[RE-wrenches] VAWT recommendation
Joel Davidson
joel.davidson at sbcglobal.net
Thu Oct 21 08:32:36 PDT 2010
My "go-to" local windpower person is Glenn Forbes, son of Ivan Forbes. Urban
vertical axis wind machine makers with decades of experience.
Machine Height: 42 feet
Total weight of base: 42 tons
Blades: Six at 180 feet each, total length
Minimum wind speed required to return electricity to the grid: 3 miles per
hour
Power produced at 33 mph wind speed: 12 kilowatts.
There's a great story about Ivan at
http://www.lacitysan.org/biosolidsems/downloads/TIRE/Alive_200706_Main-ArticleOnTIRE.pdf
Contact me off-list for Glenn's contact info.
Joel Davidson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind" <kelly at whidbeysunwind.com>
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] VAWT recommendation
> Greg,
> I've already done as you've suggested. We are on record for opposing the
> choice. The Navy (well, the civilian Navy employee who wrote the RFP and
> controls the contract) is firm on doing VAWT's.
>
> The GC is being generous with offering to buy the turbines and carry the
> VAWT warranty. Looks like I'll take them up on it.
>
> Thanks for the feedback
> -Kelly
>
> Kelly Keilwitz, P.E.
> Whidbey Sun & Wind
> Renewable Energy Systems
> kelly at whidbeysunwind.com
> 360-678-7131
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 7:13 AM, greg at remotepowerinc.com wrote:
>
>> Kelly,
>>
>> I've never seen one or heard of one that produces power or lasts. If
>> you
>> install these your name is on them. If they don't work it reflects on
>> you
>> and your business. I'd write the prime contractor a short note letting
>> them know that you cannot find a VAWT that you can recommend with a
>> clear
>> conscious and because you don't want he and his company to wind up with
>> a
>> black eye, your not going to recommend a VAWT to him for purchase.
>>
>> If he's smart he'll tell the Navy he can't get a knowledgeable person
>> with
>> a conscious to sell him one and they'll do the right thing and either
>> install a HAWT of good lineage or more solar.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Greg Egan
>> Remote Power Inc.
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:16:46 -0600
>>> From: Dan Fink <danbob at hughes.net>
>>> To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] VAWT recommendation
>>> Message-ID: <4CBF5C3E.6 at hughes.net>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>
>>> Kelly;
>>>
>>> I would insist on a years worth of actual wind speed versus energy
>>> output data performed by an unaffiliated third party, before even
>>> touching this project with a 10-foot gin pole.
>>>
>>> DAN FINK
>>> Buckville Energy Consulting LLC
>>>
>>> Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind wrote:
>>>> Wind wrenches,
>>>> We have a subcontract to install 30kW of VAWT, along with 30kW of PV
>>>> for
>>>> the Navy. The Navy specified Helix Wind turbines, and is adamant on
>>>> sticking with VAWTs, although they may accept an alternative. The GC
>>>> we
>>>> are working under is sufficiently scared of Helix to look for a viable
>>>> alternative. Are there any?!
>>>>
>>>> The GC has done some research and wants to use the UGE-4K from Urban
>>>> Green Energy http://www.urbangreenenergy.com
>>>> It's an H-style lift machine that appears to have several European
>>>> certifications on safety, power performance, noise, and vibration.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone know anything about these turbines or company? UGE's address is
>>>> NY. Roy?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Kelly
>>>>
>>>> Kelly Keilwitz, P.E.
>>>> Whidbey Sun & Wind
>>>> Renewable Energy Systems
>>>> kelly at whidbeysunwind.com
>>>> 360-678-7131
>> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 360-678-7131
>> end_of_the_skype_highlighting
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:17:36 -0600
>>> From: benn kilburn <benn at daystarsolar.ca>
>>> To: Wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Mounting Enphase when using S-5-PV Clamps
>>> Message-ID: <COL121-W2359BE547C2D1A3C956CE5AD5C0 at phx.gbl>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a lot of you guys in the field today 'eh? I was just checking a
>>> spec
>>> on my laptop and noticed i had a wireless signal and a mailbox full of
>>> great feedback, thanks again everyone!!!
>>> I'll go over all the details from everyone a little more when i'm done
>>> on
>>> site for the day. For a few of you i just wanted to show you this link
>>> to the S-5-PV clamp, which is different from just the S-5! clamp >
>>> Click
>>> here to learn more. < The S-5-PV does not need rails, the mod frames
>>> sit
>>> on the 'mounting disc' which can accommodate one or two modules. BUT,
>>> with the Enphase system, this leave no where to mount the inverters.
>>> Bill made a good point; save this mounting method for string inverter
>>> systems. We are now planning this project using just the S-5
>>> clamp/L-foot/rail system. No problems.
>>> Back at 'er!
>>> benn
>>> DayStar Renewable Energy Inc. benn at daystarsolar.ca780-906-7807 HAVE A
>>> SUNNY DAY
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:34:56 -0600
>>> From: allan at positiveenergysolar.com
>>> To: re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Mounting Enphase when using S-5-PV Clamps
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have used these for years. They work better than wire ties, but
>>> the rubber liner deteriorates over time, so install them as if there
>>> is no rubber protection on the loom clamp.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allan Sindelar
>>>
>>> Allan at positiveenergysolar.com
>>>
>>> NABCEP Certified Photovoltaic Installer
>>>
>>> EE98J Journeyman Electrician
>>>
>>> Positive Energy, Inc.
>>>
>>> 3201 Calle Marie
>>>
>>> Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
>>>
>>> 505 424-1112
>>>
>>> www.positiveenergysolar.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2010 11:53 AM, jay peltz wrote:
>>>
>>> If this helps,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I just installed a system and used 3 different size loop clamps (
>>> del city) which worked really well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I used 3/8" for single wires, 3/4 for 2 wires and 1" for 3
>>> and also for the connector, worked really well, made it all very
>>> clean.
