Implications of Amendment 1 for EV charging points?

[HappyHippyDad]

I am a bit unsure of what Amendment 1 is saying regarding EV charging points and PME.

I understand the existing 3 methods in section 722.411.4.1 regarding the use of PME and EV charging points but I am not sure what the additional methods are?

Is it now easier to use EV charging points with a PME system?

Ps.. Just want to own up to the fact that I have duplicated the post I started in the EV part of the forum. I thought for once I would post in the correct part but I had no replies as it's pretty well hidden. Apologies!

 

[Strima]

I looked at the amendment and my head melted, needless to say I'm staying away from EV at the minute.

 

[Lister1987]

There are units out that are Amendment 1 suitable, @ArtElectrics will tell you about Happi Zappi, and I think there are few more put there but I know Jordan fits a fair few of differing operations

 

[Baddegg]

@Gavin John Hyde is our man for this one I’d say?.....?

 

[HappyHippyDad]

There are units out that are Amendment 1 suitable, @ArtElectrics will tell you about Happi Zappi, and I think there are few more put there but I know Jordan fits a fair few of differing operations

The Zappi and others were the choice to use to meet part (iii) of the existing 2018 regulations 722.411.4.1. Since then there has been an Amendment and I am wondering what impact this has had with regards PME. @JK-Electrical is another who may know.

 

[hasel5]

Why Pod Point homechargers do not require an earth rod | Pod Point

To find out more details about why Pod Point homechargers do not require an earth rod, take a look over on our blog.

pod-point.com

This may Help
I do have A Bias to these

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I've watched a couple of videos on Amd 1 and it seems that some of the differences are extra notes to 722.411.4.1 which basically say the charging equipment needs to monitor voltage between live and neutral and disconnect if outside parameters. Also that it may not be suitable to change the house from PME to TT.

Interesting!

 

[marcuswareham]

I've watched a couple of videos on Amd 1 and it seems that some of the differences are extra notes to 722.411.4.1 which basically say the charging equipment needs to monitor voltage between live and neutral and disconnect if outside parameters. Also that it may not be suitable to change the house from PME to TT.

Interesting!

Yeah JW has a vidoe on the amendments

monitoring the voltage between L - N in this way (like the matt-e single phase o-pen for example) in my opinion this is a bit like putting gaffa tape over a rust hole on your car, the hole is gone but the problem is still there

as it is still very possible to have a PEN conductor fault and still have a voltage between L - N between 207v - 253v

Although it provides some mitigation to a PEN fault it is not a fix all solution, and i feel it is giving people a false sense of security, like the poeple using these devices for hot tub installations etc.

I think at the min the best method seems to be, a low resistance electrode (around 1ohm) connected to the PME MET to bring the touch voltage down in the event of a PEN fault, however an electrode with such a low resistance can be very hard to achieve in some locations and might require the garden/driveway to be dug up (not ideal)

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

There are 3 approved chargers as far as I know that can be used on a PME/TNS system without an earth rod - PodPoint Solo, Andersen A2 and Myenergi Zappi, I fit all 3 under the OLEV schemes.
The rest have not as yet I believe incorporated the technology to monitor what is going on to be able to disconnect the charger in event of an open pen conductor or other rogue issue.
The easiest way is to install an earth rod and TT the charger. not always practical in some locations such as city centre or rocky ground. In which case the Matt:e device isone option to meet the requirements of section 722. Part of me thinks it is a solution but not a cure. it will disconnect the charger via the in built contactor but wont in itself alert you to the wider issue unless you have the knowledge and can test. it plasters over the problem. they are £118.00 and given the manufacturers recommendation caveat with the regs being what they are is one way to meet the requirements.
Personally I prefer the approach taken by Myenergi and Andersen etc to incorporate the technology within the charger. Myenergi and the zappi is by far the most technically advanced charger out there in my my opinion. it has many tech features to limit load, monitor the load in the house via ct clamps when you have a 60 amp fuse, it is head and shoulders above most of the competition. including the vital open pen detection.
The Andersen is exceptionally well designed and aesthetically pleasing and engineered to minute detail. Also constantly being developed.
With most things it comes down to price though for the majority of customers.
Assuming a few things such as an earth rod not possible and house being PME then the costs are quite different, with all these prices you have labour and other materials to factor in aswell as any grants.
A non tethered rolec olev eligible is approx 540 inc vat on average you then need the matt:e at £118.00 so £658
A podpoint non tethered is £480 Inc VAT no matt:e required
Rolec and PodPoint being towards the entry level of the market the podpoint offers a much more cost effective solution.
An andersen tethered is approx £1k
A Myenergi Zappi untethered is approx £810 including the hub for olev grant
off these you may get trade or installer discount.

