Sean will get you taken care of.

I have a book and DVD that covers all of solar. Visit MikeHolt.com/Solar

Wow, you know what your talking about!...

the struggle is real!

I revised the graphic to show a 'charge controller' between the PV and batteries. Sorry for not doing a better job.

Lol, I'm blessed that my work has some value to you. God Bless

Dive into what? I have a book and DVDs on Solar NEC requirements. Visit MikeHolt.com/Solar

The equipment takes care of this.

The NEC has no such standard.

Bill knows what he is talking about....

Please post your question on MikeHolt.com/Forum.

I"m working on improving this graphic, send email so I can send you the updated images (Mike@MikeHolt.com).

Keith, my work is based on the National Electrical Code, the NEC uses the term "Interactive Inverter" for what you call 'anti-islanding.' Search the NEC for the terms 'Interactive' so you can better understand my usage of this term. Please watch the video again after you review this term in the NEC and let me know if you still feel that I need a correction.

@@MikeHoltNEC Thank you Mike🙂. I virtually immediately regretted starting with correction, as it was too strong, but was pulled away on an errand before I could remove that part. I reviewed the video discussing the graphic presented upto and including and just after the timestamp 12:01. The discussion and the graphic under discussion were clearly about an interactive system without any battery backup, but moments later the speeker discusses battery backup in conjunction with islanding which is spot on. But, became a source of confusing at that moment in time with the discussion up to this point and the graphic depicted at 12:01 were clearly interactive without battery backup. I'm not an electrician, consequently my knowledge of the NEC code is sparse so maybe you were referencing something else, but I did find this... NEC 690.60 "only inverters and AC modules listed and identified as interactive shall be permitted in interactive systems." Then I found on your website a pdf with a graphic discussing NEC 690 it pointed out "listing means that the equipment is in a list published by a testing laboratory acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction". As an example, on the same graphic I seen an inverter identified as "utility interactive inverter" with its listing UL1741. Looking up UL1741 I found in its scope among other things, section 1.2 for interactive equipment, and it referenced IEEE 1547. Looking up IEEE 1547 I found in the 2018 revision, section 3.1 defined island: A condition in which a portion of an Area utility electric power system (EPS) is energized solely by one or more Local EPSs through the associated point of common couplings (PCC) while that portion of the Area EPS is electrically separated from the rest of the Area EPS on all phases to which the distributed energy resource (DER) is connected. When an island exists, the DER energizing the island may be said to be “islanding” I didn't invent the name anti-islanding inverter. The phrases islanding vs anti islanding or islanding protection, are things that interactive inverters do depending on the situation, and how they are intended to function. like my micro grid tie inverters have anti-islanding technology which means they fall into a subclass of inverters that we call interactive inverters with islanding protection, and contrast with interactive inverters that have islanding technology. 🙂

should be on the side for the transfer switch before main

Since you are using a/c modules, it doesn't matter that the metal racking is connected to the earth via the steel pipes.

Sorry for the lack of clarity, we added a charge controler to the graphic for it's next use.

Watch this video to get your answers! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bdx0Y9WQx7zOpaM.html

@@MikeHoltNEC Mike, it’s fun to get your replies, thank you! I’ve watched the video you suggested twice, I have not noticed it speak to the upstream load centers, if they also need to follow load side interconnection rules? Meaning, if I interconnect solar to a sub panel using 705.12(B)(2)(3) (NEC 2017) Does the main panel upstream of the sub panel also have to follow 705.12(B)(2)(3)? It would seem the arguments might be: 1. that current (solar or utility) will flow towards the load (house more often than not) Thus We won’t see an excess of heat being applied on the upstream, main panel busing as it might do on the interconnection bussing. Counter argument… If it is a bright sunny day, and there is no load in the sub panel, yet there is heavy load in the main panel, you might get full amperage/heat being supplied to the main panel busing which could be excessive. Reply…But the Utility supply at that main panel bussing will only be the difference of the needed house load minus the solar supply,…right? In the end, I still don’t see why the main panel bussing would be required to follow load side interconnection rules. Maybe I’m missing something? Thanks.

@@davidorcutt9246 Please post your question on MikeHolt.com/Forum.

All panels need overcurrent protection, see 408.36!

Thank you!

@MikeHoltNEC

Post technical questions on MikeHolt.com/Forum.

Yep, see NEC 706.5.

You are correct, there is no need to have the additional grounding that you were told. That is why it doesn't make sense, the rule for 'grounding' is contained in 690.47 "For PV systems that are not solidly grounded, the equipment grounding conductor for the output of the PV system, connected to associated distribution equipment, shall be permitted to be the connection to ground for ground-fault protection and equipment grounding of the PV array."

No clue.

I do believe they make controllers/ hybrid inverters that can take in multiple R.E. flavors. (Neither an electrician.)

Yep, Article 690. You need to get with a Solar Contractor that is familiar with such a system.

I have no clue.

This is a 'design' function. For more information post you question on MikeHolt.Ai.

Nope, sorry.

