Can you use a MPPT 450/100 off the battery of a Nissan Leaf to charge a 48V system?

I notice some (maybe all) Nissan leafs have access directly to their battery pack (Max 405V).

It occurs to me that a MPPT 450/100 may/should be able to take this voltage and charge a 48V system.

There will be some caveats, firstly limiting the charging current to something suitable for the leaf pack and also ensuring discharge does not happen below the minimum voltage the battery pack should be taken down to. Luckily the leaf (in combination with the plug pinouts) has a main DC contactor effectively accessible for external control.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319162700_Rapid_EV_Chargers_Implementation_of_a_Charger/download?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoiX2RpcmVjdCJ9fQ

Any comments??

No, that won’t work, because the MPPT adjusts itself to the maximum power output, which in a battery is defined by its short-circuit current. Your MPPT will therefore quickly go up in smoke.

However, there is a workaround: you can install a current limiter between the Leaf battery and the MPPT. You just need to find a suitable one.

Hi, thanks for the quick response.

So overboarding will not work?? AND

Victron designers are too dumb not to include basic overcurrent protection?

Of course, there is the option to turn optimisation on or OFF

and to set the maximum charge current (and thus the maximum input current).

More concerning, the max input voltage must be less than 8x the (max) battery voltage which will be in, but with less of a margin.

I will accept that it would be sensible to derate the unit by a significant amount, say to 60%.

Theoretically the MPPT will start with open circuit voltage and try to draw energy and reduce the voltage.
It will soon reach its current input limit and will stop there.

Like on overpaneling situations where the reports of different users confirmed that.

But your situation is an undocumented and unsupported one and you are on your own.

If you try it, please report back to tell us…
With a smile on your face or some smoke powder like in Laurel and Hardy movies… :zany_face:

1 Like

Why do you ask when you already know everything better than the Victron engineers?

Good luck!

Alex:

Yes, that is what I would expect, it’s how I would design it.

Will not be the first time I was on my own, doubt it will be the last, either (see blowing up isolators thread, for example). I have found over the years that few people do things from “first principles” most, and an astonishingly high number, do it by rote. I came across a very competent and efficient electrician recently that did not understand or know ohms law. Didn’t need to, just needed to work from a spec sheet and know how to do the job to required standards (and he was REALLY good at that).

TBH I would be surprised if kit as well-designed (ie basically properly designed) as Victrons failed if it was in spec, and in spec really means not exceeding Vmaxinput, and I will bet there is a crowbar protection on that to short the input and trip external protection (or just the panels).

As it happens I probably won’t do this unless a second-hand MPPT comes up, and they seem to be as rare as hens eggs although its quite fun when the magic smoke escapes …..

Hey, I don’t have any hands-on experience specifically with the MPPT 450/100, but I do have experience with other MPPTs working in this kind of setup. I’ve been running a few Victron SmartSolar MPPT 100/20 and Victron SmartSolar MPPT 75/15 units as a sort of “buffer power supply.”

On the PV input side, I’ve got them connected to a larger battery bank with a nominal voltage around 60V. On the battery output side, depending on the system, I’m running either 12V or 24V batteries. The PV input is protected by a 10A fuse rated for DC operation.

From my experience, MPPTs don’t create a hard short on the input just to find the maximum power point. If you set reasonable parameters on the output (in my case, up to the charger’s rated power), the MPPT will simply increase its current draw to meet the configured charging settings.

If I were you, I’d run a small experiment. On that MPPT 450/100, I’d set a very low battery charging current — say 5A. Then I’d connect the PV input through a very small fuse, something like 2–4A. Standard 10x38mm DC fuse links used for protecting individual PV strings would be fine.

I’d power up the charger and just observe what happens. Battery side first, then “PV” side.

Of course, there’s always a chance something could go wrong, so you need to be fully aware that you’re experimenting at your own risk. Any warranty claims would almost certainly be rejected.

From a technical standpoint though, an MPPT charger is basically just a glorified DC/DC converter with some additional control circuitry — what could possibly go wrong? :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

2 Likes

Excellent advice, It’s what I would have done anyway, but then I have been these places before. Caution and moderation at the start because there is often something you failed to take into account. Best to minimise finding out the hard way.

As you say “what could possibly go wrong?”. Thus is life made more interesting!

Be sure to let us know how it turns out — even if it ends with the magic smoke escaping :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Hey there,

I used an MPPT 100/50 to charge a 12 V battery (50 Ah) from my 24 V home storage battery bank (750 Ah). I also used to have an Orion 24/12-30. The main goal was to be able to limit the charging current, which the Orion in opposition to the MPPT is not capable of. The max. charge current setting of the MPPT was perfectly respected (no matter whether set to 1 A or to 50 A). Interestingly, the efficiency of the MPPT was above 95% while the Orion barely reached 87% (which btw made a HUGE difference in temperature).

So, even if the MPPT 450/100 may be a bit different internally, I tend to be confident that it will work in your scenario.

