Plug in solar

[ericmark]

Sorry it was wrong of me to say that, even if it is true. Though my time as an electrician I have come across many a domestic electrician who has looked at the industrial electricians wages, and tried to jump.

To be frank, I did similar, I was an auto electrician to start with, but as an auto electrician we still had three-phase, and I took around 8 weeks to work out what I needed to learn in a steep learning curve.

How to change generators without turning off the supply, using a sycroscope etc. And by time I returned to UK, my knowledge was far in excess to what was needed for domestic electrics. And I hated dealing with the general public, who it seemed were more interested in cost, to getting a proper job done.

But I preferred maintenance, this being told off because you had scratched an SWA gland seemed so petty. Having to get all the cables straight on the cable tray, it seemed so petty.

I have worked with generation plants from the push-bike dynamo (which is really an alternator) to 750 MW at Sizewell 'B' and yes I have made errors, and been surprised at the way some things work.

The computer UPS was one, I had assumed it turned AC to DC, charged a battery, then DC to AC to feed the computer, however it seems most grid-tie, so the DC to AC is ticking over, but producing no power until the grid fails, and since synchronised it can swap to battery without losing a beat. But not waste energy producing power from the battery while the grid supply is there. It can't back feed into the grid, but what it does mean, is there are two very different definitions of grid tie.

As @denso13 says, neither him nor I have any intention of installing plug in solar as it stands today. If things change, I may in the future, but the battery not included to my mind killed the idea of plug in solar.

And I am struggling to see why anyone would want it, having said that why would anyone want any solar system without a battery? But I know many have been fitted.

I took the advice of the people who fitted mine, battery was too small, and had to double up on battery size, but it has worked well. And I have realised how the solar, battery, and off-peak work hand in hand, remove any one, and it would struggle to pay for its self.

But also to turn off the washing machine to use the kettle so you're not importing, would be silly, so one wants an inverter over 3 kW, mine is 5 kW, and it works well. Which means there is very little 800 watt will do for one, and I am looking at my own use, would think around £75 a year saving is around the most you can expect, and to look at a months bill and see how you have spent £6 less on electric seems to be unlikely.

With my £140 monthly bill dropping to £25 average per month, the gain is clear, well actually not that clear, needed to wait the full year, before I could work out an average.

But it is the battery as by tea time the solar has near enough gone, but the tea time to midnight is when I use the most power.

I can see a potential to collect the morning sun, specially in winter, with wall mounted panels, but it is not the morning when I am short of battery reserve, so only if off-peak tariff changes will I look at more solar.

 

[denso13]

Sorry it was wrong of me to say that, even if it is true.

It wasn't really a criticism, just highlighting that whatever phrase is used, someone will pick holes in.

I don't know what term should be used, especially in regulations, as anyone can actually call themselves and electrician.

 

[ericmark]

as anyone can actually call themselves and electrician.

Great, I'm an electrician then, thanks.

 

[denso13]

Nope.

Under English law, a dwelling is defined as a self-contained 'substantial' unit of accommodation, such as a building, part of a building, caravan, houseboat or other mobile home

There are two dwellings in Eric's building. But as neither has its own electricity supply or consumer unit, neither is a 'household' as defined in that solar spec.

FWIW, the actual law isn't cited, but I don't have any problem with that.

 

[Odds]

So, a plug-in solar panel is a bit like the campaign to sell heat pumps:
Something only suitable for some houses in specific locations?

 

[denso13]

So, a plug-in solar panel is a bit like the campaign to sell heat pumps:
Something only suitable for some houses in specific locations?

I think it's better to say that they are suitable for all properties (cue someone pointing out where they aren't) but rather they might not suit someone's usage of them. For example, if someone isn't home during daylight hours then it would be pointless, but still suitable for the building and location. If you see what I mean.

 

[ericmark]

So, a plug-in solar panel is a bit like the campaign to sell heat pumps:
Something only suitable for some houses in specific locations?

I think your spot on, there will be I am sure some homes where they are worthwhile, but 95% of homes, they will not pay for themselves for years, and there are far better options.

 

[morqthana]

Same here, I happen to think the meaning is clear, and you don't (or you think it is clear but means something else).

The meaning of any requirement/instruction/whatever can only be based on the meanings of the words used to construct it.

I am using the definitions of words which exist in dictionaries and normal use. You are trying to use definitions which are not those. You may not validly do that.

