Tesla Powerwall RF sensitivity to RF transmissions - and how to deal with it.

This article is about my experience in causing RF interference to a Powerwall, but I have written on two other articles about amateur radio operation along with having a Tesla Powerwall - these articles may be found here:

• Reducing RFI from the Tesla Powerwall 2
• Does the Tesla Powerwall 2 produce RFI (Radio Frequency Interference)?

Figure 1:
Left to right:  Back-up Gateway (BUG), disconnect, two Powerwalls.
The cable raceway is just out of view, below the BUG.
 The BUG controls everything and was likely being bothered by RF
energy conducted to it via the Ethernet cable.  While it is possible to
connect a Powerwall via wireless, the reported experiences of other
Powerwall owners is that this method is less reliable in
the long term than a hard-wired cable.
Click on the image for a larger version.

In the first article above ("Reducing RFI from the Tesla Powerwall 2) I mentioned that I may have had an experience with RF interference to the Powerwall - but that the circumstances were inconclusive:  There was another problem that may have caused the symptoms (e.g. one of the mains connections' clamps had not been tightened at the time of installation).

This time, I do have a tale to tell about radio frequency interference (RFI) to my Powerwall 2 system.

The history:

Years ago, because it was convenient, I placed my DSL modem in my ham shack. Other than low-level spurs from the modem's plug-in power supply (wall wart) which were easily solved, it never caused any problems - nor would my HF operation seem to bother my DSL modem - except on 160 meters when I ran more than about 50 watts.  I found this remarkable because the wire from the DSLAM (the distant interface from the phone company) came through the window only about a foot away from the windowed transmission line that carried the transmit RF power to the antenna.  At some point I dropped the POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) dial-up in lieu of VOIP and at the network interface (the box outside the house) I disconnected the internal house wiring as it was no longer needed, back-feeding this internal wiring from the VOIP box to allow the continued use of the phones.

Several years ago I got a linear amplifier capable of full-legal power (1500 watts in the U.S.) to use on the HF bands to assist when conditions were poor and on some frequencies this high-power operation would cause intermittent drop-outs in Internet connectivity when I transmitted.  It seemed that the longer I operated, the fewer these drop-outs were, possibly due to the modem "re-training" itself to deal with the (apparently) degraded connections.

When I got the Powerwall its Ethernet connection came through the outside wall and into the house near the DSL modem as it was a convenient place to make the connection - and a UPS was already nearby.  I recently decided to relocate the DSL modem to another room, one farther away from the ham shack and closer to where the underground wire from the telephone company came into the house and this involved a bit of additional wiring of Ethernet cable, and since my entire house is effectively on a UPS (via the Powerwall) it didn't matter where I plugged it in now.

Without the DSL modem in the shack I installed another Ethernet switch to manage the multiple connections that were made at that point:  One to the shack computer, another to the garage's Ethernet (to provide Internet connectivity of the solar inverters), another to a KiwiSDR and yet another to another switch where even more things were connected.  Also on this switch is the Ethernet connection to the Powerwall.

On the blink:

I'd done the relocating of the networking gear earlier in the afternoon about a week and a half ago and it wasn't until that evening when I got around to tidying things up slightly and putting a transmitter on the air - in this case, my 630 meter (472-479 kHz) station - to make a few contacts.  When I keyed the transmitter - which produces about 75 watts of RF - the lights in the house dimmed, a UPS beeped and the lights went bright again - so I quickly un-keyed.

After swearing to myself and hoping that this was a coincidence I waited for a minute or two and tried again - with the same result:  The power flickered, the UPS beeped and the lights went back to normal.  Bringing up the Tesla app I looked at the Powerwall's back-up history and saw that I now had two outages, each less than 30 seconds:  That in itself was unusual because the Powerwall typically stays off the grid for a couple minutes even after utility power returns to make sure that the it is stable.

"$#!+", I thought to myself again!

I then powered up the HF station.  Things were OK on 75 meters at 100 and 1500 watts and things were also OK on 40 meters at 100 watts - but I triggered the same "blink" response at any power level above about 600 watts.

Now began the methodical investigation.  The first thing that I did was to disconnect the Ethernet connection to the Powerwall from the switch that I had just installed:  No problems at all on any frequency or power level.

This was getting interesting:  Why would connecting the Ethernet cause a problem?

Ethernet connections are supposed to have galvanic isolation via a transformer!  To be sure, there is a small amount of capacitive coupling between the two windings, but this was on the order of a few 10s of picofarads - not nearly enough to cause a problem at 630 meters - or so one would think!

I then grabbed another Ethernet switch - a small, in expensive Linksys 5-port switch and connected everything to it:  No problems.

Figure 2:
Inside the raceway where several cables - including the Class-2 Ethernet
RS-485 cables for the Neurio run.  This picture shows the bonding of the
CAT-5's shields to the raceway (yellow tape and the blue wire that connects
to a mounting screw of the raceway using a spade lug and star washer). 
Also visible are some snap-on RF chokes (round gray, square black).
As mentioned, simply grounding the shield did nothing to solve the RF
ingress issue since the energy was being conducted on the cable's internal
wires already:  It took the addition of the chokes here and elsewhere (see
the other photos) to reduce the level being conducted on the Ethernet cable.
There are no exposed conductors in this raceway so it is "safe" to work in.
Click on the image for a larger version.

At this point I may have been able to get away with using that small, cheap switch, but it was very old and it was "only" a 100 Mbps-capable switch which meant that it would be a bottleneck for traffic between computers.  I was also determined to make it such that I it would not matter to what I connected the Powerwall's Ethernet cable as I wished to avoid a future problems should I forget why it was there!

When shielded cable doesn't help:

A bit of investigation revealed that the CAT-5e cable to the Powerwall was shielded.  One might first think that this should have solved the problem - but you'd be wrong: 

Shielding is useful for containing energy within the cable and prevent it from radiating, but if the cable in question is, itself, longitudinally conducting RF energy from one place to another, this shielding has absolutely no useful effect on its own!  In other words, if a piece of equipment at one end is somehow allowing RF to be induced onto the Ethernet cable, shielding will do nothing at all to prevent the conduction of RF to the far end - and it may well make it worse!

Still, the shield might prove useful to allow shunting some of the RF current on the shield so out of due diligence I went outside to the electrical raceway below the Powerwall where the conduit - which is all metallic and bonded to everything else, including the Powerwall - that conveyed the Ethernet cable from the house.  There, I carefully opened the outer jacket of the cables and made a connection to the shields which I then bonded to the metal raceway as depicted in figure 2.

Figure 3:
Inside, showing both the cable that goes between the Powerwall and the
Neurio in the garage (the left-hand cable with the two white snap-on chokes
in a loop) and the Ethernet cable that connects between my switch and
the Powerwall.  The Ethernet not only has two of the white snap-on chokes,
but it several turns are also wound through a Mix 75 toroidal core, seen
near the upper-right corner of the picture.
While this was enough to stop RF susceptibility issues on the HF bands,
these devices did not offer enough choking inductance on the Ethernet
cable to prevent problems at 630 meters.  Another Ethernet choke was
wound on another Mix 75 toroidal core - See Figure 4.
Click on the image for a larger version.

Because I had previously installed some Ferrites on the Ethernet cable and the other (shielded) CAT-5 cable that made the RS-485 connection to the Neurio in my garage I was hoping that this bonding - and the self-capacitance of these cable, both of which were now bonded - would shunt the RF energy to it and solve the problem.

It didn't.

No surprise there.

I decided to get serious about the problem and started checking the ferrite devices that I'd previously installed.  Winding a few turns on each I measured the inductance and found that they did provide a reasonable amount of reactance at 40 meters - typically 5-10 microHenries which provides between 200 and 400 ohms of impedance at 7 MHz - but clearly, this was not enough as I was still having problems at 7 MHz.  This would be especially true at 630 meters where the reactance would be only a few 10s of ohms - hardly enough to significantly impede RF energy at that frequency.  I then began to rummage about through my collection of ferrites, running a few turns of wire through each.

It became clear that the devices that I had previously used were typically of "Mix 43" or similar, best-used for the higher HF frequencies (and into VHF):  A few turns through one of these will give 10-ish microHenries of inductance, but I needed far more than this so I switched my attention to finding "Mix 75" and "Mix 77" devices - ferrite material that had an order of magnitude or so more permeability and would also yield much higher impedance:  A few turns on these would yield the hundreds of microHenries and offer several kilo-ohms of reactance to better-block RF - especially at 630 and 2200 meters.

What finally worked:

Figure 4:
A high-inductance choke wound on a Mix 75 toroidal core using flat "Cat 6"
Ethernet cable.  This device offers a common-mode choking inductance of
several millihenries at LF, MF and lower HF frequencies and was required
to solve the problem of conducted RF on the Ethernet cable causing issues
with the Powerwall's back-up gateway.  This cable was inserted into the
Ethernet cable between the indoor switch and the Powerwall using a CAT-6
rated double-female joiner.  A combination of a very high
inductance choke like this and several snap-on chokes over several turns
like those seen in Figure 2 and 3 are recommended for broad-band attenuation
of conducted currents.
Flat Ethernet cable is preferred for this as it will better-retain its internal
geometry when wound as tightly as this while similarly-winding round
Ethernet cable in such a manner may impact its signal integrity and
reduce its maximum speed.
Click on the image for a larger version.

What I settled on was a combination of several things:

• Several turns of the Ethernet cable through some Mix 75 snap-on chokes.  The use of several chokes and several turns maximizes the added inductance.  (see figures 2 and 3.)
• Some more of the same snap-on chokes were placed over the RS-485 connection to the Neurio in the garage.  There wasn't evidence that RF energy was affecting this line, but I didn't want to take the chance.
• As depicted in Figure 4 I wound a 6 foot length of flat CAT-6 Ethernet cable over a toroidal (ring) core of Mix 75 ferrite to provide a choking inductance of several milliHenries - several orders of magnitude higher inductance than the other ferrite devices.  This "bulk" inductance would be responsible for blocking RF energy at the 630 and 2200 meter bands at which I often operate.
• Inside the raceway I placed some additional Mix 75 snap-on devices over both the Ethernet and RS-485 cables, each passing through the cores several times for maximum inductance.

