diy solar

diy solar

How to AC couple Enphase IQ8 w/Battery Storage to Schneider XW Pro 6848 w/rack batteries, off-grid?

Happy to see you have a stable install! I am looking forward to a model X in the future :) I'm neck deep in Enphase, Schneider & tons (literally) of LiFePO hardware plus the utility caps me at a paltry 10kw, else I need to load up with a $1M home policy (they copied the FL solar regulations) for export. No thanks - I decided to go off grid. So now I just need to be where you are, but with different hardware and unattached.
Happy to see you have a stable install! I am looking forward to a model X in the future :) I'm neck deep in Enphase, Schneider & tons (literally) of LiFePO hardware plus the utility caps me at a paltry 10kw, else I need to load up with a $1M home policy (they copied the FL solar regulations) for export. No thanks - I decided to go off grid. So now I just need to be where you are, but with different hardware and unattached.
Model X is awesome, it was my first tesla. Anyway I recommend a hybrid inverter instead a off-grid inverter, and use the grid as a back up, i added another 7kwh of storage im at 50kwh DC and total about 90kw storage now and will be adding more in the future, now summer is coming up im still sending about 25kw to the grid…
 
Kudos on plugging in the Orient Power :) How have they been performing for you? I bit the bullet the other day and got some as well, but just smoked my Mean Well high voltage transistors (stupidly pushed > 200W of rated power forgetting to turn down the voltage pot) while trying to top them off individually as their intergration into the existing wiring is progressing at a snail's pace.
My Orient Power batteries are performing well. I just did some testing on my AC coupled Enphase. I'm still having significant issues with that. I did learn a few things today.,
 
Model X is awesome, it was my first tesla. Anyway I recommend a hybrid inverter instead a off-grid inverter, and use the grid as a back up, i added another 7kwh of storage im at 50kwh DC and total about 90kw storage now and will be adding more in the future, now summer is coming up im still sending about 25kw to the grid…
Ah, the grid - my situation is not a physics driven matter but an overrestrictive policy adopted by the local power company - reasons (that's a discussion in itself). Kudos to them for doing a fine job around here since the boots on the ground are a hard working bunch - good fellas to speak with and knowledgeable in their craft.
Bottom line is that given the size of my roll-out at this stage, I am labeled a "commercial" player. If I want it tied to the grid, when all is said & done, at the end of the day, I literally end up paying out to take my power. Whether by intentional design or ignorance of EE, I'd rather use those funds to improve/expand my setup amassing the knowledge and experience along the way to help others do something similar. I have inspired several friends and friends of friend's to go solar as a result and continually inspiring those around me who are still on the fence.
 
my situation is not a physics driven matter but an overrestrictive policy adopted by the local power company
It is a fine line about how "connected to the grid" is defined. My belief, in my juridiction, is that only a building permit is required to install solar which does not feed back into the grid. I can use power which passes through my meter any way that is safe. If I were in your situation I would install a hybrid inverter configured for no export and use the grid as backup.
 
Last edited:
It is a fine line about how "connected to the grid" is defined. My belief, in my juridiction, is that only a building permit is required to install solar which does not feed back into the grid. I can use power which passes through my meter any way that is safe. If I were in your situation I would install a hybrid inverter configured for no export and use the grid as backup.
I was under the impression that using any inverter that runs parallel with the grid (hybrid) requires an interconnect agreement even when set to zero export (because CTs/inverters arent fast enough to prevent a few watts here and there from leaking back)
 
I was under the impression that using any inverter that runs parallel with the grid (hybrid) requires an interconnect agreement even when set to zero export (because CTs/inverters arent fast enough to prevent a few watts here and there from leaking back)
Enphase CTs are export rated, meaning that they are fast enough to do the job controlling flow. Technically its the system (as you stated by mentioning the inverter) that decides and takes action, whereas the CTs are simply the eddy current "sensors". I'm sure its not perfect, but its sufficient to satisfy the definition and regulation(s). Loosely speaking its akin to a "48v DC" system never really running at 48v but slightly higher.
 
I was under the impression that using any inverter that runs parallel with the grid (hybrid) requires an interconnect agreement even when set to zero export (because CTs/inverters arent fast enough to prevent a few watts here and there from leaking back)
Yes, as long as there is a possibility of an interaction, but such detail is dependent on the facility you are dealing with and their regulatory requirements. I don't know the nuances and variations of each Power Supplier throughout the country, but for me if there is a path of physical contact in your design, you're connected. Then its a question what you do with it. Relay it, keep it as a standby, back-feed it, use it for critical loads only, etc...
 
