Releasing slowly. Multiple Powerwall 3 system will come later. If you need solar/bess now then Powerwall 2 is what you will be quoted, still a great system.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Discussion: Powerwall 3 [Speculation / Discussion etc]
- Thread starter n.one.one
- Start date
jgleigh
Member
Will the Powerwall4 be the Powerwall+++?
9540A is a data providing test, not a certification. Given the low propensity for thermal runaway in LFP cells, it may not be that useful.
What You Need To Know About UL 9540
How does this work if you order Powerwall direct? Can the order be canceled before a purchase agreement is signed?
Jeremy3292
Active Member
UL 9540 is a Listing that produces a listing mark. It is a pass/fail criteria, and therefore easy to say yes or no this is listed.
UL 9540A is a test method that produces a test report and is against a list of performance criteria. The fire code currently says that all ESS need to be 36" from each other, unless the 9540A testing has been performed and smaller separation distances are approved by the fire official.
For instance, Santa Clara County fire officials (and they are trying to convince others) are not approving the Tesla powerwall 2 test report, and often not following the 9540A performance criteria when they do. The fire officials simply say that they do not approve it and no law requires them to give a reason. The reason could literally be anything including they just don't approve any NMC (which seems to fit the evidence).
For instance they point out that in the testing there was a flash flame lasting a second or 2 during the Powerwalls forced thermal event, and ignore that the test method performance criteria says "Flaming outside the BESS is not observed as demonstrated by no flaming or charring of the cheesecloth indicator"
So the test labs wrap the BESS with cheesecloth, and if there is a small flame but it doesn't have heat release energy to burn the cheesecloth, it is assumed it won't ignite the undies or other cloth the homeowner carelessly stacked all over their BESS. The test method calls this the performance criteria, but some fire and building officials just stop reading the test report at "flash flame" They say any flame is a failure, and stop further discussion. While this is a failure for the performance criteria for a non-residential product, residential performance criteria allows a flame that doesn't damage the cheesecloth but these AHJ do not know or care to learn the difference.
So it would never be okay to mark the product a UL9540A listing park, though some manufacturers put UL9540A on their datasheet in the "certification" section so it seems like they have a listing.
Last edited:
Exactly, all the battery cells are foreign but if they are put in a box with some stickers in the USA then it's "Made in USA". Same game Chinese vendors play to get around the tariffs by doing final assembly in Vietnam with "Made in Vietnam" stickers. The whole "Buy American" thing has been made a farce.
Jeremy3292
Active Member
No, I think that would be “Assembled in USA”. Imported raw materials/parts + final assembly in the USA.
“Made in the USA” would have to be almost all or virtually all raw materials are sourced from the USA and final assembly also occurs in the USA.
Also of note “Made in USA” is not on any of the pics Andy provided. It is just in that PDF found that someone attached. So it remains to be seen what the actual product says on it.
Complying with the Made in USA Standard
Introduction Basic Information About Made In USA Claims The Standard For Unqualified Made In USA Claims Qualified Claims Comparative Claims The FTC and The Customs Service Other Statutes What To Do About Violations Introduction The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is charged with preventing
Last edited:
It all depends on the interpretation "almost all or virtually all raw materials". The US government is only starting to try to go after some Chinese vendors playing the "Made in Vietnam" game years later. In the meantime, the Chinese vendors and their complicit America corporate customers have made lots money with little or no penalty.
This is not the thread (or subforum) for a discussion on what exactly constitutes "made in america" so I am putting a stop to it in this subforum. Feel free to take that discussion up in the energy policy subforum:
Quick update on the install: There is no update. Tesla was supposed to finish the job yesterday but they no-show'd.
This may not be the right thread to ask, but... Can anyone explain why Tesla is insistent on grounding the system to the home's main water supply pipe? I noticed on the first pictures I posted of the Powerwall sitting on the driveway right after it was shipped and the shipping label says a pair of grounding rods were included. Why can't they just pound these into the ground right next to the system rather than run 50+ feet of ground wire + conduit over to the water main?
CrazyRabbit
Active Member
I think they were lazy. My house is grounded to cold water line and one ground rod, built in 2002. Now they require UFER ground, so perhaps the electrician took a measurement and determined it wasn’t necessary.
But I’m thinking of adding two ground rods and landing them in the main generation panel that is outside, where the main solar breakers land, that way perhaps a lightning strike on the solar would follow that path and stay out of the house. Wishful thinking!
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Oh they most definitely can, but be careful what you wish for, lest you end up with ish like this.
I'm not an expert, but I believe that updates to building codes require two grounds unless it is shown that one has a resistance of less than 25(!) ohms, and also that the cold water line be bonded to the ground at the entrance to the home. I think that might explain your observation.
Why object to the 25 ohm option? Well, applying 120V (a short to ground) would only induce a current of about 4.8A into the ground rod. That is not going to pop a breaker right a way. Two or more grounds rods, an Ufer ground and a water pipe ground will all help reduce the resistance to earth, increasing the likelihood that a breaker pops quickly in the event of a short to ground. Solar systems with all those metal pieces and conductors on the roof are also more likely to have induced currents from lightning, which you also want solidly diverted to ground as best, and redundantly as possible.
Ufer grounding (named after the person who researched it) is generally preferable, especially in dry climates.
Grounding: Understanding the Essentials for Building the Foundation of a Structure’s Electrical System | NFPA | NFPA
Grounding is the very foundation of a building or structure’s electrical system.
Electrical grounding and bonding per NEC | Consulting - Specifying Engineer
Correct grounding and bonding design and construction is crucial for proper electrical system operation and personnel safety. Learn more.
www.csemag.com
The US military takes significantly more precautions about grounding to care for its troops;
Residential NEC ground would literally not pass muster.
All the best,
BG
Because the NEC requires it. Any metal water pipe buried in the ground for 10' or more is a grounding electrode. All electrodes present have to be bonded together to become the premises grounding electrode system.
Water pipe electrodes may not be the only electrode present, so 2 ground rods will also be needed unless there is another grounding electrode like a concrete encased electrode aka Ufer.
As an aside, as the computation BGBreeder did (120V / 25 ohms = 4.8A) show that at utilization voltages (<1000V), earthing is never relevant to tripping standard breakers. Bonding is what does that on a grounded system.
Cheers, Wayne
Matt-FL
Member
From what I've seen, it is the more compact Powerwall + inverter that seems to have a higher failure rate. Granted, that is only forum perusing sleuth skills, no scientific data
.My original plans had the Powerwall+ inverters, however my utility company told Tesla they hadn't certified the newer inverter. Tesla and my utility went back and forth on this for six months, before changing my plans to use the prior version inverter. After seeing many posts about the newer inverters failing, leaking, etc, I'm happy my utility pushed back.
My understanding is there are/were two inverters in the system. One for the powerwalls and one for the entire system. With a powerwall + they installed two units. One unit is the battery/storage and one is the inverter that is for the powerwall. Then there is an other inverter for the entire system. With the Powerwall 3 there is only one unit for the Powerwall. I am guessing it's because they now are fed with DC voltage. They probably have an internal DC to DC converter. My question is are the most often failed inverters the whole system inverter or the Powerwall+ inverter?
Similar threads
