question

diddikai avatar image
diddikai asked

Does Victron have plans to provide control for multiple different-sized inverters?

As in small remote power systems using multiple generators of different sizes matched to the load, does Victron plan a mechanism to dispatch different inverters based on the load? For example, run a 250/12 inverter for small loads and switch to a 3000/12 when larger loads occur.

multiple inverters
1 comment
2 |3000

Up to 8 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 190.8 MiB each and 286.6 MiB total.

diddikai avatar image diddikai commented ·
Thanks for all your comments Gents. Ok, let me expand the example for a situation that might have more resonance with you folks. Let's say I have a remote community power system with 20 x 5kVA inverters, each of which has 35W of no-load dissipation. So, 700W standby load, which may be worth reducing depending on location, solar availability & fuel cost. Typical base load might be 15% of peak load, so only 2 inverters are required for that...


I do not fully understand the existing parallel inverter control logic. Do they all go into AES/Search Mode in parallel, or is there a cascade based on load? If the latter, then that solves my question. If the former, then at some scale there is a rationale to being able to dispatch the inverters, just as one would dispatch multiple diesels to serve load.

0 Likes 0 ·
2 Answers
nickdb avatar image
nickdb answered ·

I think its safe to say No.

why exactly would that be a good idea?

1 comment
2 |3000

Up to 8 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 190.8 MiB each and 286.6 MiB total.

matt1309 avatar image matt1309 commented ·

Not what OP alludes to but it would allow customer to buy small and expand systems. Something that's difficult unless you start with AC coupled PV route.

So scalability/initial cost is why it would be a nice idea for customers

(However I understand from technical stand point it's difficult to implement)

The "exactly" makes it feels so condescending hahaha


If OP means more from software/data point of view. Like a VRM data aggregator. Then i think that's also a nice idea. Feels less of a challenge as well

Ideal for marketing for installers. Easily see all the PV they've installed. Or for sites where there are multiple buildings with their own installs.

0 Likes 0 ·
Alex Pescaru avatar image
Alex Pescaru answered ·

Hi @Diddikai

What you want will be true only if the zero-load power consumption between the inverters is considerable different. But the difference is too small in order to warrant developing what you suggested.

The smallest one is 5W for a 250W inverter and the biggest one is 20W for a 3000W inverter.

Just use the one that will satisfy safely your biggest load... It seems to be more efficient.

Alex

4 comments
2 |3000

Up to 8 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 190.8 MiB each and 286.6 MiB total.

diddikai avatar image diddikai commented ·
Alex, you guessed exactly my use case! 150W 24 hours/day plus intermittent 2500W @ 4 hours/day. If I only use my 3000W inverter, I am wasting 15W for 20 hours/day=300Wh/day (25 Ah @ 12V).
0 Likes 0 ·
Alex Pescaru avatar image Alex Pescaru diddikai commented ·
Well, those small loads can function on inverter's AES mode or even Search mode?

If yes, then problem is partially solved.

In contrast, if those small loads could be interrupted for a few seconds, maybe you can come up with an idea of switching between inverters with some relays.

Just some thoughts, maybe I am talking nonsense...

Alex


0 Likes 0 ·
nickdb avatar image nickdb ♦♦ diddikai commented ·

If 300Wh a day is an issue, then the extra expense of buying multiple inverters, wiring them etc would not be palatable, it would be cheaper to cater for the 300Wh in battery storage and PV.

There would be no interest in developing a system like that, physics aside, as it wouldn’t make any commercial sense.

0 Likes 0 ·
matt1309 avatar image matt1309 nickdb ♦♦ commented ·

"There would be no interest in developing a system like that, physics aside, as it wouldn’t make any commercial sense."


- I agree for OP's numbers it's not worth it but in general I disagree with your point.

You're running under the assumption that everything is bought on day 0. Not everyone can afford that.

A scalable system would be ideal for many. Not everyone is lucky enough to have sufficient funds to pay for a system that meets all their needs right now but would have sufficient funds to cover a portion. Building/expanding the system over a period of time would be useful for many.


My evidence for this would be the volume of posts on here of people having issues trying to parallel new multiplus with old in efforts to expand their systems....


However again I do understand physics is a key issue.

0 Likes 0 ·

Related Resources

Additional resources still need to be added for this topic