EV Charger 100A Looped Supply

[markyd1]

Could it be that there is other network reinforcement required by SSEN along with unlooping in order to provide enough power with the charge being related to that?

When I got my supply unlooped my DNO stated that there would not be any additional reinforcement of their network required and the unlooping would be free.

Just had a reply from SSEN today and yes reinforcement is required

 

[Benway]

Western Power have visited and I now have a date for the works. Strangely they are not running any new cables to the mains for either property. Their plan is is to move the join from my meter box to under my side path. I can only assume the cable size is OK to run two properties, it's just the join they didn't want in the meter box...

It does seem a strange option to me but then again I don't really care as long as they are happy and I can get my car charger installed.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Cool. How much are they charging for this?

 

[Benway]

Free of charge.

 

[Benway]

Been round this week to complete the works. Shiny 100A fuse.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Looks good. I'm going to need the same thing doing when (if) I need an EV point.

Interesting that Western Power are happy to stay with just one supply cable from the road. All they really have done is to move the loop from your supply head to under the path, but they are the DNO and must know what they are doing....

I would like to see the completed job when your installer has done.
I am interested to know :What EV charger is being installed and if an earth rod is needed because you have a PME supply.

Thanks for the pics, very interesting.

 

[Benway]

I thought it strange they were just moving the point where the cables join, but as you say if they are happy...

I've gone for Hypervolt. Seems to have good reviews and great customer service. They've even kept in contact while I've waiting for the DNO works.

 

[Taylortwocities]

I see Hypervolt do not need an earth electrode

 

[JohnW2]

Western Power ... Strangely they are not running any new cables to the mains for either property. Their plan is is to move the join from my meter box to under my side path. I can only assume the cable size is OK to run two properties, it's just the join they didn't want in the meter box... It does seem a strange option to me but then again I don't really care as long as they are happy and I can get my car charger installed.

... Interesting that SSEN are happy to stay with just one supply cable from the road. All they really have done is to move the loop from your supply head to under the path, but they are the DNO and must know what they are doing....

I thought it strange they were just moving the point where the cables join, but as you say if they are happy....

If I understand the situation correctly (maybe not!), what seems particularly daft is that it would seem that the work has only been done (by the DNO) solely because the DNO's own 'rule' did not permit an EV charger to be installed on a 'looped' supply.

Depending upon how they define 'a looped supply' (see **), it would seem that the time/effort of the work has been undertaken solely so that they can pay lip service to their own 'rule', without changing anything electrically at all (i.e. a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise!).

** I would have thought that a sensible (electrically) definition of a 'looped supply' would be one in in which two or more installations share at least some of the path from the distribution cable in the road, regardless of whether the 'branching;' happened inside or outside of any of the properties concerned - which, to my mind, means that (in electrical terms) the OP's supply is still 'looped', despite the recent work. After all, the only thing that matters is whether or not the cable leaving the one in the road is man enough to supply two properties, at least one of which has an EV charger - and the work done has not altered the answer to that question.

However
, as said, if the DNO are now 'happy' ....

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

I can see a certain argument that an overloaded cable under the ground is less of a risk than an overloaded cable inside a property (and that a meter box is inside the property from a fire/smoke safety perspective) and that may well feature in the DNOs risk assesment.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Edit note: DNO changed to Western Power in #36

to “protect the innocent”!

 

[JohnW2]

I can see a certain argument that an overloaded cable under the ground is less of a risk than an overloaded cable inside a property (and that a meter box is inside the property from a fire/smoke safety perspective) and that may well feature in the DNOs risk assesment.

They may well think like that.

However, it seems conceptually a little odd that they should accept/'allow' potential cable 'overload' because a risk assessment indicated that such an overload would be very unlikley to do any ';harm'.

If we applied the same concept of risk assessment within installations, I feel sure that we would be far less concerned about the possibility of minor/modest degrees of possible cable 'overload' - so we probably would see/hear much less of the fuss about 'unbalanced loading of ring finals' or 'more than one socket supplied by a 2.5mm² unfused spur from a ring. I would even imagine that, in many cases, such a 'risk assessment' might conclude that a 1.5mm² (T+E) 32A ring final was very unlikely to result in any significant harm and therefore, in the opinion of a designed, was 'acceptable'.

DNO practices often seem to be much less cautious, whereas BS7671 is, in many senses, 'ultra-cautious'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Benway]

Forgot to update. Unfortunately when having works done recently I pre-planned a cable for the hot tub but not an EV charger, not sure what that says about me? So it had to be installed externally. New CU in the garage, then cables routed internally in the garage so cant be seen at the actual charger.