>>> I attached them with SS tek screws into the rails.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> jay
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> peltz power
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Mark Dickson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just
>>> finished one. . . Direct Power recommended
>>> drilling and bolting directly to the aluminum
>>> rails--easy and solid. Although, I was not
>>> happy about all the wire management that went
>>> into it though. Sure would be nice if somebody
>>> came along and made some integrated wire
>>> raceways!!!
>>> It was
>>> amazing how many blank stares I got from racking
>>> manus at SPI, when I asked them if they had any
>>> in the works. Most just kept pointing to their
>>> wire clips and pretended not to know about the
>>> NEC requirements.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Mark Dickson,
>>> NABCEP Certified Solar PV
>>> Installer ?
>>> Oasis Montana Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>
>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> Options & settings:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List-Archive:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>
>>> Check out participant bios:
>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>
>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> Options & settings:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List-Archive:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>
>>> Check out participant bios:
>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20101020/b21a25fc/attachment-0001.htm
>>> >
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:39:36 -0700
>>> From: "Hans Frederickson" <hans at fredelectric.com>
>>> To: "'RE-wrenches'" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>> Message-ID: <E8CDA5F561974BD493D879C6C8DB8AE3 at frederickson.local>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>>
>>> Kris has a good idea. Installing 2x backer blocks on the I-joists will
>>> not
>>> only give you more depth for your lag screws, but it will strengthen
>>> the
>>> roof framing as well. Also, as Kris recommends, check with the
>>> manufacturer
>>> for nailing patterns, etc. I was dealing with some BCI joists this past
>>> summer and I was pleased that Boise Cascade has structural engineers on
>>> staff that are eager to help, and can email you approved drawings for
>>> reinforcing the joists.
>>>
>>> -Hans
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Kristopher
>>> Schmid
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:33 PM
>>> To: 'RE-wrenches'
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>>
>>>
>>> What about screwing in double 2x6s flush to the roof deck between the
>>> beams
>>> where your feet will attach and lag bolting into that? Definitely
>>> check
>>> with the beam manufacturer first, though.
>>>
>>> Kris
>>>
>>> Legacy Solar
>>> 864 Clam Falls Trail
>>> Frederic, WI 54837
>>> 715-653-4295
>>> solman at legacysolar.com
>>> www.legacysolar.com
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Scott
>>> McCalmont
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:00 AM
>>> To: RE-wrenches
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>>
>>>
>>> In general, you shouldn't drill or cut the flanges on engineered wood
>>> beams.
>>> I think that eliminates lag screws into the rafters. They probably
>>> wouldn't
>>> have the same pull-out strength as a lag screw into a conventional
>>> rafter,
>>> either.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Chris Daum wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Wrenches:
>>>
>>> I have a composite (shingle) roof at hand, and the owner wants to
>>> upgrade
>>> it
>>> to a metal roof and install a 5kw+ array on it. The rafters are those
>>> (sort of) particle board I-beams covered with 1/2" plywood (and
>>> shingles).
>>> What's the best metal roofing you could suggest--and would you beef up
>>> the
>>> wood to lag into?
>>>
>>> Thanks for all your input.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Daum
>>> Oasis Montana Inc.
>>> 406-777-4309
>>> 406-777-0830 fax
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>
>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> Options & settings:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List-Archive:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>
>>> Check out participant bios:
>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20101020/9e73e457/attachment-0001.htm
>>> >
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 4
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:17:51 -0700
>>> From: "Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind" <kelly at whidbeysunwind.com>
>>> To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] VAWT recommendation
>>> Message-ID: <982A09BA-D184-4000-8EB3-EA570EF5B82C at whidbeysunwind.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>>>
>>> Hi Dan,
>>> Project done been touched - we're committed to putting up something
>>> with an upright axis in the wind....
>>>
>>> Do you have any info about Urban Green Energy? Fellow we've been
>>> talking with in NY is Ryan Gilchrist.
>>>
>>> I've always thought it would be interesting if a client absolutely
>>> insisted on VAWT's, no matter what I said, and we wouldn't be held
>>> accountable for not dissuading them. The GC on this project has
>>> offered to buy the turbines and carry the manufacturer's warranty with
>>> the Navy, with us just responsible for the installation. I don't know
>>> if it can get better than that. Monitoring and everything.
>>>
>>> I just need to decide whether to give up the material sale. If we
>>> managed to find a VAWT that could endure, and have a reasonable output
>>> (it helps to get an additional 12?/kWh for production over net
>>> metering in WA), we have several customers who would be interested,
>>> even when fully informed about the low ROI compared to PV. These folks
>>> just want to see SOME benefit to our long, windy winters and don't
>>> have the moxy or money to put a VAWT up high. The turbine - and
>>> company - just gotta last awhile.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Kelly
>>>
>>> Kelly Keilwitz, P.E.
>>> Whidbey Sun & Wind
>>> Renewable Energy Systems
>>> NABCEP Certified PV Installer
>>> kelly at whidbeysunwind.com
>>> 360.678.7131
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Dan Fink wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kelly;
>>>>
>>>> I would insist on a years worth of actual wind speed versus energy
>>>> output data performed by an unaffiliated third party, before even
>>>> touching this project with a 10-foot gin pole.
>>>>
>>>> DAN FINK
>>>> Buckville Energy Consulting LLC
>>>>
>>>> Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind wrote:
>>>>> Wind wrenches,
>>>>> We have a subcontract to install 30kW of VAWT, along with 30kW of
>>>>> PV for the Navy. The Navy specified Helix Wind turbines, and is
>>>>> adamant on sticking with VAWTs, although they may accept an
>>>>> alternative. The GC we are working under is sufficiently scared of
>>>>> Helix to look for a viable alternative. Are there any?!
>>>>> The GC has done some research and wants to use the UGE-4K from
>>>>> Urban Green Energy http://www.urbangreenenergy.com
>>>>> It's an H-style lift machine that appears to have several European
>>>>> certifications on safety, power performance, noise, and vibration.