I think the flat has its own supply, it isn't shared with anyone before it gets to the meter or CU. The house is fed from circuits from the CU, which doesn't meet the legal definition of an electrical supply, which I already gave you. The electrical supply, by legal definition, stops where the DNO equipment ends.

If the flat shares its CU with another dwelling then it does not have its own CU. It really cannot, and the only people who would think it clear that it does are the sort of people who would think they have the authority to redefine "own".

I agree, but you are slipping in the word share. If something is shared, then of course it is shared. If something isn't shared (one electrical supply), then of course it isn't shared. I really, honestly, don't see the confusion.

I "slipped in" the word "share" a while ago, when I pointed out the sharing going on in Eric's property. The CU is shared. Therefore neither dwelling can be said to have its own CU, because it is shared between the two.

I have no interest in the phrase meaning one thing over another.

So what is the interest you have which leads you to insist that some of the words being used do not mean what dictionaries and centuries of usage say they mean?

 

[morqthana]

I find it highly unlikely that such a glaring error would get past all of the detailed stages of writing and proof reading for things like this.

Older installations use wired fuses that may not provide individual protection for each circuit.

I wonder what definition of "circuit" they are using which leads to a wired fuse possibly having more than one?

Is it authoritative? You find it highly unlikely that an incorrect definition would have got past all the detailed stages of writing and proof reading, therefore you must find it highly likely that they did check that definition, and there is an authoritative definition of circuit which means a wired fuse could be protecting multiple circuits.

It wouldn't be the definition from the Wiring Regulations. If you find it highly likely that there is another authoritative one, any idea where it is?

And whilst we're considering proof reading, what about this:

They don’t have individual switches that cannot be turned on and off

We all know how English works. The double negatives cancel out. If it's highly likely that it passed proof reading it's highly likely that they did indeed mean to say "they have individual switches that can be turned on and off".

So looking at it in the context of the paragraph where it appears, you think it highly likely that they meant to say


Older installations use wired fuses that may not provide individual protection for each circuit.
They have individual switches that can be turned on and off.


Do you really still think that the people who wrote this spec weren't incompetent and ignorant?

 

[denso13]

The meaning of any requirement/instruction/whatever can only be based on the meanings of the words used to construct it.

Agreed.

I am using the definitions of words which exist in dictionaries and normal use.

So am I. The definition of household, with regard to this technical specification only, is given. You think that because it doesn't mention people it is wrong, but I don't. It doesn't matter how many people there are, it is irrelevant to plugging something in safely, so they focus on the number of electrical supplies and consumer units, to stop the possibility of overloading.

If the flat shares its CU with another dwelling then it does not have its own CU.

No, there is only one CU, in the flat. The flat owns it. A means of providing power to the house isn't sharing a CU. In my view.

So what is the interest you have which leads you to insist that some of the words being used do not mean what dictionaries and centuries of usage say they mean?

I am not insisting anything of the sort. Words either have a legal meaning or, if not, a dictionary meaning, you said as much. You object to the definition of household they use, but I don't as it is used for a specific purpose (in this context only).

 

[denso13]

I wonder what definition of "circuit" they are using which leads to a wired fuse possibly having more than one?

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what the issue is with that example.

We all know how English works. The double negatives cancel out. If it's highly likely that it passed proof reading it's highly likely that they did indeed mean to say "they have individual switches that can be turned on and off".

Seems like a simple typo/wrong word to me, they happen unfortunately.

Do you really still think that the people who wrote this spec weren't incompetent and ignorant?

Yes, and I don't think it would have been published in the first place if they were that bad.

 

[ericmark]

Older installations use wired fuses that may not provide individual protection for each circuit.

Interesting, looking at circuit - An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by
the same protective device(s). So unless you consider a RCD forms a circuit, then that simply does not make any sense. And to say older installations, one would think likely no RCD.

So if the wired fuse does not protect the circuit, then it's not a circuit to start with.

There is the ring final where since it is a final circuit, no more circuits can be formed after it, they are really, but to get around it is call it a fused spur rather than a circuit.

In the words of Flanders and Swan, the English the English the English are best. The English are best and to hell with the rest.

 

[denso13]

So if the wired fuse does not protect the circuit, then it's not a circuit to start with.

It says it might not provide individual circuit protection, i.e. circuits may be grouped together and protected by one fuse. I don't see what's wrong with saying that?

 

[denso13]

In the words of Flanders and Swan, the English the English the English are best. The English are best and to hell with the rest.

Which was a satirical look at English nationalism, nothing whatsoever to do with the language.