Software engineers have a tendency to overestimate their own abilities, the arrogance is often on full display here for all to see.
Maybe we need a few to burn their own houses down to act as a deterrent and encourage others to stay in their lane.
Maybe we need a few to burn their own houses down to act as a deterrent and encourage others to stay in their lane.
I’ve installed 3x 240V 60A EV chargers, was a cakewalk. I didn’t build my own in this case since I was going for an aesthetic match.
Meanwhile you can enjoy paying some alcoholic $1000 for 30 minutes of work to:
* pop out a hole on the back
* Tap and install 2x screws into studs
* pull 3 wires 6” through, wrap around the strain relief, strip/insert/torque
* flip a breaker
It’s not rocket science, as long as you’re not a complete idiot and turn the breaker off before hand it’s completely safe. 240V isn’t even “high” voltage.
It's not difficult to do, which was GP's original point--though you need to take safety precautions (in addition to researching local code requirements).
I don’t know what advice an electrician would give, but the advice I give is that if you don’t feel like you can safely install a new circuit on a live panel, you probably just shouldn’t install new circuits.
Second, what’s the material difference between a 40A circuit and a 60A circuit? A few extra hours overnight to charge?
Or, as in our case, we have two EVs - speed is useful sometimes.
EDIT: Even-higher-still vehicle charging is handled by having a charger outside of the vehicle and feeding the vehicle with DC, which is what e.g. Tesla Superchargers do.
* Solar panels installed facing North in the Northern Hemisphere; rapid-shutdown switch installed inside a home; supply side of 240v connection to backyard office has male prongs; fence built with non-pressure-treated wood contacting the soil. The list goes on, and these are only the errors I've discovered in 20+ years of being a homeowner.
So in case of lightning strike (which is pretty much a given) that would invite that lightning into your home right at the distribution panel. People may be following 'the code' but that doesn't mean they actually understand what they are doing. He wouldn't take responsibility for it, I asked him to put it in writing as an instruction and sign off on it so I could pass it to my insurance company. That never happened...
And this is important for lots of reasons. If there is a fault from a hot wire to a grounded object, this (if done correctly) allows the upstream overcurrent protection to trip. And it minimizes the voltage rise of the object that gets energized. And it keeps the line-to-ground voltage within spec. And using a separate ground means that the voltage of “ground” doesn’t get pulled up by resistance in the neutral wire and that current doesn’t normally flow through “ground”.
You should, of course, also connect the ground wire to Earth, well, at the base of the structure. And possibly also install something to help conduct lightning currents from the non-ground conductors to ground in the event of a lightning strike.
That's an interesting start to your comment. So you don't know the whole setup but you do know the inspector is likely right.
Well: if he was likely right he would have not shied away from putting it in writing. What happened was that halfway into the conversation he realized he was wrong, hightailed it out of there and simply didn't want to admit that he was wrong.
I do know the whole setup. And I have spent enough time installing high stuff made out of metal (mostly: antenna masts) to know that the last thing you want is to give lightning a short path into your dwelling.
His whole experience seemed to be based on simple domestic installations, and instead of just admitting that he didn't know exactly what to do and to go look it up or ask someone more experienced to look it over he dug in. Human nature, I get it, but this is safety we're talking about and the amount of flak the OP is getting in this thread from people that likely have more experience with keyboards than with real world engineering is telling. Just like you: they don't know the whole setup but they'll argue that it is unsafe, will void your insurance, will get you investigated for arson(!) and might kill your kids.
You last paragraph is exactly the problem: he outright forbade me to ground at the base of the tower because that was in his opinion unsafe. But it wasn't his life and property that was at stake.
I've seen up close what lightning will do to various pieces of gear, it isn't pretty, to put it mildly and you make sure you keep it as far away from your house as you can. And have spark gaps to ground at the point of entry for your power cable, just in case.
Finally: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. When after a year we pulled the tower down again there was evidence of multiple strikes on the nacelle body at the top of the tower, all of which were dealt with gracefully, to the point that we didn't even realize the machine had been hit. What helped is that for the whole installation we had a massive amount of help from an experienced wind turbine vendor who took an interest in our project.
Whether you connect both grounds to both themselves and Earth, or just connect both grounds to Earth, or connect them to Earth once and connect them both depends on so many details, it's not funny.
What is certain is that you don't want something that doubles as a lightning rod protected on the same internal circuit as your house. So your rationale doesn't apply to the GP.
But anyway, every time somebody talks about electrical installations on the internet, somebody says some version of "If there is a fault from a hot wire to a grounded object, this (if done correctly) allows the upstream overcurrent protection to trip." Is it still a recommended practice on the US to rely on overcurrent protection to protect against current leakage? It's an horrible practice, as it requires several amperes of leakage before triggering.
That + the use of metal tubing to carry electrical power as well as the incredibly flimsy construction of various sockets and such (as well as the high amperage) translates into lots of preventable fires each year in the USA and Canada. Point a FLIR at your average distribution panel and try not to be amazed at the number of hot spots.
My biggest gripe: I don't mind inspectors, I just expect them to be really knowledgeable, not just theoretical. Grounding a structure is inherently different from grounding a circuit. He basically kept on insisting that the windmill is part of the circuit and should be bonded rather than that it had its own ground and that is just patent nonsense, more so because the windmill produced variable frequency AC that first had to be rectified, passed through a battery charger, a bunch of batteries and an inverter. The latter of course was bonded to the house ground.
Outside is another matter. Those galvanized steel tubes don’t last very long underground, and the results are terrifying. And nothing in the code requires ground fault protection upstream of a 120V circuit running through a corroded steel tube underground.
A single leak also gives you a minor risk of electrocution. But the fire hazard is the important one.
The right solution is ground and arc fault protection, both of which are available, and one of which is increasingly required in the US.
And yes, they are way less dangerous if you have ground fault protection. To the point that I'm not sure it's still important to ban them. But they don't have any upside either.
Yes.
I don’t agree with it, personally — I think that there should be standard ground fault trip curves that are functions of circuit breaker rating such that they coordinate properly, and that they should be used at least on all circuits that extend outside of a building and really on most circuits, period. This would add costs, and it would detect and thus prevent a lot of dubious wiring practices and outright errors.
But you should still bond all your “ground wires” together so that even if these breakers fail to trip you have a degree of protection. (And breakers do fail.)
Under current NEC (the US code), when you supply a building with a feeder (i.e. from another building or similar structure), you must provide it with all the current carrying wires and separate ground, and you must ground it to the Earth.
In any case, if you live in a place where your utility supplies power above ground, and a utility pole or line is hit by lightning, its ground is most certainly solidly connected to your house. So you can’t really pretend that your house’s ground is connected only to the Earth near your house and that it won’t let lightning in.
Hmm, I wonder if you can take the ground wire running between two buildings and carefully insulate it and give it a wrap or three around a piece of steel to add some inductance and reduce lightning currents that might otherwise go through it. I’m not saying this is wise…