I was under the impression that using any inverter that runs parallel with the grid (hybrid) requires an interconnect agreement even when set to zero export
That is clearly one interpretation and one that most power company's would support. I think that @Gubman can reach whatever interpretation he chooses that is consistent with his risk strategy. There are many options, one of which could be that he configured his system as off grid and he has a connection to a charger that could charge from the grid when needed. At night, when there is no risk of the slightest backfeed he could use the grid as backup. A lot depends on the rate structure and the capability of his inverter and whether his grid connection relay can be programmed for grid support at certain times.
 
I would worry about any equipment that applies power in parallel with the grid. If it relies on anti-islanding or measuring reverse power, there is hardware and firmware which has to work properly. If it lifts a relay but doesn't realize relay has welded, it could be backfeeding.

I would only trust equipment listed to UL-1741, and then not completely. Listed equipment makes problems less likely, and doing things by the book should further shield you from liability.

Equipment that operates by transfer switch, possibly with battery charger for on-line UPS, should be more immune to hazardous faults.

SMA written documentation says to use "UL-1741" settings of newer Sunny Boy when operated behind Sunny Island, but SMA America has put out a video saying to use "offgrid" settings. I don't trust that. Others have reported welded relays in Sunny Island. I think their new, young, non-engineer staff may bring them liability. That is, if "islanding" can ever happen in the wild.
 
Not encouraging anyone to be unsafe or violate code but playing devil's advocate a bit. Off-grid inverters with grid supplement/assist/boost function have been doing power generation in parallel with the grid for years without the need for interconnection agreement. Also, it appears to be safe even without anti-islanding mechanisms as there seems to be no public report of any line worker injury (a key concern for interconnection agreement/rules) due to such setup. So, paralleling with the grid doesn't seem be the litmus test that many would like it to be. Neither is UL1741 approval as many off-grid inverters have it.
 
Not encouraging anyone to be unsafe or violate code but playing devil's advocate a bit. Off-grid inverters with grid supplement/assist/boost function have been doing power generation in parallel with the grid for years without the need for interconnection agreement. Also, it appears to be safe even without anti-islanding mechanisms as there seems to be no public report of any line worker injury (a key concern for interconnection agreement/rules) due to such setup. So, paralleling with the grid doesn't seem be the litmus test that many would like it to be. Neither is UL1741 approval as many off-grid inverters have it.
Since we are playing devil's advocate, I have a couple of questions.
1) Please give us an example of a jurisdiction/electrical utility that has no rules governing parallel power production and has had these types of 3rd party systems injecting power on their lines for years. No doubt there are a few unpermitted or illegal installations, not talking about those.
2) How could a source of power that is unknown to an electrical worker and could energize at anytime without warning possibly "appear' to be safe. Maybe the reason no line-persons have been injured is because of the strict Anti-Islanding safety features that are built into inverters and have been for years. Its kind of ridiculous to believe just because an electrical injury didn't make headline news, they never happen. Are you aware of every work related injury every sustained by an electrician for the last 10 years. I suppose you have also memorized the entire Chinese phone book.
3) Some companies advertise Off-Grid inverters as being UL1741 because they can only consume utility power but not export by virtue of their design. I find this to be very deceptive, as they lack ALL the functional characteristics of UL1741. Its kind of like saying your backyard is kid safe regarding drowning because you don't have a pool.
 
More devil's advocate ...
Since we are playing devil's advocate, I have a couple of questions.
1) Please give us an example of a jurisdiction/electrical utility that has no rules governing parallel power production and has had these types of 3rd party systems injecting power on their lines for years. No doubt there are a few unpermitted or illegal installations, not talking about those.
These are permitted off-grid inverter installations not exporting power into the grid just powering local loads. The existence of the rules is not in question. Is it illegal like jaywalking is illegal? Frankly perhaps not even as serious as jaywalking as there are at least some rare reports of tickets for jaywalking. Is there any report of utilities penalizing these off-grid inverter systems for paralleling with the grid? Or even any example of off-grid inverters installed with an interconnection agreement?