>>>>> Anyone know anything about these turbines or company? UGE's address
>>>>> is NY. Roy?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -Kelly
>>>>> Kelly Keilwitz, P.E.
>>>>> Whidbey Sun & Wind
>>>>> Renewable Energy Systems
>>>>> kelly at whidbeysunwind.com
>>>>> 360-678-7131
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>>
>>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> Options & settings:
>>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> List-Archive:
>>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>>
>>>> Check out participant bios:
>>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 5
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:25:00 -0600
>>> From: Dan Fink <danbob at hughes.net>
>>> To: "Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind" <kelly at whidbeysunwind.com>
>>> Cc: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] VAWT recommendation
>>> Message-ID: <4CBF7A4C.3000704 at hughes.net>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>
>>> Kelly;
>>>
>>> I don't currently know of any product with which the words "VAWT" and
>>> "last a while" can be used in the same sentence -- in terms of company
>>> longevity, number of units flying in the field, *or* turbine
>>> reliability
>>> record.
>>>
>>> DAN FINK
>>> Buckville Energy Consulting LLC
>>>
>>> Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind wrote:
>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>> Project done been touched - we're committed to putting up something
>>>> with
>>>> an upright axis in the wind....
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any info about Urban Green Energy? Fellow we've been
>>>> talking
>>>> with in NY is Ryan Gilchrist.
>>>>
>>>> I've always thought it would be interesting if a client absolutely
>>>> insisted on VAWT's, no matter what I said, and we wouldn't be held
>>>> accountable for not dissuading them. The GC on this project has
>>>> offered
>>>> to buy the turbines and carry the manufacturer's warranty with the
>>>> Navy,
>>>> with us just responsible for the installation. I don't know if it can
>>>> get better than that. Monitoring and everything.
>>>>
>>>> I just need to decide whether to give up the material sale. If we
>>>> managed to find a VAWT that could endure, and have a reasonable output
>>>> (it helps to get an additional 12?/kWh for production over net
>>>> metering
>>>> in WA), we have several customers who would be interested, even when
>>>> fully informed about the low ROI compared to PV. These folks just want
>>>> to see SOME benefit to our long, windy winters and don't have the moxy
>>>> or money to put a VAWT up high. The turbine - and company - just gotta
>>>> last awhile.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Kelly
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 6
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:43:20 -0500
>>> From: "North Texas Renewable Energy Inc" <ntrei at 1scom.net>
>>> To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Mounting Enphase when using S-5-PV Clamps
>>> Message-ID: <GPEJJFPLCDGEDNGDFOOFKEGFCJAA.ntrei at 1scom.net>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>>>
>>> Benn
>>> just bear in mind that any adjustment of the module height, must be
>>> performed by turning a jam nut under the S5-PV clamps mounting surface
>>> and
>>> will need to be done from below using an open-end wrench! If the ribs
>>> are
>>> pretty level that may not be such a chore. But I've seen some pretty
>>> unlevel
>>> metal ribs on older roofs.
>>> Carry along a 10-12 foot rail section for a straightedge to get the
>>> heights
>>> on the money before you start to clamp modules.
>>>
>>> Jim Duncan
>>> North Texas Renewable Energy
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org]On Behalf Of benn
>>> kilburn
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 5:18 PM
>>> To: Wrenches
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Mounting Enphase when using S-5-PV Clamps
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a lot of you guys in the field today 'eh? I was just checking a
>>> spec
>>> on my laptop and noticed i had a wireless signal and a mailbox full of
>>> great
>>> feedback, thanks again everyone!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll go over all the details from everyone a little more when i'm
>>> done
>>> on
>>> site for the day. For a few of you i just wanted to show you this link
>>> to
>>> the S-5-PV clamp, which is different from just the S-5! clamp > Click
>>> here
>>> to learn more. < The S-5-PV does not need rails, the mod frames sit on
>>> the
>>> 'mounting disc' which can accommodate one or two modules. BUT, with
>>> the
>>> Enphase system, this leave no where to mount the inverters. Bill made
>>> a
>>> good point; save this mounting method for string inverter systems.
>>> We are now planning this project using just the S-5 clamp/L-foot/ rail
>>> system. No problems.
>>>
>>>
>>> Back at 'er!
>>>
>>> benn
>>> DayStar Renewable Energy Inc.
>>> benn at daystarsolar.ca
>>> 780-906-7807
>>> HAVE A SUNNY DAY
>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20101020/975644fc/attachment-0001.htm
>>> >
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 7
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:49:58 -0700
>>> From: "Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind" <kelly at whidbeysunwind.com>
>>> To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] VAWT recommendation
>>> Message-ID: <08F54956-ED41-480E-9324-74BEF8378AC3 at whidbeysunwind.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>>>
>>> Yeah, me either...... (sigh)...
>>>
>>> Kelly Keilwitz, P.E.
>>> Whidbey Sun & Wind
>>> Renewable Energy Systems
>>> NABCEP Certified PV Installer
>>> kelly at whidbeysunwind.com
>>> 360.678.7131
>>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Dan Fink wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kelly;
>>>>
>>>> I don't currently know of any product with which the words "VAWT"
>>>> and "last a while" can be used in the same sentence -- in terms of
>>>> company longevity, number of units flying in the field, *or* turbine
>>>> reliability record.
>>>>
>>>> DAN FINK
>>>> Buckville Energy Consulting LLC
>>>>
>>>> Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind wrote:
>>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>> Project done been touched - we're committed to putting up something
>>>>> with an upright axis in the wind....
>>>>> Do you have any info about Urban Green Energy? Fellow we've been
>>>>> talking with in NY is Ryan Gilchrist.
>>>>> I've always thought it would be interesting if a client absolutely
>>>>> insisted on VAWT's, no matter what I said, and we wouldn't be held
>>>>> accountable for not dissuading them. The GC on this project has
>>>>> offered to buy the turbines and carry the manufacturer's warranty
>>>>> with the Navy, with us just responsible for the installation. I
>>>>> don't know if it can get better than that. Monitoring and everything.