By adding all of this ferrite I increased the impedance (at RF) of the common-mode current to hundreds (if not thousands) of ohms at all of the frequencies on which I am likely to operate.  It is to this effort that one must go to minimize conducted RF energy on such conductors.

Why did it matter which Ethernet switch I was using?  I'm not sure, but I suspect that the Gig-E switch is lacking complete galvanic isolation on at least some of its Ethernet ports.  This issue could occur not only if there is a shielded Ethernet cable with attached shielded connectors on each end - which would be a liability in this particular case - but also if there is some sort of balanced connection to the pairs themselves - such as would be present if the switch had POE (Power Over Ethernet) capability.  The manual for the switch indicates no POE capability, but there is definitely something different about it and the way it connects the cables!  Perhaps a similar model of this switch does have POE and there is, in fact some connection inside - but unless/until I tear it down to find out, I won't really know.

Afterward:

Figure 5:
The "pin" on the BUG (Back-Up Gateway) that I was
requested by Tesla to photograph and forward to them.
This is pin is normally hidden by a sticker, hence the
"void" residue on the metal. This pin moves left/right
to go on/off grid, respectively.
Click on the image for a larger version.

Several days after this event I got a telephone call from Tesla Powerwall support asking me to remove the sticker from my back-up gateway and see if the "pin" was visible.  When queried, the representative noted that they had recorded several "incidents" with my system - and time and dates of these correlated exactly with my RF interference issues:  I told her that as far as I was concerned, the issue was resolved - but they still insisted that I take a picture of the pin and forward it to them - See Figure 5.

Update:  I was contacted again by Tesla - and this time they asked "if I was able to move the pin".  Not having been asked to do this before, I did so when I was at home again and it did move:  To the right, the house was isolated from the grid and to the left, the house is tied to the grid.

Having forwarded this information, I have yet to hear back.  (Update:  I never did.)


Parts sources for ferrite devices: 

There are several sources of snap-on ferrite devices described on this page, including:

• KF7P Metalwerx - link - Supplier of a variety of ferrite devices and many other things.  At the present time he stocks the "Mix 31" devices, but does not stock "Mix 75" snap-on cores at the time of posting, but he does have ferrite rings of both ferrite mixes.

• Mouser Electronics - link - The "Mix 31" snap-on cores - P/N:  623-0444164181  (Fair-Rite P/N:  0444164181);  "Mix 75" snap-on cores - Mouser P/N:  623-0475164181  (Fair-Rite P/N: 0475164181).  Mouser Electronics has other sizes and mixes of these various devices, including toroids (rings).

Links to other articles about power supply noise reduction found at ka7oei.blogspot.com:

• Containing RF noise from a "pure" sine wave UPS.   Even when it is not operating your sine wave UPS may be producing a lot of HF radio interference!
• Completely containing switching power supply RFI - link.  Sometimes it can be difficult to quiet a switching power supply, so it may be necessary to put it in a box with strong filtering on all of the conductors that enter/leave.
• Minimizing VHF (and HF) RFI from electronic ballasts and fluorescent tubes - link.  Electronic light ballasts, like many switching power supplies, operate in the LF frequency range so "cleaning them up" at VLF/LF/MF frequencies can be a challenge.
• Quieting high current switching power supplies used in the shack - link.  This page describes techniques that can be used to reduce the amount of RF energy produced by switching power supplies that you may be using to power your radios.  Again, higher-inductance chokes may be required at VLF/LF/MF frequencies.
• Reducing switching supply racket - link.  This describes techniques that can be used to beef up the filtering for switching supplies in general.

Other solar power related posts at ka7oei.blogspot.com:

• Teasing out the differences between the "AC" and "DC" Powerwalls - link.  In this post I discuss generally how "AC Battery" systems like the Powerwall and how they work as well as the general differences between the so-called "DC" Powerwall and the AC Powerwall.
•  The solar saga part 1: Avoiding Interference (Why I did not choose Microinverters) - link.  Having had first-hand experience observing a microinverter-based PV system, I discuss why I went the route of the series-string inverter. 
• The solar saga part 2: Getting the system online - link. Like most large projects something intervenes that it makes it take longer to complete - and that was the case here, but it was successfully completed... eventually!

This page stolen from blogspot.ka7oei.com

[End]

Reducing RFI from the Tesla Powerall 2

This is a follow-up of a previous article:  "Does the Tesla Powerwall 2 produce RFI (Radio Frequency Interference)?". 

There is a newer article about my experience of RF interference to a Powerwall:  Tesla Powerwall RF sensitivity to RF transmissions - and how to deal with it.

Figure 1:
A typical Powerwall 2 installation.
Left to right:  Utility meter/original load center fed from an underground
power feed, the"new" load center to which the household circuits now
connect, the Powerwall "Gateway" (with two 4G antennas on top
 - not used in my installation), AC disconnect for the
Powerwalls, sub-panel for the Powerwalls (containing
a circuit breakers for each unit) and finally, the two Powerwalls.
This type of system is typically installed outside, near the utility's
connection to the house.
Click on the image for a larger version.

This article contains a bit if information that was original in that previous article, but has been separated and updated.

The information that follows may also be useful for interference reduction of other types of power systems that have been found to generate radio frequency interference, such as grid-tie inverters and other "battery back-up" systems that function like the Tesla Powerwall.

Note that RFI that is radiating directly from solar devices such as microinverters and optimizers require different mitigation techniques - See the blog post "The solar saga - part 1: Avoiding interference (Why I did not choose microinverters!)" for links to information about reducing this type of interference.

As a follow-on to the article "Does the Tesla Powerwall 2 produce RFI (Radio Frequency Interference)?" , this post describes some of the mitigation techniques to knock down what little interference the Tesla Powerwall might produce.

A recap:  Does it produce RFI?

But first, a possible spoiler.

The answer is:  It depends - but the fact that this article exists should have been a big clue.  In short:

• When it is neither charging or discharging:  No interference at all on any band.

This means that if it is charging or discharging, you may expect the following in terms of interference: 

• On the 80 meter amateur band and higher frequencies:  Not that I can tell.
• On the 160 meter band, AM broadcast bands and lower amateur bands:  Maybe.

As the original article notes, I couldn't detect any RFI on 160 through 10 meters when I was using a wire antenna, but I did detect some minor RFI on 160 meter when using an E-field loop - but that represents almost a worst-case scenario.  In the case of the 630 and 2200 meter amateur bands - both of which are below the AM broadcast band - the interference from the Powerwall 2 (prior to mitigation) is likely to be noticed.

Although I did not explicitly in my case, in my estimation the amount of radio interference ("QRM") emitted by a Powerwall on HF is low enough that it would be undetectable at any reasonable distance in a location not directly connected to the Powerwall's circuits.  In other words:  If you have a next-door neighbor that has a Powerwall, I would be extremely surprised if it was detectable on HF at all, particularly if your HF antenna was a reasonable distance (tens of feet/meters) away from it.

Mitigating interference from the Powerwall 2:

If we were dealing with a normal switching power supply, the mitigation of interference would be quite straightforward:  Apply "brute force" L/C filters to all of the AC connections in and out of the device - a topic that has previously been discussed in great detail at this web site (see the links to related articles at the end of this blog posting.)

Applying filtering to a plug-in device that is capable of up to a kilowatt or two is one thing, but mitigating interference issues on a device that is permanently wired in to the house's electrical system and capable of tens of kilowatts is an entirely different matter!  For example, my Powerwall 2 system consists of a two battery/inverter modules that, together, are rated for 14 kW for brief periods, or over 10 kW continuously, representing over 58 and 41 amps at 240 volts, respectively.


To afford a wide safety margin any added inductive filtering would need to be capable of handling at least 100 amps with any capacitors being conservatively rated for the voltage.  Finding and installing a commercially-available AC mains filter with such ratings could be difficult, expensive and awkward, probably requiring a separate enclosure - not to mention appropriate sign-off by inspectors.  What's more is the fact that on a battery-inverter system like this, two such filters would be required:  One on the AC mains feed-in from the utility to the Powerwall and another on the AC mains feeding the house coming from it.

A more practical solution - and one that works effectively for 160 meters - is to install snap-on ferrite sleeves on these six conductors (e.g. the two "hot" phases and the neutral for each of the lines.)  It so-happens that readily-available devices that will fit over RG-8 coaxial cable will also fit nicely over power cable that is appropriately sized for 125 amp circuits.  (The dimensions of these devices is approximately 1.55" [39.4mm] long, 1.22" [31mm] diameter and are made to accommodate cables up to about 0.514" [13.05mm] - but could be modified to go over cables that are nearly 0.6" [15.24mm] diameter).

For exclusively HF, the so-called "Mix 31" ferrite material a reasonable choice, each device providing equivalent resistance as follows:

• 1 MHz:  25Ω
• 5 MHz:  71Ω
• 10 MHz:  100Ω
• 25 MHz:  156Ω
• 100 MHz:  260Ω
• 250 MHz:  260Ω

I used two of these devices on each of the leads (for a total of 12) which, at 160 meters, would provide an equivalent of about 60Ω of resistance.  Considering that there are 3 leads per feed, this parallel resistance is roughly equivalent to 20Ω per feed, so for 160 meters a bit more "help" may be required, so I also used some "Mix 75" ferrite devices of the same size - also two if each per lead.

