Darn, someone got in before me.
Yes, concurred and very well described @mariusm! It should have been option 2. If CoCT accepted it, then that would be very interesting to understand why they did in the first place, but the answer usually is clear. If it’s on the list, then the admin guys really do not care that much.
If a mistake was made in the initial application, it can be corrected by “re-applying” using the same reference and just sending in the correct document and then following up until you get hold of the tech doing the work. These guys are clued up and can make a change in the system.
If you start a “new” application, then you will have to request the cancellation of the previous one and then start from scratch. So make sure you use the given reference number or you will delay the process.
The next question is inversion limits for Grid-Tied installs. So let’s work on a 60A main breaker. To my knowledge that allows for 3.5kw of inversion.
3 Possible outcomes.
Install less than 3.5kw of panels
Limit the inverter output to 3.5kw. - Allows for more panels but limits inverter output.
Install 15A breaker between the inverter and the grid and then set the inverter to only accept 15A from the grid (rest from batteries+ solar). Limits Passthrough power options.
Anything that I am missing here or suggested best practices?
On a 60A breaker, the feed-in limit at the point of connection is limited to 3.5kW.
That means you’re not allowed to pass more than 3.5kW backwards through the main breaker. This can be software-controlled, so if your inverter can curtail its output dynamically (and the setting can be password-protected by the installer), you can install a larger unit.
If you don’t feed in, you’re limited to 100% breaker size, which in this case is 13.8kW.
@Louisvdw’s screenshot limits the entire inverter… Is it possible to limit only feed-in?
Also, if you have batteries, you’re only allowed to charge them @ 25% from the grid, so 15A. Ideally you want this to be a separate setting. Currently on Victron equipment this can be approximated with the DC charge limit while your MPPTs charge the battery directly without limits, but if you’re AC-coupled with a Fronius, there isn’t a nice setting for battery charging only from grid unfortunately.
That’s wrong unfortunately. A Sunsynk syncs the sun with the grid (sorry…), so it’s grid-tied and hybrid due to batteries. The fact that it does not feed in does not change that. The docs specifically call this scenario out.
This installation might be compliant with the regulations on a technical level, but the registration was (deliberately?) misconstrued. This is a violation.
The reason they do this is because any grid-tied thing needs a professional to sign off in addition to the installer and they don’t feel like the admin. Again, see the doc.
Edit: This is basically lying, and then planning to apologise when you get caught, but no, CoCT are the bad guys.
Very true … but it comes down to what the engineer signs off, cause on 60a breaker:
Feedback then Maximum Total Generation Capacity** of SSEG (kVA***) to the grid = 3.5kw
No Feedback then Maximum Inverter Capacity (kVA) = 13.8kw
That would then mean, IF I understand it correctly, that the GoodWE’s are no more limited to 3.5kw array, as they used to be signed off as, because they could not be limited by software to 3.5kw.
I read it as that it is option 3 (STANDBY SSEG - Passive standby UPS utilised as an standby hybrid SSEG) as it is grid assisted (point II), that is also what my supplier advised. Also cheaper as you dont need professional engineer signoff only a COC.
CoCT allows a “reasonable” person to fill this in and submit it, a reasonable person cannot be held responsible for incorrect submission cause clearly even technical people in the field cannot agree on what option.
What you should fill in, and the requirements i.t.o. of sign-off are plain as day, at least in the latest version.
The disagreement is on whether it should be required, not which category a system is actually in.
BTW, I’m personally in favour of scrapping the professional sign-off requirement for known systems, but that doesn’t make the thing a different thing. People are disagreeing on what should be required, not how to classify. But they’re now mis-classifying based on how they think it should be signed off, which is wrong.