>>>>> I just need to decide whether to give up the material sale. If we
>>>>> managed to find a VAWT that could endure, and have a reasonable
>>>>> output (it helps to get an additional 12?/kWh for production over
>>>>> net metering in WA), we have several customers who would be
>>>>> interested, even when fully informed about the low ROI compared to
>>>>> PV. These folks just want to see SOME benefit to our long, windy
>>>>> winters and don't have the moxy or money to put a VAWT up high. The
>>>>> turbine - and company - just gotta last awhile.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -Kelly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 8
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: Exeltech <exeltech at yahoo.com>
>>> To: gilligan06 at gmail.com, RE-wrenches
>>> <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Inverter 1741 Listing Process
>>> Message-ID: <212162.45991.qm at web113418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> Matt et. al.,
>>>
>>> IEEE 1547, 7.1.1 states "The commissioning test shall be performed to
>>> verify that the completed and installed ICS meets the requirements of
>>> IEEE
>>> Std 1547."
>>>
>>> Verification on the grid-tie equipment has been done for you by the
>>> NRTL
>>> as part of the UL1741 test procedure, which, as Matt pointed out, has
>>> IEEE
>>> 1547 as a subset.
>>>
>>>
>>> I refer you back to page iii at the front of IEEE 1547.1, which states:
>>> "IEEE Std 1547.1 provides conformance test procedures to establish and
>>> verify compliance with the requirements of IEEE Std 1547.? When
>>> applied,
>>> the IEEE 1547.1 test procedures can provide a means for manufacturers,
>>> utilities, or independent testing agencies to confirm the suitability
>>> of
>>> any given interconnection system (ICS) or component intended for the
>>> use
>>> in the interconnection of DR ("distributed resources") with the EPS
>>> ("electric power system").? Such certification can lead to the ready
>>> acceptance of confirmed equipment as suitable for use in the intended
>>> service by the parties concerned."
>>>
>>> [Note: Quoted items in parentheses are mine for clarification
>>> purposes.]
>>>
>>> Also...
>>> In IEEE 1547.1 Section 6.4, "Documentation" refers to the
>>> documentation we as manufacturers are required to provide with each
>>> unit
>>> to the NRTL for audit purposes.? The NRTL shows up unannounced, and may
>>> review our test records at any time.? The documentation mentioned in
>>> IEEE 1547 is part of our audit trail.? "Production test documentation"
>>> is not included with units that leave the factory.
>>>
>>> So .. in plain English .. none of the "Commissioning Tests" are
>>> required
>>> on site of any UL1741-certified inverter.? This is not to say an AHJ or
>>> utility won't ever ask for them, but if it happened, that would be an
>>> AHJ/utility-specific issue.
>>>
>>> My $0.02+ from the manufacturer's side of the fence...
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 10/20/10, Matt Lafferty <gilligan06 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Matt Lafferty <gilligan06 at gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Inverter 1741 Listing Process
>>> To: "'RE-wrenches'" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Date: Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 2:20 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Guys,
>>> ?
>>> Here's an update for anyone who cares.
>>> ?
>>> The specifics I was looking for?are included in IEEE
>>> 1547.1, which is inherently included in UL 1741. In other words, since
>>> 2007, if
>>> you have an inverter listed to UL 1741, it must also meet (by
>>> certification) the
>>> requirements of IEEE 1547 and 1547.1. In fact, the sections of UL 1741
>>> that
>>> formerly applied to the Utility Compatibility functions have been
>>> removed.
>>> Voido. They are now replaced by IEEE 1547 & IEEE 1547.1.
>>>
>>> ?
>>> IEEE 1547.1 is clear and precise about the production test
>>> requirements I was looking for. UL 1741 is weak on the issue. In
>>> general,
>>> utility companies rely on IEEE documents and requirements for their
>>> guidance. I
>>> see why some of them require field verification of the non-islanding
>>> function by
>>> flipping the AC switch off with the inverter running... Well, not
>>> exactly.
>>> Technically, the non-islanding function is something else. The
>>> "Cease-to-energize" function is what they are actually verifying in the
>>> field.
>>> Here's a short rundown on the issue....
>>> ?
>>> IEEE 1547.1 (Clause 6; Production Tests) requires production
>>> tests for response to abnormal voltage, response to abnormal frequency,
>>> and
>>> synchronization. Combined, these would constitute production testing
>>> that
>>> confirms the non-islanding functions that are Type tested on a sample
>>> unit.
>>> And there's more. This section also requires that the documentation
>>> of these production tests be provided with the equipment.
>>> ?
>>> IEEE 1547.1 (Clause 7; Commissioning) requires some
>>> verification and testing steps. These are allowed to be performed by a
>>> qualified
>>> person and the utility may require that they witness the process (at
>>> their option). Inherent to this section is a requirement that
>>> there be a commissioning report generated which contains data related
>>> to
>>> the
>>> process. "A commissioning test report shall be produced and shall
>>> contain
>>> the results of all tests and a listing of the final ICS
>>> settings."
>>> ?
>>> The required steps involved in Commissioning
>>> include:?Verification and Inspection, Identifying any required Type and
>>> Production tests that were not performed and performing them in the
>>> field;
>>> Unintentional Islanding functionality test; Cease-to-energize
>>> functionality
>>> test; Documentation of revised settings.
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Understand that all of these steps are REQUIRED AS PART OF THE
>>> COMMISSIONING PROCESS, per IEEE 1547.1.
>>> ?
>>> My focus is primarily on the Commissioning procedure... I'll skip the
>>> inspection and verification?steps for this
>>> post.
>>> ?
>>> Note that Clause
>>> 7.3 of?the Commissioning section requires field performance of any Type
>>> or
>>> Production tests that have not been performed. When the manufacturer
>>> fails
>>> to
>>> include the Documentation of Production Tests with their product, the
>>> commissioning technician has no choice but to do them in the
>>> field.