Intended for lower-frequencies, the equivalent resistance of each of these devices is:

• 200 kHz:  20Ω
• 500 kHz:  58Ω
• 1 MHz:  102Ω
• 2 MHz:  70Ω
• 5 MHz:  50Ω

Figure 2:
Beneath many of the boxes is a raceway/channel that contains some of the
conductors, including data lines and, as depicted above, the wires coming
from the utility mains, connecting to the Powerwall's gateway.  In
my installation there are no exposed conductors in this raceway and there
is plenty of room for the installation of the ferrites.  The marked ferrite
devices are the "Mix 75" while the unmarked are the "Mix 31."  While
it probably doesn't make a difference, I placed the Mix 75 ferrites on the
end of the leads closest to the Powerwall in the unlikely event that low-level
harmonics are generated in the Mix 75 ferrites that need to be attenuated
by the Mix 31 ferrites.  Placing large ferrites over all three conductors
at once for common-mode filtering would be preferred, but doing so
is not always practical as discussed below.
Click on the image for a larger version.

As can be seen, for covering 160 meters and higher frequencies a combination of both types of devices is suggested.  At 1.8 MHz, it is estimated that total equivalent resistance on each lead of the four devices (two Mix 31 and two Mix 75) will be on the order of 220Ω, or about 73Ω for each of the three sets of wires in parallel.

Warnings:

At this point, there are a few "weasel words" that I must include:

• While it is possible to put these ferrite devices (or anything at all!) inside the Tesla Powerwall's gateway box, doing so would probably require the "official" permission of Tesla's engineering department to avoid the possibility of voiding a warranty/service agreement.  Because of this, it is better to mount them on the conductors outside the gateway.  Filtering could also be installed at the disconnect and/or circuit breaker between the Gateway and the Powerwalls, but this, too, may require appropriate approval and sign-off by Tesla engineering to avoid warranty issues.
• Placing any ferrite devices outside the Gateway box will not affect its operation and would be less intrusive than, say, installing a whole-house surge protector as no physical connections are being made.  Because of the wide difference between the mains frequencies (50/60 Hz) and the lowest RF frequencies of interest (136 kHz-1.8 MHz) for which these devices are designed, these ferrites will have no measurable effect at mains frequencies.
• The installations described below involve the exposure of high voltage, high-current circuits inside a breaker panel.  DO NOT even think of opening such a panel when it is "live", let alone installing any such devices inside it.
• DO NOT even think of installing such devices in a panel - even if it is powered down - unless you have experience working with electrical circuits.  If you do not have such experience, refer to a licensed electrician to install such devices.
• Where I live it is permitted for me (the homeowner) to make modifications to the home's electrical system, but it is up to YOU to determine the safety and legality of any sort of modification of your electrical system and determine if you are competent to work with it.  Do not presume some/any of the described modifications to be legal or in compliance of safety regulations in your (or any) jurisdiction!
• I cannot be responsible for injury or damage and no warranties as to suitability or safety should be implied related to the content of this and related pages.  You have been warned!

Installation:

First off, note that all of the units (the two Powerwalls, breaker panels, etc.) in my installation are connected together with metallic conduit and if properly installed, this conduit will quite effectively bond all of the various boxes together electrically.  This means that it is likely to be quite effective in both preventing direct radiation of RF energy from the contained conductors as well as minimizing differential RF currents between the various boxes.

What this de-facto shielding will not do is stop RF from being conducted on the wires that leave this system - notably those that go into the house or to the power utility.  In my case, mains power is fed from underground which means that the most likely source of interference from the Powerwall is likely to be conducted into it from the main breaker panel and onto the house wiring.

Visible in Figure 2 (above) is a channel that runs underneath several of the boxes and in this channel are the conductors that, in my installation, go from the utility mains panel to the Powerwall's Gateway - and I installed one set of the ferrites (a total of 12 devices) in it as depicted in Figure 2.  Because there are no exposed electrical connections in this channel, these devices can be safely installed without turning off power.

Vibration prevention:

These ferrite devices are, by their nature, quite ferromagnetic and as such the magnetic field associated with the AC current flowing through the wires over which they are slipped will cause mechanical movement.  When I installed the first of these devices I could hear them buzzing slightly, the apparent result of the two halves of the ferrite moving with respect to each other.

Figure 3:
 This is a view inside my main house's breaker panel with the "dead front"
cover removed.  In the upper-right corner is a 125 amp circuit breaker that is
the main feed-in from the Powerwall Gateway (the partially-visible box to the
right) which can carry the power from the utility and/or from the Powerwall.
The space for these ferrite devices is a bit crowded, but they do fit.
As noted in the warning, this panel has exposed, live connections and you
should not even think about working in it unless you have experience
in working on electrical systems and the power is turned completely off!
Click on the image for a larger version.

To prevent this movement - and the possible damage of the ferrite devices over time due to this constant motion - I spread an extremely thin layer of clear RTV (silicone) adhesive across the mating surfaces of the two halves to bond them gently together.  These devices have two mirrored halves of the ferrite that, when assembled, touch each other and are polished smooth, so one need only barely "wet" their surfaces with the slightest film - only the tiniest fraction of what would be used normally, an amount so small that it looks somewhat like an oil slick is sufficient for the polished surfaces.

Alternatively, a small drop of cyanoacrylate (e.g. "Super Glue") could be used, but unlike RTV, this would make removal difficult were it required in the future!  Adding anything between the two, polished halves of the ferrites will reduce their effectiveness somewhat so it is important that the two surfaces be as close to each other as is possible by using the smallest amount of RTV.

Installation in the main breaker panel:

In my installation there was another location at which these ferrites were to be installed:  On the power feed from the Powerwall to the household circuits where the majority of RF noise is likely to be conducted - but instead of being in a raceway where there are no "live", exposed connections, the only place that this wiring appears is in the main circuit-breaker panel.

It should be noted that some ferrite mixes can be slightly conductive which means that the material itself should not be allowed to touch any metal that may carry a voltage.  The "snap-on" devices have plastic covers that effectively insulate the ferrite within, but this should be noted if "bare" toroidal cores are used:  Good-quality polyester tape is likely suitable to provide good insulation and protection.

Figure 3, above, shows the installation of the ferrites on the conductors within the breaker panel.  As can be seen, there are "live" exposed connections that pose a shock hazard which means that these devices can be safely installed only if the power is turned completely off.  As was done with the other devices, an extremely thin layer of RTV was put on the mating surfaces of the ferrites' halves to prevent their buzzing.

Comments:

It would be preferable to be able to wind several turns of the large power cables together through large ferrite cores (such as toroids) to achieve much higher effective resistance at the frequencies of interest, but this is simply not possible in the available space with the existing wiring.  Because the conductors were already in place and routed, it was deemed to be too awkward to disconnect one end of the (heavy!) cable to allow ferrite devices to be slid over it, so "split" devices were used instead.

If one is starting from "scratch" - or has the ability to add it later with some rewiring - enough extra cable length added to allow the winding of multi-turn chokes through large ferrite (toroidal) "non-split" cores inside a dedicated, metal junction box would be desirable.  Doing this can greatly increase the series inductance and provide a commensurate reduction of conducted RFI.

It would also be preferable to pass all of the power cables through the center of a single ferrite (of ferrites) as a single bundle to provide a "common mode" impedance path, but this is difficult to do as I have not found a source for split ferrites of 31, 75 or 77 mix that would accommodate three cables that are about 0.5 inch (approx. 12 mm) diameter.  The obvious alternative would be to pass the conductors through a stack of adequately large ferrite beads/cylinders or toroidal cores, but doing this would require that the conductors be disconnected from one end and temporarily pulled back.  The preference would be to have this done at the time of the original installation, particularly if several turns could be passed through some large cores, but again, this is much harder to do after the fact, particularly with the limited length of wire in an already-installed system.

If you are able to put all of the wires with the ferrite cores in a single box, it is a good idea to keep the "input" and "output" wires (e.g. "before" and "after" the ferrite) away from each other - and from other conductors and ferrite devices as well.  If the "clean" and "dirty" (from an RF standpoint) wires are run together in the same conduit, it is possible that RF energy could couple from one to another and partially negate the effects of the RFI mitigation.  Note also that the wires themselves - and the ferrites - of different sets of wires should be kept apart to prevent capacitive/magnetic coupling as well - but only a few inches/cm of distance should suffice.

Finally, while there is plenty of room in the raceway to accommodate the bulk of a number of these cores, there is much less available space within the cramped confines of the breaker panel to accommodate a large stack of ferrite rings/sleeves, particularly if one were to wind several turns of wires through them.  If you are contemplating a brand new installation, or if you are willing to pull wire out and do mechanical re-work, by all means put several turns of the three wires (both "hot" and the neutral leads) through common cores to maximize common-mode impedance.

Other RF interference paths:

In addition to the power connections to/from the Powerwalls, there are two other possible egress paths for radio frequency interference.  I did not check to see if they were sources of radiated interference, but I assumed that they would be.

Figure 4:
Also contained in the raceway is the CAT 5/6 cable for the Ethernet
cable that provides the Powerwall with internet connectivity.  In my
installation there is also another data cable that goes to current/voltage
monitoring equipment (the Neurio) where the PV (solar) equipment feeds
into its sub-panel.  Multiple turns and conductors of wire were fed
through several ferrite devices to choke any RF that might egress.  The
upper device consists of three square snap-on ferrite cores while the bottom
device is the ferrite core from the yoke of a scrapped CRT computer
monitor.  Not shown are additional multi-turn chokes wound on ferrites at
the "other" end of these same cables to prevent interference to those devices.
Click on the image for a larger version.