If you put a moderate fuse between the Leaf battery and the MPPT PV input, there shouldn’t go anything wrong. As stated by tstiller the MPPTs are in fact “just” super fancy DC/DC converters…

Just a reminder: There is no guarantee that it actually WILL work and this is not the use case the MPPTs are designed for!

Have fun testing!

So long,

Frank

1 Like

As a Victron forum we encourage the correct use of products. This is totally unsupported, it voids your warranty and is potentially dangerous. So do so entirely at your own risk.

You don’t know what you don’t know until life teaches an expensive lesson.

2 Likes

Hi Frank,

Pretty well as expected, I think.

Interestingly, the “victron expert” doesn’t like this idea, for reasons unstated. As far as I can see, nothing is being used out of spec, because what is a solar panel but a type of battery? There is specific MPPT optimisation for this (and other victron devices) but this can be switched on or off (off would be good in this case). I can see no spec on the spec sheet that is being violated.

Please can nick point out which electrical spec is being violated?

In what way does he think this could be potentially more dangerous than using a 400V PV panel array (for example).

What hidden spec does nick think might be being violated?

In passing the Leaf battery (~15 years old) is unlikely to have much capacity left so not justifying using it with the MPPT. Hey-ho!

I will try to give a possible explanation…
A string of PV panels has a limited current capability.
Usually, the short circuit current of a panel is about 15A. Sometimes less, sometimes more.
If you take a look, the short circuit current of a 450/100 MPPT is about 20A.
So the hardware designer will put there a current sensing device that can handle OK 20A, maybe 30A.
It will be commercially unsound to use something that could handle 50-100A, for a MPPT input that can handle 20A.
No matter what you’ll do, a panel has a very specific current curve, not being able to supply more than its short circuit current.
Well… an EV battery is another thing… An EV battery, no matter how old, is capable of more than 20A short circuit current, for sure.
So, in this situation, when the MPPT will try to adjust the voltage, will source, possibly, more than some components could handle, especially that current sensing device. Hence a possible malfunction.
Of course, for short period of times, but those will add to the stress and a possible failure.
A panel, by its construction, will act like a current limiting device, while a battery wont.
In other words, you’ll be relying on the self protection put there more than in normal situations and those can fail.
On a funny note, some time ago I saw an explanation given by victron that refused warranty and explained that the failure was generated by the failure of the fail safe circuit that led to malfunction of the device. But somehow could be true here… :grin:

Hi Nick,

I have a question that may not be entirely related to the main topic. Quite often, when browsing this forum, I read that it is not an official support channel, but rather a group of enthusiasts trying to help one another. However, from time to time a more serious question comes up, and then the argument is often made that since this is the official forum, we should only promote official solutions.

To be honest, that feels a bit contradictory to me. Either we are a group of enthusiasts who try to push the equipment to its limits, or we are an official body that is not allowed to do so. Everyone consistently points out that such actions are not covered by the manufacturer’s warranty — and I fully understand that. In this particular thread, no one even asked whether these actions would be covered by the warranty. Let’s be realistic: if we use equipment in a way that is not intended, we do so at our own risk.

That said, once the equipment has been purchased, it becomes the property of the buyer, and how it is used is ultimately up to them. I must admit, however, that I perceive your response as an official prohibition of such use.

So how should we understand this?

@alexpescaru

Alex, could you please explain why you are assuming from the outset that a short circuit will occur at the MPPT input? I have read many times on this forum that this is supposedly how MPPT operates — by shorting the PV panel input in order to find the maximum power point.

As it happens, my personal experience with Victron SmartSolar charge controllers contradicts that claim. If they actually behaved the way you describe, none of my installations — where I use them as buffer power supplies — would function properly. In practice, the situation appears to be quite the opposite. The MPPT increases current draw only until it satisfies the configured output settings. Once that point is reached, nothing further happens. The fuses I use on the input side have never tripped.

Since we are already discussing fuses, you are probably familiar with ultra-fast semiconductor protection fuses. In our standards, their characteristics are described as aR or gR. These types of fuses were specifically developed to protect sensitive electronics from damage.

If we are truly so concerned about a potential short circuit and its consequences, it is enough to connect ordinary incandescent light bulbs of the appropriate voltage in series in the main circuit — the classic filament type. If a short circuit occurs in the tested setup, the only effect will be that the protective bulb lights up. This is a time-honored technique, used by electronics engineers for decades when testing various kinds of equipment.

We set expectations about content in our guidelines, while this is not a support site, we will direct those types of posts to the right channels, but equally we need to moderate content.
The forum is a knowledgebase, or at least aspires to be one, so we try encourage discussion to pick the path most commonly taken. We have this specific section precisely so these topics can exist for those users that like to experiment and tinker, but, generally, there is an incredibly broad range of experience, and inexperience :wink: , that uses this site and may come across a topic like this. For that it is important we clearly spell out some of the risk so the official position is known.
If you want to go release the magic smoke in any product, that is your choice, but as a mod team we want everyone to make an informed decision with all viewpoints covered.
Else, someone will say they saw it here, therefore it must be ok.

