Redundant or convenience- breakers

bluewickedburner

My combiner box is on the roof (MH) and the charge controller is in a storage bay in the basement. In order to be able to disconnect the arrays from the controller I want to have a breaker in the box close to the controller. For safety I want to have a breaker closer to the combiner and panels (means on the roof) since the wire runs down an inside wall. Another breaker would also handle the disconnect from controller to battery in same box.

I know the additional breakers are purely convenience but the stats are that something like 90% of deaths involving motorhomes and someone climbing on the roof, the less time I'm up there the better.

Other than cost and some minor complexity, anyone see anything wrong with that? All panels are fused already since they might get changed around and get wired differently later on (series as more panels get added).

Wire from combiner to controller is OO and from controller to battery OO. Fusing at battery bank all done.

Cariboocoot

Re: Redundant or convenience- breakers

If the panels are already each fuses up on the roof in the combiner box you only need one disconnect or breaker down by the controller; switch it off and the circuit is no longer live. Remember that the most current the panels can put out is their Isc. If you're concerned about the "live" wires shorting to something along the way, you can pull the fuses with the disconnect off.

Just my opinion but I think a second breaker or disconnect on the roof would add unnecessary complexity, and with that the potential for more problems (additional connections to go bad and another device that could fail).

bluewickedburner

Re: Redundant or convenience- breakers

That works for me. One less thing to do. 13' is a long drop, not enough height to glide.