2) How could a source of power that is unknown to an electrical worker and could energize at anytime without warning possibly "appear' to be safe. Maybe the reason no line-persons have been injured is because of the strict Anti-Islanding safety features that are built into inverters and have been for years. Its kind of ridiculous to believe just because an electrical injury didn't make headline news, they never happen. Are you aware of every work related injury every sustained by an electrician for the last 10 years. I suppose you have also memorized the entire Chinese phone book.
These inverters don't have anti-islanding (makes no sense as they are off-grid) but they do have a relay to shut off the grid input so presumably that's how they ensure safety. Can you point to a real and serious safety hazard without at least some incident reports?

3) Some companies advertise Off-Grid inverters as being UL1741 because they can only consume utility power but not export by virtue of their design. I find this to be very deceptive, as they lack ALL the functional characteristics of UL1741. Its kind of like saying your backyard is kid safe regarding drowning because you don't have a pool.
Why are they deceptive? They are just following UL standards. Why does UL allow them if they are not safe?
 
Last edited:
Grounding/Safety First for Linemen
1st pic shows what protects linemen in an islanding scenario.
Does this mean you can inject whatever your inverter can produce into an island?
My father witnessed a roaring arc to ground or phase-to-phase (didn't dare to check which) of 480V 800A service inside an enclosed decommissioned building of a supposedly de-energized line. It quit when enough wire melted off, finally opening up a gap wide enough to stop the show. The pole transformers didn't skip a beat. Everyone who walked in walked out and the power company apologized for the surprise.
 
Why are they deceptive? They are just following UL standards. Why does UL allow them if they are not safe?
I have seen a few cheap inverters that say "Designed to meet UL-1741 standards". Now that is being a bit deceptive as they say this without ever having an independent testing lab verify that it meets those rules.

The Schneider SW and XW series inverters use a very similar circuit design. They both use an "H" bridge between the battery and the transformer, and a contactor can connect the transformer 120/240 windings to the grid. The XW is UL listed and tested and has the software to allow it to export to the grid. The SW is not able to export to the grid. The SW is also UL listed and tested, but without grid export functions. I almost went with an SW, but decided on the XW line because I wanted to be able to push power back to my main panel.

Most of the "Off Grid" inverters that include a grid input are not able to ever sync with the incoming grid. They only close the grid input contactor when the inverter is shut down. And once on grid, it can only run as a battery charger. If it senses a grid failure, it still has to open the contactor before it can switch to inverting mode.

The Schneider SW is a bit unique in that it can sync with the grid and help power loads by using PV solar and/or battery power to reduce the current needed from the grid. But if the current coming in from the grid falls below a minimum threshold, the inverter again shuts off to be sure it never exports from battery power. A few newer hybrid inverters ae claiming similar functionality, but these tend to also be the ones that can also be configured for grid tied operation.

Under NEM 2.0 it only made sense to get the interconnect agreement for my initial PV solar install. I looked into batteries back then, but the cost was way too high. But when I decided to add batteries later, I looked at many options. I did look into using some of the cheaper stuff off Ally Express and having a controller switch it from charging to inverting. But as I thought about it, the idea of having some cheap non listed equipment shuttling around upwards of 4,000 watts of power was just a bit scary. At that point, I decided any solution I bought to push current to my main panel had to be built and independently tested to meet the UL standards. Even if something goes very wrong, it has a very good chance of failing in a safe manner. That is the main thing UL tests for. They know shit happens. Their job is to try and make the worst case failure still not ever hurt anyone.

Strict legality is a separate issue. I knew of several ways I could make a completely safe system, but the rules can be a fine line with some limits that are really there just to be able to charge fees. I have an interconnect agreement with an NEM 2.0 agreement that allows me to back feed up to 16 amps and up to 900 KWHs a month. As long as I stay under both of those, I am not breaking my agreement with So Cal Edison. And since I added the battery bank, both my peak export and total monthly export have decreased vastly. And every KWH I am no longer exporting, is also matched by a KWH I no longer have to import back later. If someone really wanted to carefully look over my hourly energy usage, it is quite obvious that I am now storing energy and using it in house later, but there is nothing in my NEM 2.0 or interconnect agreements that prohibit what I am doing. In reality, I have vastly reduced my impact on the grid. For less current ever goes to or from my house. The only real thing they can whine about is that I am now paying them far less money. They still hit me with about $12 a month in "non bypassable charges" and taxes. My exported energy credits all get used up in the hot summer and short winter months, so they never have to pay me. I still end up owing them about $250 per year to keep the grid available as my backup when the PV solar falls short. It did that for about 30 minutes this morning, and will likely do it again tomorrow. This "May Grey" weather has reduced my normal May 29-30 KWHs a day to just 13 KWHs a day. And even with my extra 2,000 watts of panels charging the battery, I fell to my low volt cutoff this morning as the clouds stayed too heavy to cover the loads. Yesterday, I had to buy 0.31 KWHs from the grid, and today, I am sure it will be even a little more. Hopefully we get some sun tomorrow to get the battery SoC back up.
 