If it is outright dangerous we would close or remove a topic.
Hope that clears things up.

OK, lets go through this one by one.

  1. The stated short circuit current for a 450/100 is the REVERSE current capability according to the datasheet. This is almost certainly because the device is not designed for reverse polarity and this is the Imax of the (combined) mosfet input stage. That is to say, the device is already effectively being abused by misconnecting it.

  2. The forward current is controlled by the MPPT itself. Clearly so as 450V at 20A is 9kW, well in excess of the 6kW rating for the device. Not only that but how do you think it controls the output current (which is can and does do) other than by limiting the input power. That is the potential power draw is not important, how else does a mains inverter like a multiplus restrict the current draw from the mains? Saying “oh but that’s AC” simply shows that you have not a clue about how inverters (ac or dc) actually work. If the MPPT is taking a forward short circuit current, its already dead and was before you started!

  3. You can turn of MPPT optimisation. Then it’s just a DC-DC inverter, variable in battery voltage out (with safe charging capability).

  4. Failure of the fail safe circuit, if within the device and designed as such, is a failure of the device. Not so if external.

  5. I have confidence that victron engineers know what they are doing. To be honest its not cutting edge stuff that is required, just good solid engineering and solid software/firmware. I think they are on top of it.

Nick.

What is required is a post at the top of the thread giving a standardised warning saying something along the lines of:

“CAUTION

This thread discusses uses that may be outside the use specified by Victron and as such may well void any warranty, including to other connected equipment.

It is also possible that inexperienced users may risk danger or hazard in implementing some of the proposals.

If you do not fully understand the technical details you are warned not to attempt to implement any of the statements made here.

Please note that the technical ability of posters is completely unknown.”

Then its clear enough and avoids anyone having to explain what is being said that is wrong, particularly if they have no idea. It can be posted in the thread from time to time if required.

Simples?

1 Like

Agree, not sure discourse can accommodate that, and to be fair, the majority of modification topics are somewhat less adventurous. We rarely have need to pop a staff note on one.

TSTILLA.

Sorry, I didn’t properly read your post. I agree.

  1. I cannot imagine why any designer would short the input “to test the capability of the PV string”. Any sensible design would start at O/C then increase the current draw to max power, and then sit on the left hand side of the PV IV curve where increasing voltage decreases current and follow up or down to maximise power draw. I presume there is at least pne microprocessor in the systen controlling the pulse width.

  2. The power mosfets that will form the input devices are extremely rugged electrically. Basically silicon soldered to a copper block. They can (and do) take massive short pulse overloads without breaking into a sweat. Below a 4A (because it came up first), not a very high power device but it can handle peak currents of 100A, and that’s probably the metallisation that fails not the silicon. Hunkier ones designed for electrical abuse, like a 20A device would be in the region of 1000A non-repetitively.

As you said, the input current is limited to 20A for reverse.
True, but this because in reverse polarity the diodes inside the fets are in direct conduction and are directly short circuiting the panels.
This is a more dangerous situation than in normal/direct functioning, when the current is dictated by the time the fets are in conduction.

Nevertheless, the current sensing circuit exists and, in general, is designed for the usual functioning current.

Based on how a panel are functioning (current curve et all), in order to find the MPP, you must draw energy from it.
Drawing energy from it, the current will rapidly rise to the maximum it can supply and the voltage starts to decrease.
If you continue, the current will also start to decrease, of course, if not along the way there is another MPP.
You permanently monitor the V x I product (power) and you’ll chose the maximum. And then you try to stay there.
In short I’ve tried to describe the finding of MPP, for sure you know that.

Now…

The rise (slope) of the current for a panel when drawing energy is quite slow comparing with what a battery can supply.
Therefore the voltage steps for incrementing power draw are much wider when designing the scan for a MPP.
How you implement this steps? You try to obtain a certain voltage on the PV input by drawing energy. For example in 1V steps.
Suppose you start from 200V. For 199V the current could be 0.5A, for 198V - 1A, for 197V - 2A, 196V - 4A and so on.
The rise in current for a battery is much abrupt/steep. For 199V it could be 2A, for 198V - 10A, for 197V - 25A, 196V - 50A and so on.
These currents are continuous, not pulsed!!! So the regime is much tough.
(Of course, to obtain this is by pulsing the fets, but the result is a continuous current of that magnitude)
It’s possible that the current limiting circuit could not cope with such abrupt increments and the TIME they are ON and detected.
Remember, it’s a digital system, not analog, and up until you measure things in digital world takes time - could be tenths of ms because of the time to settle of an ADC sampling, etc, time spent with that big current flowing and so on…
From what I saw the victron scanning is about 25ms per volt. So…

Hope I managed to explain what I’ve meant…