anything that supplies power REQUIRES a UL sticker.
>And the switcher should need an FCCID.
>There are probably other certifications required to tie it to the grid.
>He hasn't yet achieved a connection with a utility worker who knows
>about grid-tie.
>The maximum output is less than the baseline load, so the meter won't
>need to run backwards. He just wants to reduce his power bill
>and use up some panels wasting away in his garage.
>Google searches have turned up no free links to grid-tie standards.
>I guess if you're an IEEE member, you can get access to some draft
>standards.
>Anybody got links to free standards docs?
>Opinions on how vendors get away with selling devices that regulations
>prevent using?
>Discussions of successful small-scale DIY solar grid tie?
>Seems risky to build a system only to have it rejected by the utility
>over some standard you can't read.
>Thanks, mike