• The Ethernet connection from the Gateway.  It is common to "hard wire" a CAT5/6 cable from the Powerwall's Gateway to an Ethernet switch (behind a firewall) to provide internet connectivity.  While an Ethernet interface is, by its nature, galvanically isolated from its support circuitry, it does have some capacitive coupling.  It is possible to wirelessly (via either WiFi or via a cellular network) connect the Powerwall to the Internet - which would avoid such cabling - so one would have to determine the nature of the specific installation.  (Note:  Some Powerwall owners report issues with connectivity when using a wireless connection so a direct, wired connection is best.
• Serial power cable to voltage/current monitoring.  A typical Powerwall 2 installation uses devices made by Neurio to monitor the voltage and current at both the connection to the power mains and at the PV (solar) electrical connection.  While a wireless connection between some of these devices is possible, there may be a (more reliable!) 2-wire (half-duplex, RS-485 serial) connection between some of these devices and RF egress could occur on this cabling as well.  (I originally had a wireless connection to the Neurio, but it was unreliable at the required distance.)

In my case I have both an Ethernet cable going to my firewall/router and a wired RS-485 connection to the Neurio monitoring the PV system.  To reduce the possibility of either of these lines conducting RF energy into a circuit that might radiate, the two cables were put together and wound through several ferrite devices as shown in Figure 4.  The upper devices are square, snap-on ferrite chokes while the lower device is the mass of ferrite from the CRT yoke of a discarded computer monitor.  The use of several devices and multiple turns greatly increases the effective inductance of this coil and its effectiveness overall.

Figure 5:
EMI capacitors in panel.  These are 4 uF at 600VAC
"pulse-rated" plastic units specifically designed for
filtering of noise in high-current AC circuits.  Each of
the wires on top go to a circuit breaker with one capacitor
for each phase of the circuit.  The bottom lead connects
to the ground bus and, eventually, the metal junction box.
Only high-current "pulse" type capacitors along with
 circuit protections should be used in this application.
Click on the image for a larger version.

While using ferrite devices on CAT5/6 cable will not normally affect the high-speed Ethernet signals within, CAT5/6 cable should not be coiled extremely tightly as doing so will distort the geometry of the twisted pairs and the integrity of the signals.  While this is unlikely to have much of an effect on 10 or 100 Megabit connections unless the cable is very tightly wound, it can degrade a "Gig-E" (1 gigabit) Ethernet connection (the Powerwall only uses a 100 Mbps connection) if the coil is smaller than 3-5 inches (about 8-12cm) in diameter or if the outer jacket of the Ethernet cable is "kinked".

Adding RF bypass capacitors:

As mentioned above, I did (later) add some RF bypass capacitors to the system:  Two capacitors (one for each phase) on the "house" panel connected to the output of the Powerwall and another pair of these same capacitors on "utility" side of the world in the original distribution panel.  These capacitors are 4uF plastic film units designed specifically for bypass and pulse service and are rated for at least 630 volts AC.  Their connection to the power bus is made by dedicated 15 amp circuit breakers and the other end of these capacitors is to the ground bus inside the panel - See figures 5 and 6.  In theory, the 4uF capacitors will present around 660 ohms at the 60 Hz mains frequency, implying a current of 180mA through each at 120VAC for a total of about 22VA, but since this is reactive-only, no heat will be generated.  This high capacitance was chosen for its ability to effectively shunt energy at 137 kHz where its reactance will be on the order of 0.3 ohms, although the overall reactance+resistance of the leads and circuit breakers will be higher than this.

Figure 6:
Added breakers to connect EMI capacitors to the panel's
power bus.  Using a separate breaker for each capacitor
is the easiest and safest way to connect the it to the
main bus bar in the panel.
Click on the image for a larger version.

Installation of these capacitors significantly reduced the amount of inverter noise present on 630 meters and "noticeably" reduced it on 2200 meters.  Eyebrows might be raised about the rather long lead lengths to connect these capacitors - both on the "ground" and the "hot" side, but this could not be helped.  At these low frequencies (e.g. <500 kHz) this isn't as critical as it might be at HF, but lead length should be minimized.

Another pair of capacitors (not shown in the attached pictures) was similarly installed in the breaker panel that is on the "unprotected" side of the isolation switch:  Whereas those in the picture are on the "house" side of the Powerwall, the others are on the "utility" side.

Comment:

In the U.S., electrical code typically requires wiring of electrical circuits inside a grounded metal enclosure with a large bus bar for carrying the current from the (usually) two phases found in residential wiring - which is likely going to be a 240 volt, center-tapped source from the utility's mains transformer.  In North America and some other places, "small" items (up to about 1800 watts) are powered from a 120 volt circuit against the common "neutral" wire (the center-tap) while larger items will operate from a 240 volt circuit in a balanced fashion.

In many other parts of the world there is a single neutral connection to the house and a 240 volt "hot" wire which means that one would need only apply interference mitigation to these two wires instead of three as depicted elsewhere on this page.  It is also possible that in some areas electrical codes may not require an enclosure that provides a convenient common power "bus" and large ground plane (e.g., metal enclosure that also acts as a shield) per se, requiring different techniques to apply the described mitigation.

The results:

While it may be a bit of overkill, the addition of the two types of snap-on ferrites (e.g. two of each type on each conductor for a total of 24 snap-on devices) has reduced the interference on 160 meters to the point of inaudibility - and pretty much the same thing on 630 meters.

On 2200 meters the interference is significantly reduced - only being "just visible" that band as the spectral display below shows.

Figure 7:
Annotated spectral display showing the harmonic (and other) energy from various devices, including the Powerwall 2 after the described RFI mitigation techniques.
Click on the above image for a larger version

This graph in Figure 7 shows the frequency range from 0 through 250 kHz, a range that is entirely below any HF or MF amateur band, but includes the 2200 meter amateur band near 137 kHz.  As can be seen from this, harmonics from the Powerwall 2 (which appears to have a fundamental frequency of 32 kHz) are pretty much gone by 250 kHz.

This spectral display also depicts the harmonics from a pair of SunnyBoy grid-tie inverters (only the first several harmonics of the 16 kHz switching frequency are even visible) plus some rather strong harmonics from a plug-in switching wall-wart that operates at a fundamental frequency of about 73 kHz:  It is this wall wart - and (potentially others like it) that is likely to cause more QRM to reception on amateur bands than the Powerwall 2!

To completely quash interference at the 2200 meter frequency (around 137 kHz) it would probably be necessary to increase the inductance in the offending leads  between each of the three conductors (ground, L1 and L2) even more than has been done with the ferrite devices.

What about RF interference to the Powerwall? 

The Powerwall itself is a computer-based system with a number of analog monitoring points and as such, it is theoretically possible for external RF to cause it to malfunction if that energy somehow "glitches" one of its computers and/or causes one or more of its many sensors to read incorrectly.  To provide protection, the Powerwall is designed very conservatively and in the event of a serious discrepancy or fault, it will shut itself down.

The question should be asked:  Is it possible for external RF to cause such a shut-down?

The answer is:  Maybe. YES

There is a newer article about my experience of RF interference to a Powerwall:  Tesla Powerwall RF sensitivity to RF transmissions - and how to deal with it.

About a week after my Powerwall was installed and running I happened to tune up on 40 meters using my 1.5kW amplifier.  While I was doing this, the power to my entire house "blinked" several times and went off with the Powerwalls indicating some sort of error condition.  Unfortunately, the isolation relay had tripped and my house was disconnected from the mains and the Powerwalls did not reset themselves even after turning them "off" for over 15 minutes.  After a bit of hassle, I was able to get the Powerwalls reset - but the question remained:  What happened?  I opened a ticket with Tesla support and they came out to investigate a few days later.

It was determined that a possible cause of this "loss of power" event wasn't due to RF, but instead due to arcing at one or more connecting clamps on the mains side of the isolation relay in the gateway that had not been properly tightened when it was installed.  The extra 2+ kW of load on the AC mains from the RF amplifier may have been enough to cause arcing in that loose connection and the Powerwall, detecting this as a potentially dangerous fault (as arcs can be!) killed all of the power for reasons of safety.

Since the clamps were tightened I have never been able to recreate this event, but being "gun shy" I immediately started installing the various ferrite devices on the power and data communications cables - not only to keep RF interference from the Powerwall from radiating, but also to prevent RF from getting in.  In other words, if it had been sensitive to external RF before, it certainly is not sensitive anymore, now that I made the above additions!

Parts sources: 

There are several sources of snap-on ferrite devices described on this page, including:

• KF7P Metalwerx - link - Supplier of a variety of Ferrite devices and many other things.  At the present time he stocks the "Mix 31" devices, but does not stock "Mix 75" snap-on cores at the time of posting.

• Mouser Electronics - link - The "Mix 31" snap-on cores - P/N:  623-0444164181  (Fair-Rite P/N:  0444164181);  "Mix 75" snap-on cores - Mouser P/N:  623-0475164181  (Fair-Rite P/N: 0475164181).  Mouser Electronics has other sizes and mixes of these various devices.  Also obtained from Mouser Electronics were the Kemet 4 uF, 600 VAC "pulse" capacitors Mouser P/N:  80-C4GAMUD4220AA1J (Kemet P/N:  C4GAMUD4220AA1J) depicted in Figure 5.

Links to other articles about power supply noise reduction found at ka7oei.blogspot.com:

• Containing RF noise from a "pure" sine wave UPS.   Even when it is not operating your sine wave UPS may be producing a lot of HF radio interference!
  
• Completely containing switching power supply RFI - link.  Sometimes it can be difficult to quiet a switching power supply, so it may be necessary to put it in a box with strong filtering on all of the conductors that enter/leave.
• Minimizing VHF (and HF) RFI from electronic ballasts and fluorescent tubes - link.  Electronic light ballasts, like many switching power supplies, operate in the LF frequency range so "cleaning them up" at VLF/LF/MF frequencies can be a challenge.
• Quieting high current switching power supplies used in the shack - link.  This page describes techniques that can be used to reduce the amount of RF energy produced by switching power supplies that you may be using to power your radios.  Again, higher-inductance chokes may be required at VLF/LF/MF frequencies.
• Reducing switching supply racket - link.  This describes techniques that can be used to beef up the filtering for switching supplies in general.
• Quieting an insanely noisy LED floodlight - link.  This describes how a constant-current LED supply that produced enough interference to quash HF reception was quieted down to the point of undetectability.

