ESE vs Conventional Lightning Protection

An honest comparison of coverage claims, standards status and where each is appropriate.

Early Streamer Emission is the most contested topic in our field. Clients ask for it because one mast can replace a mesh; reviewers challenge it because the mainstream standards do not recognise it.

What each system is

A conventional (Franklin/Faraday) system uses rods, mesh or catenary conductors positioned by the rolling sphere method, with multiple down conductors distributing the current. An ESE terminal contains a triggering device intended to initiate an upward leader earlier than a simple rod, and is credited under NF C 17-102 with a radius of protection derived from that advance time.

The standards position

  • IEC 62305 makes no provision for ESE devices; a design citing IEC cannot justify ESE coverage from that standard.
  • NFPA 780 has repeatedly declined to include ESE in the body of the standard.
  • NF C 17-102 (French standard, widely used internationally) does define the design method.
  • Some regional authorities and private clients accept NF C 17-102; many EPC specifications explicitly forbid it.

Where each fits

For open areas — storage yards, sports facilities, car parks, temporary sites — a single mast under NF C 17-102 is practical and often the only workable option. For process plants, substations, data centers and any facility with a specification citing IEC or NFPA, conventional protection is what we recommend and what will pass review. Whichever route is chosen, the earthing and SPD design carries the same weight: an ESE terminal on a poor earth protects nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

Need this reviewed on your project?

Our engineers can review your earthing or lightning protection design against the applicable standard and issue a compliance report.