>>> ?
>>> (NOTE TO INVERTER MFRS: INCLUDE CLEAR DOCUMENTATION OF YOUR
>>> PRODUCTION TESTS WITH EACH INVERTER, PER IEEE 1547.1 Clause 6.4; NOTE
>>> TO
>>> INSTALLERS: HAVE THIS DOCUMENTATION HANDY AND LEAVE IT WITH THE
>>> INVERTER.)
>>> ?
>>> Clause 7.4 is the Unintentional Islanding functionality test.
>>> If the unit is connected to the grid via reverse-power
>>> or?minimum-power?protection equipment (commonly referred to as
>>> non-export or zero-export; relatively rare) instructions are given for
>>> testing.
>>> This test is?waived if the inverter is certified to Clause 5.7, the
>>> Type test for Unintentional Islanding. (Check) If the unit is not
>>> certified to
>>> 5.7 and not connected via zero-export protection equipment, this
>>> function
>>> is to
>>> be tested according to procedures provided by the integrator or the
>>> manufacturer. UL 1741 Listed inverters should be certified to
>>> Clause?5.7,
>>> which makes them eligible for the waiver.
>>> ?
>>> Clause 7.5 is the
>>> Cease-to-energize functionality test. This tests that the inverter does
>>> not
>>> energize the output (AC) terminals on loss of grid AC. It also checks
>>> that
>>> the
>>> restart/reconnect time delay (5-minute wait) functions as required. The
>>> test is
>>> simple. Run the inverter at any power level and open the ungrounded AC
>>> phase
>>> conductors. Verify that the output terminals of the inverter are not
>>> energized.
>>> Apply AC power. Verify that the unit waits the required amount of time
>>> to
>>> reconnect.
>>> ?
>>> There are two important sentences in this Clause to know
>>> about. The first is that "An ICS that meets the requirement so 5.9
>>> (open-phase type test) and 7.4.1 (zero-export) satisfies the
>>> requirements
>>> of
>>> this subclause." This means that a UL 1741 Listed inverter
>>> interconnected
>>> via zero-export equipment is exempt from this test.
>>> ?
>>> The second sentence to know about is this one: "The
>>> following procedure may be adjusted dependent on an agreement between
>>> the
>>> area
>>> EPS authority (electric utility) and the system installer." This means
>>> that, every time the utility does not require you to test this
>>> function,
>>> they
>>> are agreeing to "adjust" this procedure, even if they don't tell you
>>> they
>>> are.
>>> You are getting a free pass.
>>> ?
>>> Let me repeat that another way... IEEE 1547.1 REQUIRES that
>>> this test be done unless the above-mentioned exemptions are met. As an
>>> installer, you must be prepared for and expect to do this test.
>>>
>>> ?
>>> Nowhere in the Commissioning section of IEEE 1547.1 does it
>>> exempt performing the Commissioning steps or producing?the
>>> Commissioning
>>> test report.
>>> ?
>>> I am of the strong opinion that having the manufacturer's
>>> Production Test Documentation on-hand will go a long way toward gaining
>>> the?utility's acceptance of the system without performing
>>> the?Cease-to-energize functionality test. I believe that most of our
>>> modern
>>> inverters will meet one of the exceptions to the Unintentional
>>> Islanding
>>> functionality test. I believe that it is best practice to perform
>>> comprehensive
>>> commissioning on all systems, and record the relevant data. I have
>>> always
>>> found
>>> that doing this and having your documentation together gains respect
>>> from
>>> AHJs
>>> and utility inspectors. I believe that by doing this, we demonstrate
>>> professionalism and responsibility. Working with utilities in a manner
>>> that
>>> demonstrates professional, knowledgeable, and responsible behavior can
>>> only
>>> benefit our respective organizations.
>>> ?
>>> Happy commissioning!
>>> ?
>>> Matt
>>> Lafferty
>>>
>>>
>>> From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Exeltech
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:20 PM
>>> To:
>>> RE-wrenches
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Inverter 1741 Listing
>>> Process
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> boB covered the main points perfectly.
>>>
>>> Manufacturers
>>> of UL-certified products are subject to unannounced spot-checks
>>> several
>>> times a year by the issuing NTRL to verify the products coming off
>>> the
>>> production line are absolutely identical to the products submitted
>>> for UL
>>> testing.? Any major deviation in the production units from
>>> lab-tested
>>> units can result in immediate de-certification and possible recall
>>> of any
>>> affected product(s).? "Major" in this case could be different
>>> software, mechanical changes, or a substitution of any components
>>> that
>>> affect safety or unit operation in any manner with unauthorized
>>> components
>>> .. for openers.
>>>
>>> By the way .. for anyone who's not met boB in
>>> person .. I had the good fortune to do so at the Midwest Renewable
>>> Energy
>>> Fair in Wisconsin this past June.? Great
>>> guy.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/19/10, boB Gudgel
>>> <boB at midnitesolar.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> boB Gudgel <boB at midnitesolar.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches]
>>> Inverter 1741 Listing Process
>>> To: gilligan06 at gmail.com, "RE-wrenches"
>>> <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 19,
>>> 2010, 12:42 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/18/2010 9:53 PM, Matt Lafferty wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the info Dan and boB.
>>> ?
>>> What production tests required to maintain listing? Do you
>>> happen to know if there is a different regimen for micro vs
>>> string vs
>>> central inverters?
>>>
>>> You mean, a
>>> difference between the two when UL, ETL, CSA comes by for their
>>> pop
>>> inspection ??
>>>
>>> Off hand, I don't? see why one inverter would
>>> be given any different kind of attention than the other
>>> type.?
>>> The UL/ETL followup inspections are basically to make sure you
>>> are
>>> following the proper
>>> manufacturing and testing processes such as,
>>> software version, verification that you are using
>>> UL recognized?