You could use a dedicated charger as the only thing connected to the grid. Just turn off any Grid interactive features. The only thing connected to this device would be the incoming grid AC and the DC connection to the battery. No possibility of back feed at all. While an EG4 "Chargeverter" might work as a manual backup, a Schneider or any other quality Inverter/Charger should be able to be setup as a charger only and make use of the voltage based charging. It's not as accurate as SOC, but it's good enough to keep juice in the batteries when there is not enough solar.
 
You could use a dedicated charger as the only thing connected to the grid.
Yes, I agree this would be a totally legal way to be "Off Grid" with the grid as only backup power. And there is nothing the utility could do about it. You would only pay the monthly minimum charges as long as the solar makes enough energy. And then pay for any energy you need to import via the charger.

That is essentially how my system is programmed to operate, but with one big twist. By having the ability to export for credit, I do bank up that credit to cover most of the power I do end up having to buy. If I went with the total zero export, Any power you over produce beyond the batteries being full is just going to be thrown away.

So this is something that would have to be carefully weighed. Had I NEVER gone to the utility for the NEM agreement, what would my monthly minimum bill be? Would the small amount of power I need to buy be cheap enough that the lost over production is worth it?

I just checked So Cal Edison, and the Tiered rate plan is no longer a good deal. The lowest tier 1 is up to 30 cents per KWH. My "Super Off Peak" when I buy most of my needed grid power is 27 cents per KWH. And I get about 20 cents per KWH of credit when I export, so having the NEM 2.0 deal is clearly better in my case.

The new NEM 3.0 deal may be a completely different animal though. And if you are not in California, the rates may be much lower across the board.
 
I have seen a few cheap inverters that say "Designed to meet UL-1741 standards". Now that is being a bit deceptive as they say this without ever having an independent testing lab verify that it meets those rules.
The discussion is only about actually NRTL listed inverters to UL1741 standards.

The Schneider SW is a bit unique in that it can sync with the grid and help power loads by using PV solar and/or battery power to reduce the current needed from the grid. But if the current coming in from the grid falls below a minimum threshold, the inverter again shuts off to be sure it never exports from battery power. A few newer hybrid inverters ae claiming similar functionality, but these tend to also be the ones that can also be configured for grid tied operation.
Schneider SW is a great example but it's not unique. Victron, SMA and others also make off-grid inverters with the feature. The main point is that these NRTL listed UL1741 compliant off-grid inverters generate power in parallel with the grid without requiring interconnection agreement or any apparent reports of legal or safety issues. In fact, Schneider literally calls the feature ParallelPower:
1685465175361.png

So, is Schneider (and other tier 1 inverter makers) openly promoting and selling something illegal or unsafe?
 
Last edited:
So, is Schneider (and other tier 1 inverter makers) openly promoting and selling something illegal or unsafe?
If they are UL listed, how could they be unsafe? Also "illegal" implies that there is a civil code provision and my experience is that is there no civil code regulation. At least no one has pointed out any place in the USA where there are criminal statutes governing this. The power company rules at the most are contractual agreements between the consumer and the power company. No doubt the power companies have defined "parallel" to suite their purposes. That does not make it illegal.
 
Schneider SW is a great example but it's not unique. Victron, SMA and others also make off-grid inverters with the feature.

SMA Sunny Island is not an off-grid inverter. It is a utility-interactive inverter which performs active anti-islanding and can backfeed the grid (that occurs if enabled, and if external DC coupled charge controller drives battery to higher voltage than Sunny Island is trying to maintain.) It also can work with AC coupled PV, either allowing that to backfeed or not.

It can be used as an off-grid inverter with DC coupled PV, AC coupled PV, generator.

It can be programmed for maximum current drawn from grid or generator, and inverts from battery to supplement the power.