off of these you can take the £350 olev grant. there are a few ways to achieve compliance with sec 722

I have a matt:e here and will take a picture of whats actually inside in a moment... its very basic
[automerge]1593357661[/automerge]
Matte device. Really a voltage monitoring circuit and a contactor...

 

[marcuswareham]

There are 3 approved chargers as far as I know that can be used on a PME/TNS system without an earth rod - PodPoint Solo, Andersen A2 and Myenergi Zappi, I fit all 3 under the OLEV schemes.
The rest have not as yet I believe incorporated the technology to monitor what is going on to be able to disconnect the charger in event of an open pen conductor or other rogue issue.
The easiest way is to install an earth rod and TT the charger. not always practical in some locations such as city centre or rocky ground. In which case the Matt:e device isone option to meet the requirements of section 722. Part of me thinks it is a solution but not a cure. it will disconnect the charger via the in built contactor but wont in itself alert you to the wider issue unless you have the knowledge and can test. it plasters over the problem. they are £118.00 and given the manufacturers recommendation caveat with the regs being what they are is one way to meet the requirements.
Personally I prefer the approach taken by Myenergi and Andersen etc to incorporate the technology within the charger. Myenergi and the zappi is by far the most technically advanced charger out there in my my opinion. it has many tech features to limit load, monitor the load in the house via ct clamps when you have a 60 amp fuse, it is head and shoulders above most of the competition. including the vital open pen detection.
The Andersen is exceptionally well designed and aesthetically pleasing and engineered to minute detail. Also constantly being developed.
With most things it comes down to price though for the majority of customers.
Assuming a few things such as an earth rod not possible and house being PME then the costs are quite different, with all these prices you have labour and other materials to factor in aswell as any grants.
A non tethered rolec olev eligible is approx 540 inc vat on average you then need the matt:e at £118.00 so £658
A podpoint non tethered is £480 Inc VAT no matt:e required
Rolec and PodPoint being towards the entry level of the market the podpoint offers a much more cost effective solution.
An andersen tethered is approx £1k
A Myenergi Zappi untethered is approx £810 including the hub for olev grant
off these you may get trade or installer discount.

off of these you can take the £350 olev grant. there are a few ways to achieve compliance with sec 722

I have a matt:e here and will take a picture of whats actually inside in a moment... its very basic
[automerge]1593357661[/automerge]
Matte device. Really a voltage monitoring circuit and a contactor...

I have looked at the Zappi chargers and yes they do seem to be a better solution, although the PEN fault protection when the utilisation voltage stays within the range is via current sensing coils, if the house has no extraneous conductive parts (plastic water pipes etc) then in order to have a current flowing there would need to be a path to true earth (i.e person touching the car) so the person would receive an electric shock for a short duration before discconection

As seen in this video:

View: https://youtu.be/ZedTmlTLH2w


Funny how the guy in the video used a lead rather than his hand to complete the path to true earth !!!

Its not perfect but better that the Matt-e single phase version, and better to have current sensing disconnection than not
[automerge]1593374228[/automerge]
The matt-e 3 phase verison seems good,

as far as i can work out it measures voltage between the PME earth and 3 resistors in a wye/star connection between each phase to simulate the netural/star point of the transformer/sub station,

this will disconnect in any event of a PEN fault, shame we dont have access to all 3 phases at most domestic installs in the UK