>>> sources of parts and materials, hi-potting at the correct
>>> voltages,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> They are both grid-tie inverters so the testing
>>> processes are very similar.
>>>
>>> ?I'm sure that Dan will pick up
>>> on anything? important that I forgot.
>>>
>>> boB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ?
>>> I'm working on developing?a detailed commissioning
>>> procedure. Detailed yet generic. There will be at least two
>>> versions
>>> for inverters. One for string and one for central. In my book,
>>> central
>>> inverters have re-combiners (standalone or integral) and
>>> string
>>> inverters don't. I'm trying to understand which functions are
>>> tested in the
>>> factory on every unit so I can avoid unnecessary duplication
>>> by
>>> the
>>> commissioning people.
>>> ?
>>> Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on the
>>> subject!
>>> ?
>>> Matt
>>> Lafferty
>>>
>>>
>>> From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Exeltech
>>> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010
>>> 10:04 AM
>>> To: RE-wrenches
>>> Subject: Re:
>>> [RE-wrenches] Inverter 1741 Listing Process
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> The 5-minute delay is verified in
>>> the group of inverters sent to the test laboratory.?
>>> Then,
>>> as long as the software and hardware don't change, it's
>>> presumed
>>> the delay in all production units meets the value(s)
>>> measured in
>>> the tested units.
>>>
>>> An alteration in either hardware OR
>>> software can result in a unit being required to
>>> completely
>>> re-test (as Bob pointed out).? NRTLs get copies of the
>>> source code and can and do periodically compare their
>>> copy
>>> as
>>> submitted with the original test units to the software
>>> being
>>> programmed into the inverters during production to
>>> verify
>>> it's
>>> the same.
>>>
>>> NRTLs conduct unannounced "field audits" by
>>> simply showing up on site and randomly selecting various
>>> aspects
>>> of the product for verification -- including the
>>> software.
>>>
>>> The overall UL1741 certification process is
>>> extremely complex, very time consuming, and quite
>>> expensive.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Fri, 10/8/10,
>>> boB Gudgel <boB at midnitesolar.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> boB Gudgel <boB at midnitesolar.com>
>>> Subject:
>>> Re: [RE-wrenches] Inverter 1741 Listing Process
>>> To: gilligan06 at gmail.com,
>>> "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Date:
>>> Friday, October 8, 2010, 9:26 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/8/2010 6:04 PM, Matt
>>> Lafferty wrote:
>>>
>>> Hola Wrenches,
>>> ?
>>> Does anybody know off the top of their
>>> head if the "5-minute-wait-to-interconnect"
>>> function is tested on 100% of inverters produced?
>>> (i.e.
>>> every?single inverter is tested with AC & DC within
>>> the start parameters of the unit for at least 5
>>> minutes)
>>> ?
>>> Thanks!
>>> ?
>>> Matt
>>> Lafferty
>>> Good
>>> question.? I bet it's not 100% tested because if the
>>> software does not
>>> change, then they may just not wait the
>>> extra 5 minutes in order to save money on testing.
>>>
>>> Or,
>>> maybe they do a random sampling for this
>>> test.
>>>
>>> Theoretically, it shouldn't matter as long as the
>>> software does not change
>>> and the hardware is tested enough
>>> in other ways, like, timers and clocks etc.
>>>
>>> BTW,
>>> Nowadays, there are two options for manufacturers of
>>> grid
>>> interactive inverters....
>>>
>>> And the UL spec has gotten
>>> more stringent.
>>>
>>> One option? is that you have to
>>> have? the? code (software) blessed by the NRTL in a
>>> separate process (another UL specification, (UL 1998
>>> ?Software
>>> in Programmable Components")
>>>
>>> OR, if they don't go for
>>> that option, then if software changes need to be done
>>> to
>>> the
>>> inverter, the inverter must (technically) go through
>>> the
>>> UL1741 listing process all over
>>> again.
>>>
>>> boB
>>> ?
>>>
>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>
>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> Options & settings:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List-Archive:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>
>>> Check out participant bios:
>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20101020/906d8a05/attachment-0001.htm
>>> >
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 9
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:10:00 -0500
>>> From: "North Texas Renewable Energy Inc" <ntrei at 1scom.net>
>>> To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>> Message-ID: <GPEJJFPLCDGEDNGDFOOFOEGGCJAA.ntrei at 1scom.net>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>>
>>> MessageAfter re-reading your original letter Chris, it sounds like the
>>> roof
>>> makeover hasn't happened yet. If that's the case suggest to the owner
>>> that,
>>> based on the 100 years or so of combined professional experience of the
>>> PV
>>> installer community, he should not use the engineered rafters or the
>>> 1/2"
>>> decking if he's wanting PV on top.
>>> Pull out a copy of the International Building Code and show him.
>>>
>>> not a roofer,
>>>
>>> Jim Duncan
>>>
>>> Dear Wrenches
>>> have a composite (shingle) roof at hand, and the owner wants to upgrade
>>> it
>>> to a metal roof and install a 5kw+ array on it. The rafters are those
>>> (sort of) particle board I-beams covered with 1/2" plywood (and
>>> shingles).
>>> What's the best metal roofing you could suggest--and would you beef up
>>> the
>>> wood to lag into?
>>> Thanks for all your input.
>>> Chris Daum
>>> Oasis Montana Inc.
>>> 406-777-4309
>>> 406-777-0830 fax
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>
>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> Options & settings:
>>>
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List-Archive:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>
>>> Check out participant bios:
>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20101020/385f2e44/attachment-0001.htm
>>> >
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 10
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:50:32 -0600
>>> From: "Chris Daum" <chris at OasisMontana.com>
>>> To: "'RE-wrenches'" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>> Message-ID: <1287622268_1250242 at gwa5>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>>
>>> You are correct -- and there is a strong possibility of adding another
>>> layer
>>> (1/2" or 3/4") of roofing material under the new metal roof. High wind
>>> area
>>> is a consideration, and I don't think those fake I-beams are meaty
>>> enough
>>> to
>>> lag into. Hence I request your input!