Other solar power related posts at ka7oei.blogspot.com:

• Teasing out the differences between the "AC" and "DC" Powerwalls - link.  In this post I discuss generally how "AC Battery" systems like the Powerwall and how they work as well as the general differences between the so-called "DC" Powerwall and the AC Powerwall.
•  The solar saga part 1: Avoiding Interference (Why I did not choose Microinverters) - link.  Having had first-hand experience observing a microinverter-based PV system, I discuss why I went the route of the series-string inverter. 
• The solar saga part 2: Getting the system online - link. Like most large projects something intervenes that it makes it take longer to complete - and that was the case here, but it was successfully completed... eventually!

This page stolen from blogspot.ka7oei.com

[End]

Does the Tesla Powerwall 2 produce RFI (Radio Frequency Interference)?

Follow-up article:  There is a follow-up article to this one describing how I mitigated what interference was being produced by the Powerwall 2:  Reducing RFI from the Tesla Powerall 2

Figure 1:
A typical Powerwall 2 installation.
Left to right:  Utility meter/original load center fed from an underground
power feed, the"new" load center to which the household circuits now
connect, the Powerwall "Gateway" (with two 4G antennas on top
 - not used in my installation), AC disconnect for the
Powerwalls, sub-panel for the Powerwalls (containing
a circuit breakers for each unit) and finally, the two Powerwalls.
This type of system is typically installed outside, near the utility's
connection to the house.
Click on the image for a larger version.

Now that I have an installed and operating Tesla Powerwall 2 system I've had the opportunity to answer a question that I've not seen answered elsewhere:

Does the Powerwall 2 cause radio interference?

Why I care:

Being an amateur radio operator that uses a wide range of frequencies across the electromagnetic spectrum (from below 137 kHz to at least 24 GHz) and often "listens" over wider ranges than that I'm always on the look-out for devices that unintentionally produce radio frequency energy which will be manifest as radio interference, reducing my ability to receive signals.

This sort of interference is increasingly commonplace, the incidence having accelerated with the prevalence of "switching" type "wall-warts" (a.k.a. "power cubes") that ubiquitously power nearly anything that is plugged into the wall.  As part of their power conversion, these small devices contain powerful oscillators - typically operating in the 20-100 kHz range - that have the potential to cause radio interference, even at frequencies far removed from their operating range.

What this means is that the inclusion of even more of these devices in my household - including a Tesla Powerwall 2, which is a really big switching power converter - all have the potential of adding to this sea of noise.

What is a Powerwall?

A Powerwall is the Tesla-specific name for what amounts to a "whole house UPS" (Uninterruptible Power System).  There are other manufacturers of similar systems and they have their own nomenclature, generically called an "AC Battery" because they internally perform the AC to DC conversion for charging and DC to AC inverting to provide external AC power.

As the name implies, if the mains power disappears, this system can provide electricity to the entire house (or a portion of it) during the power outage.  As you might expect, very large, high duty-cycle loads such as whole-house air conditioning, electric water heaters, electric clothes dryers and electric furnaces are typically not backed up by a system like this as they would draw down the battery very quickly.

When integrated with a PV (solar electric) system it can be charged from solar energy and if the grid remains unavailable, the house can run indefinitely from the Solar+Powerall, provided that the short-to-medium-term power budget is positive - that is, more solar power is produced than is being used and the battery is not discharged so much between charges (e.g. overnight, on cloudy days) that it reaches the point of cut-off.  My system has two Powerwall units which, working in tandem can provide at least 10kW of power with a storage capacity of a bit more than 26kWh - enough for about a day (without any solar input) with normal usage or several days (without solar input) or little/no sun at all (e.g. the dark of winter with snow-covered panels) if serious power conservation measures are taken.

In areas where there are significant electric rate (tariff) differences between "peak" and "off-peak" hours, this type of system can be used to "zero out" (or reduce) utility usage during peak hours and charge during off-peak hours from the grid and/or with solar.  In my area, this is not relevant as the power rates remain constant throughout the day and it is configured to charge only from solar - which also makes it eligible for the (current as of the time of writing) 30% federal tax credits.

Having one of these systems is a bit like having a back-up generator - except that if the sun is shining, the "gas tank" can be refilled.  Practically speaking this system is unlikely to save me any money in the same way that a back-up generator probably wouldn't, so I would consider it to be a sort of extravagance - like owning an RV, boat or some 4 wheelers - a bit like a somewhat expensive hobby, but more utilitarian.  Being an amateur radio operator I'm also interested in having back-up power in case there is some sort of event that causes the loss of the grid for a period of time, hence the concern about possible radio interference.

How it's connected:

Figure 2, below, shows how a typical "AC Battery" might be wired into a household power system and integrated with a PV inverter.

Figure 2:
A generic block diagram of an "AC Battery" type of back-up power system.
In "Tesla speak", the "Gateway" comprises the functions depicted in the box labeled "Supervisory Control" while the
Powerwall(s) themselves are depicted by the boxes labeled as "Battery-backed inverter/charger system(s)".  If one has large loads that you do not want to be backed up by the Powerwall (e.g. electric water heater, central air conditioner, etc.) these would be connected "outside" the backed-up circuits via a panel connected at the point marked "To Utility Metering/Breaker".
A manual disconnect are required to give first responders an easy way to kill power to the entire house should it be necessary - such as in the event of a fire or other disaster - as simply killing the mains circuit alone would
not do this as the Powerwall would simply restore power automatically!
Click on the image for a larger version.

Comment:  As the time of writing there are some parts of the world - many being in Europe - where, due to regulations, the "whole house back-up" during a grid failure is not available.  The radio interference potentials described below still apply in these cases.

As can be seen, in normal operation the AC battery system is in parallel with the house's power bus and the power grid.  When "charging" from the solar, the system simply monitors the output power of the PV system and adjusts its charge rate to match.  In the "Self-Powered" mode (described below) when there is a grid connection it will charge/discharge at a rate that precisely matches the house's usage, effectively zeroing-out the power going to/from the grid when charging the battery, or export excess power to the grid once the battery has been charged in the same way as a typical "net meter" installation.

If the mains power fails the "Grid Isolation Relay" opens, disconnecting the house from the grid, allowing power to the backed-up loads to be maintained without back-feeding the utility.  The process of detecting a grid failure, disconnection from the grid and full restoration of the power seems to take between 200 and 750 milliseconds but the return to a grid connection - after the mains power has returned and stabilized for a few minutes - is nearly instantaneous.

If there is sufficient power budget (e.g. enough battery storage to last until the next day's sun and there is enough PV capacity to run the house and recharge the battery) it is possible to run "off grid" entirely - theoretically, indefinitely.  The downside of running in an "island" mode is that if you have a "Net Metering" arrangement, the "excess" power that would normally be exported back to the grid would simply be lost and no credit would be available for it:  Since there's really no down-side to having a system that disconnects the power grid during a failure, anyway, why not get credit for "excess" power?

So, does the Tesla Powerwall 2 cause radio frequency interference?

Yes and no.

The "no" part:

On the HF bands I have determined that in my particular case (and prior to mitigation techniques described later) the interference potential on the HF bands to be minimal or negligible.

When the unit is idle (neither charging or discharging) no interference can be detected on any LF, MF or HF band.  No interference has been noted on VHF or UHF bands, either.

When the unit is operating (either charging or discharging) and I am using my normal HF antenna system I cannot detect any interference from it on the HF amateur radio bands of 80 through 10 meters (e.g. 3.5-30 MHz).  Additionally, I cannot detect any interference from the Powerwall 2 system on any VHF or UHF band, either.

If I walk up to the Powerwall 2 system with a portable shortwave radio while it is operating I can hear a bit of noise when I am within a foot or so (less than a meter) that is likely due to short-range magnetic fields, but this noise energy doesn't seem to be being coupled to the connecting wires outside the unit.

The "Yes" parts:

160 meters:

Prior to noise mitigation techniques (mentioned below) on the highest MF band, 160 meters (1.8-2.0 MHz), the story is a bit different:  When the unit was operating, I could just detect a bit of noise from the unit in the far background, just below the local noise floor - but whether or not I could hear this at all depended on which antenna I'm using for receive.  For example, on an active E-field whip I could just hear this noise, but it is not at all audible when using a wire antenna.

Now that I've done a bit of noise mitigation, it is no longer audible on 160 meters with any antenna.

On lower frequencies (below 160 meters):

Prior to noise mitigation techniques (mentioned below) going down lower in frequency - into and below the AM Broadcast band (e.g. below 1.7 MHz) - the RF noise being produced by the Powerwall 2 (again, when it is charging or discharging) gradually increases, was fairly obvious by the time one got to the bottom of the AM broadcast band (e.g. 530 kHz).  Below the AM broadcast band are two more amateur bands - relatively recent additions to amateur radio in the U.S. - and both of these are bands on which I operate:  The 630 meter band (472-479 kHz) and the 2200 meter band (135.7-137.8 kHz).

At these lower frequencies the interference from the Powerwall 2 (when it is operating) ranged from "significant" at 630 meters to "considerable" at 2200 meters - but this is not surprising.  It would appear that the main power converter(s) inside the Powerwall(s) operate at 32 kHz - and the 2200 meter band is at only about 4 times this frequency.  Because the 2200 meter band's frequencies are comparatively close to the operating frequency of the inverter and its 4^th harmonic at 128 kHz - and because RF interference filtering works better as frequency is increased while the harmonics of these converters (and their significant mains-frequency modulated sidebands!) also decrease in amplitude - the amount of energy at 2200 and 630 meters will naturally be higher than it would be on the HF bands.

