Hey - thanks for the replies!
Mike - If I proceed with a grid-tie, I obviously have to comply with code, etc and pass inspection. The XW is rated to a max of 60amp output on backup power. To pass inspection, my subpanel must have a max rating of 60amp. My main panel is 100 amp. Therefore I have to get rid of 40. Plus I have to install a subpanel. That's what i mean be restrictive. It restricts me to a certain course of action. PITA really. I would much rather have a less automated and less restrictive system that fed backup power to my existing main panel and allowed me to ration power to any destination I choose, much as you already are doing in your off-grid system.
The point is: it is very possible to have less automation and less restriction in a safe reliable transfer system. To boot, in my experience, less automation = less cost and increased reliability.
I understand that the market is currently driven by big-dollar customers who prefer total automation. But i also feel there's a large market out there who would be satisfied with less automation at a lower price point.
The 240 part is a bummer. I've read a bit about stacking, but to be honest, I struggle with paying high prices for two inverters just so I can to stack them. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but 2 outbacks will far exceed the cost of 1 XW?
I didn't know that using the same inverter for both grid-tie and off-grid application was completely out of the question. That's also a bummer.
The primary concern from a design and inspection standpoint is to assure safety for both the homeowner and the grid operators. That's what 'safe transfer' is all about. Jens suggests that dual service is feasible, but not legal. If multi-pole switches can be applied to ensure isolation, what other reason exists for prohibiting dual service from an inverter? My reason for asking is not to be objectionable, but rather because I'm really interesting in learning why or why not.
Jens - thanks for the suggestions and ideas. I intend to give them some study as time permits.
Mike - If I proceed with a grid-tie, I obviously have to comply with code, etc and pass inspection. The XW is rated to a max of 60amp output on backup power. To pass inspection, my subpanel must have a max rating of 60amp. My main panel is 100 amp. Therefore I have to get rid of 40. Plus I have to install a subpanel. That's what i mean be restrictive. It restricts me to a certain course of action. PITA really. I would much rather have a less automated and less restrictive system that fed backup power to my existing main panel and allowed me to ration power to any destination I choose, much as you already are doing in your off-grid system.
The point is: it is very possible to have less automation and less restriction in a safe reliable transfer system. To boot, in my experience, less automation = less cost and increased reliability.
I understand that the market is currently driven by big-dollar customers who prefer total automation. But i also feel there's a large market out there who would be satisfied with less automation at a lower price point.
The 240 part is a bummer. I've read a bit about stacking, but to be honest, I struggle with paying high prices for two inverters just so I can to stack them. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but 2 outbacks will far exceed the cost of 1 XW?
I didn't know that using the same inverter for both grid-tie and off-grid application was completely out of the question. That's also a bummer.
The primary concern from a design and inspection standpoint is to assure safety for both the homeowner and the grid operators. That's what 'safe transfer' is all about. Jens suggests that dual service is feasible, but not legal. If multi-pole switches can be applied to ensure isolation, what other reason exists for prohibiting dual service from an inverter? My reason for asking is not to be objectionable, but rather because I'm really interesting in learning why or why not.
Jens - thanks for the suggestions and ideas. I intend to give them some study as time permits.