>>>
>>> --Chris @ the Oasis Montana
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of North
>>> Texas
>>> Renewable Energy Inc
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:10 PM
>>> To: RE-wrenches
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>>
>>>
>>> After re-reading your original letter Chris, it sounds like the roof
>>> makeover hasn't happened yet. If that's the case suggest to the owner
>>> that,
>>> based on the 100 years or so of combined professional experience of the
>>> PV
>>> installer community, he should not use the engineered rafters or the
>>> 1/2"
>>> decking if he's wanting PV on top.
>>> Pull out a copy of the International Building Code and show him.
>>>
>>> not a roofer,
>>>
>>> Jim Duncan
>>>
>>> Dear Wrenches
>>> have a composite (shingle) roof at hand, and the owner wants to upgrade
>>> it
>>> to a metal roof and install a 5kw+ array on it. The rafters are those
>>> (sort of) particle board I-beams covered with 1/2" plywood (and
>>> shingles).
>>> What's the best metal roofing you could suggest--and would you beef up
>>> the
>>> wood to lag into?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for all your input.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Daum
>>> Oasis Montana Inc.
>>> 406-777-4309
>>> 406-777-0830 fax
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>
>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> Options & settings:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List-Archive:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>
>>> Check out participant bios:
>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20101020/323f05b3/attachment-0001.htm
>>> >
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 11
>>> Date: 20 Oct 2010 20:58:59 -0400
>>> From: Richard.L.Ratico at VALLEY.NET (Richard L Ratico)
>>> To: re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>> Message-ID: <136086857 at retriever.VALLEY.NET>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>>
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>> You've probably already considered and rejected this... Unisolar PVL
>>> modules on
>>> standing seam roofing. Solves the structure & wind problems. Goes fast
>>> if
>>> installed on the pans before they go on the roof. Price is pretty good
>>> per
>>> watt
>>> now.
>>> Can't beat the look. Made in USA. I think the only downside is you may
>>> not
>>> have
>>> enough area to place 5kW.
>>>
>>> I bet it's getting cold in Montana. You could stick the modules on the
>>> pans in a
>>> heated space somewhere. This would really cut down your time and
>>> exposure
>>> on the
>>> roof.
>>>
>>> Dick Ratico
>>> Solarwind Electric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- You wrote:
>>> Dear Wrenches
>>> have a composite (shingle) roof at hand, and the owner wants to upgrade
>>> it
>>> to a metal roof and install a 5kw+ array on it. The rafters are those
>>> (sort of) particle board I-beams covered with 1/2" plywood (and
>>> shingles).
>>> What's the best metal roofing you could suggest--and would you beef up
>>> the
>>> wood to lag into?
>>> Thanks for all your input.
>>> Chris Daum
>>> Oasis Montana Inc.
>>> 406-777-4309
>>> 406-777-0830 fax
>>> --- end of quote ---
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 12
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:29:33 -0600
>>> From: "Chris Daum" <chris at OasisMontana.com>
>>> To: "'RE-wrenches'" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>> Message-ID: <1287624608_1251820 at gwa5>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>>
>>> Hi Dick:
>>>
>>> Nope, not just high wind area, but the site gets a real bashing of hail
>>> at
>>> least once every 3 to 4 years (like quarter sized hail at 60 - 80
>>> mph) --
>>> so
>>> I will pass on the plasticky amorphous stuff, thank you, although yes,
>>> they
>>> do look nice (til they get those whitish translucent spots from hail).
>>> There's room for about a 5.5KW array of some decent modules (read:
>>> Sanyos
>>> or
>>> some other high efficient modules). I just think we need another layer
>>> of
>>> roofing material; we'll need 16 sheets of some kinda plywood. I am
>>> leaning
>>> more and more in that direction.....
>>>
>>> But I really do appreciate all your thoughts! And by the way, right
>>> NOW,
>>> sunny day time temps are near 70..... Nights are a chilly 35.....
>>>
>>> Chris Daum
>>> Oasis Montana Inc.
>>> 406-777-4309
>>> 406-777-0830 fax
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Richard
>>> L
>>> Ratico
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:59 PM
>>> To: re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>>
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>> You've probably already considered and rejected this... Unisolar PVL
>>> modules
>>> on standing seam roofing. Solves the structure & wind problems. Goes
>>> fast
>>> if
>>> installed on the pans before they go on the roof. Price is pretty good
>>> per
>>> watt now.
>>> Can't beat the look. Made in USA. I think the only downside is you may
>>> not
>>> have enough area to place 5kW.
>>>
>>> I bet it's getting cold in Montana. You could stick the modules on the
>>> pans
>>> in a heated space somewhere. This would really cut down your time and
>>> exposure on the roof.
>>>
>>> Dick Ratico
>>> Solarwind Electric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- You wrote:
>>> Dear Wrenches
>>> have a composite (shingle) roof at hand, and the owner wants to upgrade
>>> it
>>> to a metal roof and install a 5kw+ array on it. The rafters are those
>>> (sort of) particle board I-beams covered with 1/2" plywood (and
>>> shingles).
>>> What's the best metal roofing you could suggest--and would you beef up
>>> the
>>> wood to lag into?
>>> Thanks for all your input.
>>> Chris Daum
>>> Oasis Montana Inc.
>>> 406-777-4309
>>> 406-777-0830 fax
>>> --- end of quote ---
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>
>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> Options & settings:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List-Archive:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>
>>> Check out participant bios:
>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 13
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: Darryl Thayer <daryl_solar at yahoo.com>
>>> To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] VAWT recommendation
>>> Message-ID: <284147.86340.qm at web51901.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>>
>>> I have been known to be an idiot, but put it up for the labor IF you
>>> can
>>> be sure you are done. I have tested some, and not only did they not
>>> last,
>>> they did not produce.