In short:  If you do not plan to operate on the 160, 630 or 2200 meter bands, you will likely not experience any interference at all, even if no mitigation techniques are used.

I can only speak from experience with my system:  Other systems may be better or worse in terms of interference, depending on the situation.

An interference source that can be controlled - "The devil you know":

One of the biggest problems with interference is that the source is often unknown - but if you know what is causing interference, it can often be controlled - by adding some sort of filtering, replacing the device with an equivalent that is less likely to cause interference, or simply not use it during those time during which interference would be a problem.  Following this last point, if the RF interference from the Powerwall 2 were to be of great concern it's worth noting that the user has pretty good control of when this might happen as interference from the Powerwall 2 seems to occur only in two possible states:  When it is charging, or when it is discharging.  What this means is that even if you use the MF (160 or 630 meters) or LF (2200 meters) bands it will not cause interference when it is "idle."

A typical Powerwall 2 owner would operate it in one of two modes, selectable from a phone app:

• Backup-only.  In this mode the Powerwall 2 operates only as a "whole house UPS" - that is, it is not producing power except when the utility mains is offline (e.g. a power failure or the user has disconnected it from the grid).  In this configuration and in a typical installation, charging of the Powerwall 2's battery is done only with energy from the PV system (solar + inverter) when it needs to do so - and this usually occurs only if the battery has been discharged below 95% or so.

• Self-powered.  In this mode the Powerwall 2 monitors the net inflow and outflow of power from the house.  In this configuration the Powerwall will either output enough power to "zero out" the usage of the house so that there is, on average, no power going to/from the utility and/or it will take excess power from the PV system to charge its battery which will also "zero out" the power to/from the utility.  If the battery is fully-charged, excess power from the PV system will be fed back into the Grid, just as is done in a normal "Net Metering" situation.

Note:  At the time of this writing there is expected to be a "load leveling" There is now a mode offered in the near future available where the Powerwall may be configured to charge/discharge at specific times to take advantages of time-based tariffs (e.g. lower-cost power during "off" hours).  This does not apply to me and such operation is beyond the scope of this article, but the interference potential could be inferred.

In the "Backup-only" mode the Powerwall 2 system is not usually operating (charging/discharging) and will thus not typically produce any noise on any amateur band - but in the "Self Powered" mode, the only time that interference would not be being produced would be when the Powerwall 2's battery is fully-charged and the excess PV power is being exported to the utility grid.

What this means is that if there is the possibility of interference, one would typically operate in the "Backup-only" mode where it is fairly rare for the unit to operate at all.  In my case, the charging portion of the inverter will operate only for a few hours in the morning as soon as the PV system starts to produce power, one or two days a week when it "tops off" the battery.

If, for some reason one wanted to completely eliminate the possibility of the unit going active - say, during some sort of contest - the Powerwalls could simply be turned off, but this would be done at the risk of losing the power back-up capability in the event of a grid failure, but this is something that you would probably consider only if you were operating on 160 meters or lower.

"My neighbor is putting in a Powerwall system - Will I hear it on the HF bands?"

Probably not.  As noted above, I could hear it only on 160 meters and only on a small active vertical whip which is far more sensitive to such things than a typical wire antenna.  If your antenna isn't very near the Powerwall, you probably won't even hear it at all.

One thing that I have going for me is that my power feed is underground - but this is largely unimportant in my case:  My house is connected directly to the wiring of the Powerwall and if it were to conduct a lot of stray RF onto the AC wiring, I would certainly hear it as it would be conducted directly into my home's wiring and be radiated.  On that basis, I do not believe that even with overhead wiring, the Powerwall would be radiating enough "grunge" from the powerlines alone to be audible.

Another point:  If your neighbor is in the process of installing a Powerwall - or already has a system -  there are several opportunities to determine if QRM is coming from it:

• Does the QRM go away in the dark?  If so, it's not the Powerwall - more likely some microinverters or "optimizer" modules on each panel.
• Has the Solar+Powerwall system apparently causing QRM been installed, but not "commissioned" by the utility yet?  If the system in question is not currently operating in a net-metering fashion (e.g. feeding power back to the grid) then the Powerwall will, by design remain offline.  It will not be until the system is fully "on-line" with the solar power system feeding back into the grid and charging the Powerwall that the Powerwall itself is likely to be active and capable of producing any RF interference at all - if it's going to do so.
• Some microinverters are known to cause interference even at night - if the mains power is applied to them.  If interference is suspected, be sure to check, at night, with the mains power to the microinverter system shut off.
• The possibility of conincidence should not be ruled out:  Something else could have been installed, causing interference - in the house with the solar power system, a different neighbor's house or even your own!

Follow-up article:

There is a follow-up article to this one describing how I mitigated what interference was being produced by the Powerwall 2:  Reducing RFI from the Tesla Powerall 2



Other articles related to the mitigation of interference from switching power supplies:

• Completely containing switching power supply RFI - link.  Sometimes it can be difficult to quiet a switching power supply, so it may be necessary to put it in a box with strong filtering on all of the conductors that enter/leave.
• Containing RF noise from a Sine Wave UPS - link.  There was a "pure sine" UPS that was causing a tremendous amount of RF interference across the HF spectrum whether it was active or not - but we managed to completely quiet it!
• Minimizing VHF (and HF) RFI from electronic ballasts and fluorescent tubes - link.  Electronic light ballasts, like many switching power supplies, operate in the LF frequency range so "cleaning them up" at VLF/LF/MF frequencies can be a challenge.
• Quieting high current switching power supplies used in the shack - link.  This page describes techniques that can be used to reduce the amount of RF energy produced by switching power supplies that you may be using to power your radios.  Again, higher-inductance chokes may be required at VLF/LF/MF frequencies.
• Reducing switching supply racket - link.  This describes techniques that can be used to beef up the filtering for switching supplies in general.
• The article "Common Mode Chokes" - link by W1HIS.  This paper describes techniques and materials used for interference mitigation. It is recommended reading for anyone who is interested in how RF interference is conducted from a device and how to prevent RF energy from causing devices to malfunction as well as practical advice as how to accomplish it.
• Quieting an insanely noisy LED floodlight - link.  This describes how a constant-current LED supply that produced enough interference to quash HF reception was quieted down to the point of undetectability. 

Some of the above articles contain additional links to other web pages on related topics.

[End]

This page stolen from ka7oei.blogspot.com

Teasing out the differences between the "AC" and "DC" versions of the Tesla PowerWall 2

Being naturally interested in such things, I've been following the announcements and information about the Tesla PowerWall 2 - the follow-on product of the (rarely seen - in the U.S., at least) "original" PowerWall.

Somewhat interestingly/frustratingly, clear, concise (and even vaguely) technical information on either version of the PowerWall 2 (yes, there are two versions - the "DC" and "AC") has been a bit difficult to find, so in my research, what have I found?

Comment:  It would appear that the "DC" version of the PowerWall 2 has been discontinued - or, at the very least, it not routinely offered.

This page or its contents are not intended to promote any of the products mentioned nor should it be considered to be an authoritative source. It is simply a statement of opinion, conjecture and curiosity based on the information publicly available at the time of the original posting. It is certain that as time goes on that information referenced on this page may be officially verified, become commonplace, or proven to be completely wrong. Such is the nature of life!

The "DC" PowerWall 2:

• Data sheets (two whole pages, each - almost!) for both the DC and AC versions of the PowerWall may be found here at this link - link.

Unless you have a "hybrid" solar inverter, this one is NOT for you - and if you had such an inverter, you'd likely already know it.  A "hybrid" inverter is one that is specifically designed to pass some of the energy from the PV array (solar panels) into storage, such as a battery and used that stored energy later.

Unlike its "AC" counterpart (more on this later) this version of the PowerWall 2 does NOT appear to have an AC (mains) connection of any type - let alone an inverter (neither are mentioned in the brochure) - but rather it is an energy back-up for the solar panels on the DC input(s) of the hybrid inverter.   "Excess" power from the panels may used to charge the battery and this stored energy could be used to feed the inverter when the load (e.g. house) exceeds that available from the panels - when it is cloudy, if there is a period in which the load exceeds the output of the PV array for a period of time or there is no sun at all (e.g. night).

Whether or not this version of the PowerWall can actually be (indirectly) charged via the AC mains (e.g.  via a hybrid inverter capable of working "backwards" to produce AC from the mains) would appear to depend entirely on the capability and configuration of the hybrid inverter and the system overall.

But, you might ask,why would you ever want to charge the battery from the utility rather than from solar?  You might want to do this if there were variable tariffs in your area - say, $0.30/kWh during the peak hours in the day, but only $0.15kWh at night - in which case it would make sense supplant the "expensive" power during the day with "cheap" power bought at night to charge it up:  Although there would be, perhaps, a 10% "round trip loss" in doing this, it would still save money overall and help "even out" the loading that a utility might see during peak hours.

Whether or not this system would be helpful in a power outage is also dependent on the nature of the inverter to which it is connected:  Most grid-tie solar converters become useless when the mains power disappears (e.g. cannot produce any power for the consumer - more on this later) - and this applies to both "series string" (e.g. a large inverter fed by high-voltage DC from a series of panels) and the "microinverter" (small inverters at each of the panels) topologies.  Inverters configured for "island" operation (e.g. "free running" in the absence of a live power grid) or ones that can safely switch between "grid tie" and "island" modes would seem to be appropriate if you use the DC PowerWall and you want to keep your house "powered up" when there is a grid failure.

In other words, if you have a typical PV system that involves grid-tie inverters (series string or microinverter) and you have no "islanding" capability at present, the "DC" Power Wall is not for you!

The "AC" PowerWall 2:

• Data sheets (two whole pages, each - almost!) for both the DC and AC versions of the PowerWall may be found here - LINK.