You are 100% correct, I'm sorry we didn't include this detail, it will be corrected for the book shortly. Thank you so much for helping me do a better job.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll make the necessary corrections.

The NEC, 690.4(B) requires PV inverters and other PV equipment to be 'listed.' The use of a UL 1741 'compliance' product is a violation of the NEC; unless it's 'listed' for PV systems.

@@MikeHoltNEC im not seeing it in that section, do you have a link that shows it please

@@todamnbad I'm not sure how to help you, since at least 2014, the NEC has required PV equipment to be listed.

PV produces current via the photovoltaic process. The discussion was about 'interactive' PV mode where the Utility and PV where both in parallel with each other supplying the 'loads.' The PV in the 'interactive mode' (parallel with utility) does not directly supply any given load. That only occurs in the 'off grid' mode (stand-alone).

The NEC, Chapter 1 - 4, and Article 720.

@@MikeHoltNEC Fair enough, definitions and part of the PV sections ... that narrows it down, I'll still review 690. Thank you.

@@MikeHoltNEC I was thinking less current, thus forcing my voltage up, something closer to 60v at 4 amps at the panel. So my panel won't be in scope of 720 but everything else would.

EMT or PVC is fine...

Email me this question, and I'll work to help you understand (and do a better job with my book).

Mike@MikeHolt.com

interesting question, i just got my multiplus, but i had no idea that the multiplus allow you to use floating ground like the smaller phoenix inverters from same company (Victron)

A transfer switch is a 'switch.'

Are you an electrician?

I suggest you do some research on dc-to-dc converters and their applicaiton. This is covered in my book and video program.

Isn’t a module optimizer a DC-DC converter

@@Yuroon360 Yep.

You can check out Alencon based in Hatboro PA. They make DC DC converters too. I have a close relationship with them but can't seem to use their product in typical project applications. Mostly for Repowering

SolarEdge is a manufacturer whose system by design, uses DC-to-DC converters, also known as optimizers. One reason you would want to use them in a design, is to accommodate diversity in tilt/orientation and shading. Another reason you do this, is to satisfy rapid shutdown requirements, as optimizers default to a shutdown standby output voltage, and stop the module open circuit voltage at the source. Optimizers work by solving an algebra problem, in order to satisfy Kirchhoff's laws. Like a transformer, they trade voltage for current. They dynamically adjust the buck/boost ratio to adapt to the conditions, and cooperate with each other to solve the algebra problem. Voltage adds up to an inverter-governed input voltage, and current is the same in each unit. Individual voltage is free to vary as needed, and ends up being proportional to what each one can do. Each module can operate independently of all the others, unlike when wired in series in a standard source circuit. Example: 20 optimizers in series. First 15 output 300W, remaining 5 output 100W. Inverter-governed total voltage = 400V. Solution: the first 15 produce 12.5A at 24V. The remaining 5 produce 12.5A at 8V.

They keep me on my toes!

@@MikeHoltNEC You keep us all on ours,Thanks.

What state/city exam?

@@MikeHoltNEC Maricopa county arizona

Lol...

This video only covers what is required to make the system comply with the NEC. Utility requirements are another set of standards entirely, and are utility-specific. A molded-case circuit breaker can be used for PV disconnects in general, where electrically rated for the details and direction of electric power, and where their purpose doesn't concern the utility. Commonly used when ganging up multiple inverter output circuits in a subpanel dedicated to the PV system, or interconnecting to the main panel.

@@carultch ok yes that's certainly true. I think the NEC should adopt similar nomenclature as IEEE 1547 regarding POI and require this in the NEC. If the molded case breaker is counterfeit and fails closed, rapid shutdown doesn't operate

The wiring for almost all PV systems terminate to a circuit breaker (which has the 'required' overcurrent protection for the PV system), which is the PV system disconnect. If the utility wants an 'additional' disconnect (without overcurrent protection, like a knife switch) that their call. I'm not giving advice, I'm explaining the NEC requirements.

@@MikeHoltNEC fair enough! I love the KZfaq content and this format, starting from the basics and developing to a specific end goal discussion. It's easy to get caught up in specifics like what I brought up here.

Maybe instead of writing KZfaq comments I'll write to the CMP next time and give it a bit more thought and thoroughness...

Mark, this video is discussing the 'first' rule contained in Article 690 and how this article applies. It's not a 'solar course' - this I have at MikeHolt.com/Solar. It's not designed for those that actually are experts on Article 690 like you. I'm sorry that you wasted your time and had negative feelings of my free content. Over 98% gave this a thumbs up and less than 2% (you included) gave it a thumbs down. Have a great life.

@@MikeHoltNEC maybe I was a little harsh, but my comments overall are accurate.

@@sunshine5349 Mark, the video is an 'introduction' video on the 'Scope' of Article 690. To cover all of Article 690 before the introduction is just not possible in a matter of minutes. My video style just might not be what your looking for. Let me know if you do find what your looking for on the Internet so that I can better understand your comments.

@@sunshine5349 solar installers are hacks