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 10/20/10, Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind
>>> <kelly at whidbeysunwind.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind <kelly at whidbeysunwind.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] VAWT recommendation
>>>> To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 6:49 PM
>>>> Yeah, me either...... (sigh)...
>>>>
>>>> Kelly Keilwitz, P.E.
>>>> Whidbey Sun & Wind
>>>> Renewable Energy Systems
>>>> NABCEP Certified PV Installer
>>>> kelly at whidbeysunwind.com
>>>> 360.678.7131
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Dan Fink wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kelly;
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't currently know of any product with which the
>>>> words "VAWT" and "last a while" can be used in the same
>>>> sentence -- in terms of company longevity, number of units
>>>> flying in the field, *or* turbine reliability record.
>>>>>
>>>>> DAN FINK
>>>>> Buckville Energy Consulting LLC
>>>>>
>>>>> Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>>> Project done been touched - we're committed to
>>>> putting up something with an upright axis in the wind....
>>>>>> Do you have any info about Urban Green Energy?
>>>> Fellow we've been talking with in NY is Ryan Gilchrist.
>>>>>> I've always thought it would be interesting if a
>>>> client absolutely insisted on VAWT's, no matter what I said,
>>>> and we wouldn't be held accountable for not dissuading them.
>>>> The GC on this project has offered to buy the turbines and
>>>> carry the manufacturer's warranty with the Navy, with us
>>>> just responsible for the installation. I don't know if it
>>>> can get better than that. Monitoring and everything.
>>>>>> I just need to decide whether to give up the
>>>> material sale. If we managed to find a VAWT that could
>>>> endure, and have a reasonable output (it helps to get an
>>>> additional 12?/kWh for production over net metering in WA),
>>>> we have several customers who would be interested, even when
>>>> fully informed about the low ROI compared to PV. These folks
>>>> just want to see SOME benefit to our long, windy winters and
>>>> don't have the moxy or money to put a VAWT up high. The
>>>> turbine - and company - just gotta last awhile.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> -Kelly
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>>
>>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> Options & settings:
>>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> List-Archive:
>>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>>
>>>> Check out participant bios:
>>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 14
>>> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 01:55:30 -0600
>>> From: benn kilburn <benn at daystarsolar.ca>
>>> To: Wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>> Message-ID: <COL121-W64A4D6D7499097655528E0AD5D0 at phx.gbl>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>>
>>> chris,don't forget to make sure that the existing roof structure is
>>> engineered to support the added weight of the extra layer of plywood,
>>> as
>>> well as the racking/modules.
>>> benn
>>> DayStar Renewable Energy Inc. benn at daystarsolar.ca780-906-7807 HAVE A
>>> SUNNY DAY
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: chris at OasisMontana.com
>>>> To: re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:29:33 -0600
>>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>>>
>>>> Hi Dick:
>>>>
>>>> Nope, not just high wind area, but the site gets a real bashing of
>>>> hail
>>>> at
>>>> least once every 3 to 4 years (like quarter sized hail at 60 - 80 mph)
>>>> -- so
>>>> I will pass on the plasticky amorphous stuff, thank you, although yes,
>>>> they
>>>> do look nice (til they get those whitish translucent spots from hail).
>>>> There's room for about a 5.5KW array of some decent modules (read:
>>>> Sanyos or
>>>> some other high efficient modules). I just think we need another
>>>> layer
>>>> of
>>>> roofing material; we'll need 16 sheets of some kinda plywood. I am
>>>> leaning
>>>> more and more in that direction.....
>>>>
>>>> But I really do appreciate all your thoughts! And by the way, right
>>>> NOW,
>>>> sunny day time temps are near 70..... Nights are a chilly 35.....
>>>>
>>>> Chris Daum
>>>> Oasis Montana Inc.
>>>> 406-777-4309
>>>> 406-777-0830 fax
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Richard
>>>> L
>>>> Ratico
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:59 PM
>>>> To: re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] The perfect solar ready roof
>>>>
>>>> Chris,
>>>>
>>>> You've probably already considered and rejected this... Unisolar PVL
>>>> modules
>>>> on standing seam roofing. Solves the structure & wind problems. Goes
>>>> fast if
>>>> installed on the pans before they go on the roof. Price is pretty good
>>>> per
>>>> watt now.
>>>> Can't beat the look. Made in USA. I think the only downside is you may
>>>> not
>>>> have enough area to place 5kW.
>>>>
>>>> I bet it's getting cold in Montana. You could stick the modules on the
>>>> pans
>>>> in a heated space somewhere. This would really cut down your time and
>>>> exposure on the roof.
>>>>
>>>> Dick Ratico
>>>> Solarwind Electric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- You wrote:
>>>> Dear Wrenches
>>>> have a composite (shingle) roof at hand, and the owner wants to
>>>> upgrade
>>>> it
>>>> to a metal roof and install a 5kw+ array on it. The rafters are
>>>> those
>>>> (sort of) particle board I-beams covered with 1/2" plywood (and
>>>> shingles).
>>>> What's the best metal roofing you could suggest--and would you beef up
>>>> the
>>>> wood to lag into?
>>>> Thanks for all your input.
>>>> Chris Daum
>>>> Oasis Montana Inc.
>>>> 406-777-4309
>>>> 406-777-0830 fax
>>>> --- end of quote ---
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>>
>>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> Options & settings:
>>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> List-Archive:
>>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>>
>>>> Check out participant bios:
>>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>>
>>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> Options & settings:
>>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> List-Archive:
>>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>>
>>>> Check out participant bios:
>>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20101021/8c4aeefd/attachment.htm
>>> >
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>>
>>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> Options & settings:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List-Archive:
>>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>> List rules & etiquette:
>>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>>
>>> Check out participant bios:
>>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> End of RE-wrenches Digest, Vol 3, Issue 585
>>> *******************************************
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>
>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>
>> Options & settings:
>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>
>> List-Archive:
>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>
>> List rules & etiquette:
>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>
>> Check out participant bios:
>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Options & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check out participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
More information about the RE-wrenches
mailing list