While the "AC" version seems to have the same battery storage capacity as the "DC" version (e.g. approx. 13.5kWh) it also has an integrated inverter and charger that interfaces with the AC mains that is apparently capable of supporting any standard voltage from 100 to 277 volts, 50 or 60 Hz, split or single phase.  This inverter, rated for approximately 7kW peak and 5-ish kW continuous, is sufficient to run many households.  Multiple units may be "stacked" (e.g. connected in parallel-type configuration - up to nine of them, according to the data sheet linked above) for additional storage and capacity.

Unlike the "DC" version, all of the power inflow/outflow is via the AC power feed, which is to say, it will both output AC power via its inverter and charge its battery via that same connection.  What this means is that it need not (and cannot, really) be directly connect to the PV (photovoltaic) system.  What seems clear is that this version has some means of monitoring the net flow in to and out of the house and to/from the utility which means that the PowerWall could balance this out by "knowing" how much power it could use to charge its battery, or needed to output.

(The basic diagram of Figure 1, below, shows how such a system might be connected.  This diagram does not specifically represent a PowerWall, but rather how any battery-based inverter/charger system might be used to supply back-up power to a home in the past and future.)

Because its power would be connected "indirectly" via AC power connections to the PV system it should (in theory) work with either a series-string or microinverter-type system - or, maybe even if you have no solar at all if you simply want to charge it during times of lower tariffs and pull the charge back out again during high tariffs.

(The Tesla brochure simply says "Support for wide range of usage scenarios" under the heading "Operating Modes" - which could be interpreted many ways, but at the time of the original posting of this article I have not actually seen an "official" suggestion of a use without any sort of solar power.)

What might such a system look like - schematically, at least?

How might this version of the PowerWall operate?  First, let's take a look at a diagram of how any sort of battery/inverter/charger like this might be configured for a house.

Figure 1:
Diagram of a generic battery-based "whole house" backup system based on obvious requirements.  This is a very basic diagram, showing most of the needed components that would be required to interface a battery-based inverter/charger with a typical house's electrical system and a PV (PhotoVoltaic/solar) charging system.
For those not familiar with North American power systems, typical residences are fed with 240 volt, center-tapped service from the utility's step-down transformer with this center-tap grounded at the service entrance.  This allows most devices to operate at 120 volts while those that consume large amounts of power (ranges, electric water heaters, electric dryers, air conditioners, etc.) are connected to 240 volt circuit, which may or may not need the "neutral" lead at all.  In most other parts of the world there would be only "L1" and the "Neutral" operating at about 240 volts.
Click on the image for a larger version.

Referring to Figure 1, above:

Shown to the right of center is a switch that opens when the utility's power grid goes offline, isolating the house and the inverter/charger from the power grid and included in that is a voltage monitor (consisting of potential transducers, or "PTs") that can detect when the mains voltage has returned and stabilized and it is "safe" to reconnect to the grid.  The battery-based inverter/charger is connected across the house's mains so that it can both pull current from it to charge its battery as well as push power into the house in a back-up situation.

The "Net current monitoring" current transducers ("CTs") might be used to allow the inverter/charger to "zero out" the total current (and, thus power) coming in from and going out to the power grid (under normal situations) such as when its battery is being charged and extra power is being produced by the PV system, but also to control the charge rate just so that only that "extra" power from the PV system is being used to assure, as much as possible, a net-zero flow to/from the utility.  The "House Current monitoring" is used to determine how much current is being used by the entire house while the "PV current monitoring" is used to determine the contribution of the PV system.

Comment:

The "PV current monitoring" point is probably superfluous:  All the PowerWall need know is how much power is going in to or out of the utility (power grid) and how much power is going in to or out of the house's main panel, which also includes any solar generation.  The third factor - how much power the PowerWall is using/producing is going to be available from the PowerWalls' own built-in monitoring.

By knowing these things it is possible to determine how much excess/deficit their may be in terms of the production of the PV system with respect to actual usage by the household.  Not shown is the current monitoring that would, no doubt, be included in the inverter/charger itself.  Some of the shown current monitoring points may be redundant as this information could be determined in other ways, but are included for clarity.

Finally, a local network (data) connection is shown for both the inverter/charger and the PV system so that there is a possibility that they may communicate with each other, perhaps for control purposes, as well as communicate via the Internet so that statistics may be monitored and recorded and to allow firmware updates to be issued.

How it might operate in practice:

As can be seen in Figure 1 and determined from the explanation, we can see that the PV is connected to the input/output of the inverter/charger (which could be a PowerWall - or any other similar system) via the house wiring which means that there is a path to the PowerWall to charge its battery, and the same path out of it when it needs to supply power, along with means of monitoring power flow.

With a system akin to that depicted in Figure 1, consider these possible scenarios:

1. Excess power is being produced by the PV system and put back into the grid and the PowerWall's battery is fully-charged.   Because the battery is fully-charged there is nowhere to put this extra power so it goes back into the grid, tracked by the utility's "Net Meter" in the same way that it would be without a PowerWall.
2. Excess power is being produced by the PV system and the PowerWall's battery is not fully charged.  The PowerWall will pull the amount of "excess" power that the PV system would normally be putting into the grid and charge its own battery at that same rate resulting in a net-zero amount of power being put into the grid.
3. More power is being consumed by the user's household than is being produced by the solar array.  Depending on the state-of-charge and configuration of the PowerWall it may produce enough power to make up for the difference between what the PV system is producing and the user's needs.  At night this could (in theory) be 100% of the usage if the system were so-configured.
4. Tariff leveling.  It would be theoretically possible to configure it so that whether or not solar was present and the utility charged a higher daytime than nighttime power rate, one could charge overnight from the mains and put out power during the day to reduce the power costs overall and to help "level" the utility's load.

What about a power outage?

All of the above scenarios are to be expected - and they are more-or-less standard offerings for many of the battery-based products of this type - but what if the AC mains go down?  For the rest of this discussion we will ignore the "DC" version of the PowerWall as its capability would rely on the configuration of the user's hybrid inverter and its capabilities/configuration when it comes to supplying backup, "islanded" AC power although the combination of a DC power wall and the appropriate inverter could be functionally identical to an AC Power Wall.

As mentioned before, with a typical PV system - either "series string" (one large inverter) or distributed (e.g. "microinverter") - if the power grid goes offline the PV system becomes useless:  A PV system requires the power grid to be present to both synchronize itself and present an infinite "sink" into which it can always "push" all of the "extra" power power that it is producing.  Were such units to not shut down, dangerous voltages could be "back-fed" into the power grid and be a hazard to anyone who might be trying to repair it.  It is for this reason that all grid-tie inverters are, by law, required to go offline and/or disconnect themselves completely from the power grid during a mains power outage.

The "AC" version of the Tesla PowerWall's system includes a switch that automatically isolates the house from the utility's power grid when there is a power failure.  Once this switch has isolated the house from the power grid the inverter built into the PowerWall can supply power to the house - at least as long as its battery lasts.

What about charging the battery during a power outage?

Here is where it seems to get a bit tricky.

If all grid-tie inverter systems go offline when the power grid fails, is it possible to use it to assist, or even charge the PowerWall during a grid failure?  In other words, can you use power from your PV system to recharge the PowerWall's battery or, at the very least, supply at least some of the power to extend its battery run-time?

In corresponding with a company representative - and corroborated by data openly published by Telsa (see the FAQ linked near the bottom of this posting) - the answer would appear to be "yes" - but exactly how this works is not very clear.

Based on rather vague information and knowing the behavior of the components involved it would seem to need to work this way:

• The power (utility) grid goes down.
• The user's PV system goes offline with the failure of the grid.
• The PowerWall's switch opens, isolating the house completely from the grid - aside from the ability to monitor when the power grid comes back up.
• The inverter in the PowerWall now takes the load of the (now isolated) house, producing AC power.

Were this all that happened, the house would again go dark once the battery in the PowerWall or similar "back-up power system" was depleted, but there seems to be more to it than this when a PV system is involved, as in:

• When the back-up power system's inverter goes online, the PV system again sees what looks like the power grid and comes back online.
• As it does, the back-up power system monitors the total power consumption and usage and any excess power being produced by the PV system is used to charge its battery.
• If the PV system is producing less power than is being used, the back-up power system will supply the difference:  Its battery will still be discharged, but at a lower rate.  The house will still go dark when the battery is fully discharged.

Comment: 

What if you run the Power Wall down to the point where it goes offline and then the sun comes out the next day:  Is it possible to "bootstrap" the system to cause the PV to go online and start charging the battery, or are you "stuck" in an "offline" state where you can't produce PV to charge the battery because there is no AC power, but you can't produce AC power to charge the battery?

It is entirely possible that the DC version of the Power Wall may be "immune" to this "catch-22" situation by allowing some "reserve" capacity to restart once PV power is again available for charging - but how would it know that?

But now it gets even trickier and a bit more vague.

What if there is extra power being produced by the PV system?

Grid tie PV systems expect the power grid to be an infinite sink of power - but what if, during a power failure, when your backup up system is standing in as the power grid, your PV system is producing 5kW of solar energy and your house/inverter is using only 2kW:  Where does the extra 3kW of production go if it cannot be infinitely sinked into the utility grid, and how does one keep the PV system from "tripping out" and going off line?

To illustrate the problem, let us bring up a related scenario where we have a generator instead of some sort of battery-based back-up power system system.

There is a very good reason why owners of grid-tie systems are warned against using it to "assist" a backup generator and using that generator as a substitute for the power grid.  What can happen is this:

• The AC power goes out and the transfer switch connects the house to the generator.
• The generator comes online and produces AC power.
• If the AC power from the generator is stable enough (not all generators produce adequately stable power) the PV system will come back online thinking that the power grid has come back.
• When the PV system comes back online and produces power, the generator's load decreases:  Most generator's motors will slightly speed up as the load is decreased.
• When the generator's motor speeds up, the frequency goes high.  When this happens, the PV system will see that as unstable power and will go offline.
• When the PV system goes off, the power is suddenly dumped on the generator and it is hit with the full load and slows back down.
•  The cycle repeats, with the PV system and generator "fighting" each other as the PV system continually goes on and offline.