An off-grid inverter which does not perform anti-islanding but delivers power in parallel with the grid, I would be concerned about lineman safety. If it maintains a minimum power draw from grid before inverting, the measurement should have enough margin to not backfeed.
 
The main point is that these NRTL listed UL1741 compliant off-grid inverters generate power in parallel with the grid without requiring interconnection agreement or any apparent reports of legal or safety issues.

The utility published Rule21 documents in California typically say that parallel operation requires an interconnection agreement. With some exemptions.

Here is an example I shared in another thread


I don't think the Tier-1s are selling things that are unsafe but they leave the legality to you to sort out as the installer/user as part of the responsibility to get it cleared with AHJ + POCO
 
Last edited:
SMA Sunny Island is not an off-grid inverter. It is a utility-interactive inverter which performs active anti-islanding and can backfeed the grid (that occurs if enabled, and if external DC coupled charge controller drives battery to higher voltage than Sunny Island is trying to maintain.) It also can work with AC coupled PV, either allowing that to backfeed or not.
It's actually both a utility interactive and stand alone inverter as certified by UL (see below). For the current discussion context, the utility interactive or more precisely grid-following mode is not relevant. Frankly, I don't know of anyone using SI as a pure grid-following PV inverter like Enphase or SolarEdge. SI has been and still is generally sold and used as a stand-alone (aka off-grid) inverter like this.

1685474747457.png




1685474470625.png
It can be used as an off-grid inverter with DC coupled PV, AC coupled PV, generator.

It can be programmed for maximum current drawn from grid or generator, and inverts from battery to supplement the power.
It works in the off-grid mode pretty much the same way as the other inverters that provide this feature. Again, generating power in parallel with the grid. Do you know of anyone using SI as a pure off-grid inverter with an interconnection agreement? Or anyone using SI as a pure off-grid inverter who has been penalized for not having an interconnection agreement?

An off-grid inverter which does not perform anti-islanding but delivers power in parallel with the grid, I would be concerned about lineman safety. If it maintains a minimum power draw from grid before inverting, the measurement should have enough margin to not backfeed.
As far as I know SI also does not perform anti-islanding when working in the off-grid mode where it's the grid-forming inverter. It would be trying to knock itself off which would make little sense. Please share any doc showing otherwise.

I am curious to know what specific linemen safety risk you see that UL is apparently willing to accept. As you mentioned, the grid supplement feature works only above certain amps draw from the grid. If the grid drops then my understanding is that the inverter would open the grid relay. Not sure if SI has it but some off-grid inverters will also detect reverse power flow and open the grid relay.
 
The utility published Rule21 documents in California typically say that parallel operation requires an interconnection agreement. With some exemptions.

Here is an example I shared in another thread


I don't think the Tier-1s are selling things that are unsafe but they leave the legality to you to sort out as the installer/user as part of the responsibility to get it cleared with AHJ + POCO

POCO's/PUC's say a lot of things, like "All solar and renewable generators must connect to our grid. You must complete our Interconnection Application.". Should they all be taken literally?

1685477234849.png
 
As far as I know SI also does not perform anti-islanding when working in the off-grid mode where it's the grid-forming inverter. It would be trying to knock itself off which would make little sense. Please share any doc showing otherwise.

I am curious to know what specific linemen safety risk you see that UL is apparently willing to accept. As you mentioned, the grid supplement feature works only above certain amps draw from the grid. If the grid drops then my understanding is that the inverter would open the grid relay. Not sure if SI has it but some off-grid inverters will also detect reverse power flow and open the grid relay.

I'm pretty sure SI doesn't perform anti-islanding when it is grid-forming or when it is told AC input is a generator.

With SB connected, it could sit at zero power in or out from the grid. In which case it wouldn't be supplementing power, so if grid went down, theoretically the AC coupled SB could be backfeeding through SI to a resonant island. SI's anti-islanding is supposed to detect that. or maybe SB's anti-islanding detects that. Their documents on that seem a bit confused.

My concern with SI would be if relay welded closed and SB (or other GT PV inverter) and been configured for off-grid, not performing anti-islanding.

Generators have been a problem for utility workers. If an inverter could somehow backfeed the grid, for instance if its relay stuck and inverter operated rather than detecting that and shutting down, that would be a safety risk. I would hope SI detects that (maybe by one pole of its 3-pole relay, or if relay is double-throw.) Then it could disable operation, and refrain from telling (older model RS-485 connected) SB to switch to offgrid parameters.
 

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top