Molded Case Switches are ampere rated and can be used up to 100% of their ampere rating. Please note that molded case switches need to be protected by a fuse or a breaker of equal ampere rating.

The protective breaker may be either an 80% or 100% rated breaker. Therefore the molded case switch takes on the rating of the fuse or breaker protecting it, and can be 100% rated.

IEC 60947 2 requires circuit breakers to have information printed on the outside. The more there is, the better the device, and the more you will know about what it does. It is information like:
• Rated current (should always show, even when the circuit breaker is installed)
• Manufacturer’s trademark
• Compliance with standard IEC/EN 60947-2
• Selectivity category
• Rated voltage
• Rated impulse withstand voltage
• Rated short circuit making capacity
• Rated short-circuit breaking capacity
• Reference temperature (if different from 30°C)
• Pollution degree
• Rated insulation voltage
• Suitability for isolation (should show even when circuit breaker is installed)
• Clearly marked on and off positions (should show even when circuit breaker is installed)

mobile app quickly delivers fault current calculations in the palm of your hand

Scan QR Code to download mobile app

Makes point-to-point fault current calculations easy
Calculate three-phase and single-phase faults
Create and email NEC® 110.24 compliant labels and one-line diagrams
Fuse sizing guide assists with fuse and conductor sizing

ENTSO-E has now confirmed with the Serbian and Kosovar TSOs, respectively EMS and KOSTT, that the deviations which affected the average frequency in the synchronous area of Continental Europe have ceased.The situation experienced is unprecedented in the Continental European Power System. The European transmission system operators interact constantly, across the borders and through ENTSO-E, to ensure that security of supply is maintained in one of the world’s largest synchronous area.

To keep bolted connections tight, we can choose from several methods. The most common is the insertion of a locking device between the rotating part (nut) and the parts being fastened (i.e., bus bars). That locking device often is a split-ring lockwasher. Such a device does not meet all locking device requirements, however. Enter, the Belleville washer.

The Belleville is a disk spring that applies pressure to the connection once you clamp down on it with the proper amount of force. The advantage of this washer is that it applies clamping pressure along a continuous arc pattern, instead of concentrating it at one point the way a split-ring lockwasher does. While you should use a split-ring washer only at the nut end of the connection (normally), you can use Belleville washers in tandem. One at the nut end and one at the bolt head end. This is a common way to use these washers, especially when assembling bus bar.

Bus bar connections are critical in electrical installations. I want to clarify some items in the May “Back to Basics” article. Most bus bars are silver or tin-plated—not copper plated. The purpose of plating is to reduce oxidation, thus improving the connections. This thin plating can scrape off easily. Abrasive cleaning will likely remove the plating, leading to hot joints and potential failure.

The most critical decision in aluminum to copper bolted joint design is the selection of the Belleville washer.

A previous article by Norman Shackman, P.E. (“The Trouble with Torque in Electrical Connections,” MT 11/02, pg. 24) correctly stated that two of the secrets to making and keeping reliable electrical connections are clean contact surfaces and high force. These are both inputs to what is defined as “normal force”: the clamping pressure needed to drop resistance to a value low enough to provide a conductive, stable joint. The ability to maintain normal force over the lifetime of the joint determines its reliability.

In many cases this is the function of the Belleville washer. It becomes critical when joining dissimilar metal connections such as aluminum to copper which was used extensively during construction in the late 1970s and early 1980s. ///

http://www.webcitation.org/76SJYhVyp

A Belleville washer, also known as a coned-disc spring,[1] conical spring washer,[2] disc spring, Belleville spring or cupped spring washer, is a conical shell which can be loaded along its axis either statically or dynamically. A Belleville washer is a type of spring shaped like a washer. It is the frusto-conical shape that gives the washer its characteristic spring.

The "Belleville" name comes from the inventor Julien Belleville who in Dunkerque, France, in 1867 patented a spring design which already contained the principle of the disc spring.[1][3] The real inventor of Belleville washers is unknown. //

n the different fields, if they are used as springs or to apply a flexible pre-load to a bolted joint or bearing, Belleville washers can be used as a single spring or as a stack. In a spring-stack, disc springs can be stacked in the same or in an alternating orientation and of course it is possible to stack packets of multiple springs stacked in the same direction.

Disc springs have a number of advantageous properties compared to other types of springs:[4]

Very large loads can be supported with a small installation space,
Due to the nearly unlimited number of possible combinations of individual disc springs, the characteristic curve and the column length can be further varied within additional limits,
High service life under dynamic load if the spring is properly dimensioned,
Provided the permissible stress is not exceeded, no impermissible relaxation occurs,
With suitable arrangement, a large damping (high hysteresis) effect may be achieved,
Because the springs are of an annular shape, force transmission is absolutely concentric.

In 2017, Germany generated 37 percent of its electricity from non-carbon sources.[1] In pursuing the Energiewende, Germany will have invested $580 billion in renewable energy and storage by 2025.

If Germany had invested in nuclear instead, it could have built 46 1.6 GW EPR reactors at the $12.5 billion per reactor cost of the U.K.’s Hinkley Point C. German companies assisted with the design of the EPR and the reactor was explicitly planned to meet the strictest European regulations.

In this scenario, EP assumes that a Germany pursuing nuclear power would maintain the same level of nuclear generation as it produced annually before implementing its nuclear phase-out in 2011, about 133 TWh per year.

With 46 EPRs operating at 90 percent capacity factor, Germany could first eliminate all coal, gas, and biomass electricity, then make up for today’s 150 terawatt-hours per year of wind and solar from its renewables investment, all while exporting 100 terawatt-hours of electricity to its neighbors (double 2017’s actual exports). Finally, with the remaining 133 terawatt-hours, Germany could decarbonize its entire light vehicle fleet including all 45 million of its passenger vehicles.[2]

Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress.

The analysis comes the day before California plays host to a “Global Climate Action Summit,” which makes no mention of nuclear, despite it being the largest source of clean energy in the U.S. and Europe.

Here are the two main findings from EP's analysis:

    Had Germany spent $580 billion on nuclear instead of renewables, and the fossil plant upgrades and grid expansions they require, it would have had enough energy to both replace all fossil fuels and biomass in its electricity sector and replace all of the petroleum it uses for cars and light trucks.

    Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

As a result of their renewables-only policies, California and Germany are climate laggards compared to nuclear-heavy places like France, whose electricity is 12 times less carbon intensive than Germany’s, and 4 times less carbon intensive than California’s.

Thanks to its deployment of nuclear power, the Canadian province of Ontario’s electricity is nearly 90% cleaner than California’s, according to a recent analysis by Scott Luft, an energy analyst who tracks decarbonization and the power sector.

California’s power sector emissions are over twice as high today as they would have been had the state kept open and built planned nuclear plants.

California’s political establishment pushed hard to close San Onofre nuclear plant in 2013 — triggering an on-going federal criminal investigation — and later to close Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which generates 15% of all in-state clean electricity, by 2025.
Had those plants been constructed and stayed open, 73% of power produced in California would be from clean (very low-carbon) energy sources as opposed to just 34%. Of that clean power, 48% would have been from nuclear rather than 9%.In 2016, renewables received 94 times more in U.S. federal subsidies than nuclear and 46 times more than fossil fuels per unit of energy generated. Meanwhile, a growing number of analysts are admitting that an electricity grid that relies on nuclear power has no need for solar and wind. More troubling, adding solar and wind to a nuclear-heavy grid would require burning more fossil fuels, usually natural gas, as back-up power