An even worse scenario is this:

• The AC power goes out, the transfer switch connects the house to the generator.
• The generator comes online and produces power.
• The PV system comes up because it "sees" the generator as the power grid, but its producing, say, 5kW but the house is, at the moment, using 2kW.
• The PV system, because it think that it is connected to the power grid, will try to shove that extra 3kW somewhere, causing one or more of the following to happen:
• The generator to speed up as power is being "pushed" into it, its frequency will go high and trip the PV system offline, and/or:
• If the PV system tries to push more power into the system than there is a place for it to go (e.g. the case, above, where the solar is producing 3kW more than is being used) the voltage will necessarily go up.  Assuming that the generator doesn't "overspeed" and trip-out and the frequency doesn't go up and trip the PV system offline, the PV system will increase the voltage, trying to "push" the extra power into a load where there is nowhere for it to go:
• As the PV system tries to "push" its excess power into the generator, it will increase the output voltage.  At some point the PV system will trip out on overvoltage, and the same "on-off" cycle mentioned above will occur.
• It is possible that the excess power from the PV will "motor" the generator (e.g. the input power tries to "spin" the generator/motor) - an extremely bad thing to do which will probably cause it to overheat and eventually be destroyed if this goes un-checked.
• If it is an "inverter" type generator, it can't be "motored", but the excess power will probably cause the generator's inverter to get stuck in the same "trip out/restart" cycle or simply fault out in an "overload condition - or the inverter might even be damaged/destroyed.

If having extra power from a grid-tie inverter is so difficult to deal with, what could you do with extra power that the PV system might be producing?

What if we have excess power and nowhere to put it?

The question that comes to mind now is "What does the PV system do when the PowerWall's battery is fully-charged and there is no-where to put extra energy that might be being produced?"  Where we have is the situation where our PV system is producing 5kW but we are using only 2kW leaving an extra 3kW to go... where?

The answer to that question is not at all clear, but four possibilities come to mind:

1. Divert the power elsewhere.  Some people with "island" systems utilize a feature of some solar power systems that indicate when excess power is available and use it to operate a diversion switch to shunt the excess power in an attempt to do something useful like run an electric water heater, pump water or simply produce waste heat with a large resistor bank.  Such features are usually available only on "island" systems (e.g. those that are entirely self-contained and not tied to the power grid) and with large battery banks.
2. Disable the PV system temporarily.  If it is possible, simply disable the PV system for a while and drain, say, 5-10% of the power out of the back-up power system battery before turning it back on and recharging it.  This will cause the PV system to cycle on and offline, but it will do so relatively slowly and it should cause no harm.
3. Tell the PV system to shut off.  One could somehow communicate with the PV system and "tell" it to produce only the needed amount of energy.  This is a bit of a fine line to walk, but it is theoretically possible provided such a feature is available on the PV system.
4. Alter the power to cause the PV system to drop off-line.  One could, in theory, alter the conditions of the power being produced by the back-up power system inverter such that it causes the PV system to go offline and stay that way until it needs to come back online.

Analyzing the possibilities:

Let's eliminate #1 as that will not apply to a typical grid-tie system, so that leaves us with:

#2:  Disabling the PV system:

Of these three possibilities #2 would seem to be the most obvious and it could be done simply by having another switch/relay on the output of the PV system that disconnects it from the rest of the house, forcing it to go offline - but this has its complications.

For example, in my system the PV is connected into a separate sub-panel located in the garage:  If one were to disconnect this branch circuit entirely, the power in the garage would go on and off, depending on the state-of-charge of the PowerWall or other battery-based back-up power system.  Connecting a PV system to a sub-panel is not an unusual configuration as it is not uncommon to find them connected to sub-panels that feed other systems, say, the air conditioner, kitchen, etc. (e.g. wherever a suitable circuit is available) so I'm guessing that they do not do it this way - unless they do it at the point before the PV system connects to the panel.  Doing this would require a remotely-controlled switch in many situations - awkward to wire up in many situations, but not impossible.

As noted above, one would disable the PV system once the battery had fully charged but enable it again once the battery had run down a bit - say, to 90-95%.  This way, one would not be rapid-cycling the PV system and the vast majority of the back-up power system's battery storage capacity would be available.

While this, too, should work, I suspect that it is not the one that is used as the drawings in the brochures don't show any such connection - but then again, they don't show the main house disconnect that would have to be present - but it would probably work just fine if the PV system were to gracefully come back online when it was time to do so (e.g. no user intervention to "reset" anything.)

#4:  Alter the operating conditions to cause the PV system to go offline:

Then there is #4, and one interesting possibility comes to mind - and it may sound like a kludge, but it should work.

One of the parameters that could be altered would be the frequency at which the back-up power system's inverter operates (say, 2-3 Hz or so above and/or below the proper line frequency) and force the PV system offline with that variance.  Even though this minor frequency change is not likely to hurt anything (many generators' frequencies drift around much more than this with varying loads!) devices that use the power line frequency as a reference - such as clocks, and clocks within various appliances - would drift rather badly unless the frequency were "dithered" above and below the proper frequency so that its long term average was properly maintained.

I suspect that this is not a method that would be used, but it could work - at least in theory.

Edit - 20170719:

In digging around, I have determined that "dithering" the frequency is, in fact, one of several ways that is used by an battery-backed inverter to disable a PV inverter when the PV is producing more power than can be accommodated by the load and/or battery charger.  This system, called "Frequency Shift Power Control" (FSPC) by at least one manufacturer (e.g. SunnyBoy) is designed to do this very thing.

A description of this technique may be found in section 6 of the document "Use of PV Inverters in Off-Grid  and Backup Systems in North and  South America" by SMA (SunnyBoy) found at this link.

Whether or not this is a control method used by the Power Wall is not known at this time.

Edit - 20180502:

Now having had an operational PowerWall 2 system for some time, I can verify that it is, in fact the "frequency control" method that is used.  During a sunny day with the battery at about 90%, I disconnected my house from the utility and observed that the PowerWall was taking a charge from the PV system.  During this time I monitored the AC mains frequency in the house.

At 97-98% charge the mains frequency increased from 60.00Hz to 60.50 Hz over several minutes at which point my PV inverters shut down due to the frequency being out of tolerance.  As the charge level dropped back down to 95% or so, the frequency slowly returned to 60.00 Hz and eventually the PV inverters came back online.  I kept the mains power disconnected for several hours and the above cycle repeated continuously.

My SunnyBoy PV inverters will simply "drop" abruptly when the limit (60.50 Hz) is reached, but it is possible that there are inverters out there that will, at some point, more gradually throttle the power back above a certain frequency threshold.  While this scheme would be more "graceful", either method works just fine.

One side-effect of this method is that the average mains frequency is increased during those times where the PV inverter is to be disabled.  If we assume that one were running only on solar, and there were 3 peak solar production hours that this will occur 50% of the the time (e.g. about 90 minutes spent at 60.5 Hz during the day) this would mean that clocks that were synchronized to the mains frequencies (many plug-in digital clocks, most appliances) would run "fast" by about 45 seconds per day.  This difference is in mains frequency is small enough that motorized appliances will function just fine.

#3:  "Talk" to the PV system and control the amount of power that it is producing:

That leaves us with #3:  Communicate with the PV system and "tell" it (perhaps using the "ModBus" interface) to produce only enough power to "zero" out the net usage.

The problem with this method is that it would depend on the capabilities of the PV inverter system and require that they support such specific remote control functions.  While it is very possible that some do, this method would be limited to those so-equipped and compatibility across many brands/models could be difficult.

#3 and #2:  "Talk" to the PV system to turn it on and off as needed:

Included in #3 could be a variant of method #2 and that would be to send a command to the inverter via its network connection to simply shut down and come back online as needed to keep the battery between, say, 90% and 100% charge as mentioned above.

This second variant of #3 seems most likely as there as it is possible that there is some sort of set of commands capable of this that would be widely implemented across vendors and models.

* * *

What do I think the likelihood to be?

I'm betting on the second variant of #3 where a command is sent to the PV system to tell it to turn off - at least until there is, again, somewhere to "send" excess power - but #4 is looking increasingly likely.

* * *

Having said all of this, there is a product FAQ that was put out by Tesla that seems to confirm the basic analysis - that is, its ability to run "stand alone" in the event of a power failure and the charge be maintained if there is sufficient excess PV capacity - read that FAQ here - LINK.

I'm investigating getting a PowerWall 2 system to augment my PV generation and provide "whole house" backup.  In the process I have been researching how it works and interfaces with both the utility and my existing PV system. While I have occasionally asked questions of representatives of  Tesla, nothing that they have said is anything that could not be easily found in publicly-released information on the internet and as of the original date of this posting I haven't signed anything that could possibly keep me from talking about it. However all of its interfacing and connectivity is done, it should be interesting!

Additional information may be found on the GreenTech Media web site:  "The New Tesla Powerwall Is Actually Two Different Products" - LINK.  This article and follow-up comments seem to indicate that there were, at the time of their writing, there were only a few manufacturers of inverters, namely SolarEdge and SMA (a.k.a. SunnyBoy) with which Tesla was installing/interfacing their systems, perhaps indicating some version of #2 or #3, above.  Clearly, the comments, mostly from several months ago, are also offering various conjectures on how the system actually works.

* * *

Finally, if you can find more specific information - say from a public document or from others' experience and analysis that can add more to this, please pass it along!


[End]

This page stolen from "ka7oei.blogspot.com"