[RE-wrenches] VAWT recommendation

Conrad Geyser conradg at cape.com
Sat Oct 23 06:36:39 PDT 2010


Hear hear!  We need to rout the RE industry of the charlatans that will only
serve to bring the responsible people down.

VAWTs do not employ the Bernoulli Effect - the laminar flow phenomenon that
gives all foils/wings their power.  They are categorically inefficient.  

There are plenty of HAWT companies out there selling poor, untested
equipment with non disclosure policies too.  Please be very careful when
entering into any wind project!  Wind power is a whole different animal from
good old solar!  Make sure that you get a number of good references for
anything that you do and verify field results and longevity before buying!  

There is such a thing as a good wind project.  I've seen too many people
hurt by bad wind projects. 

Conrad
Cotuit Solar 

-----Original Message-----
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of
greg at remotepowerinc.com
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:13 AM
To: re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] VAWT recommendation

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.

> Send RE-wrenches mailing list submissions to
> 	re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/listinfo.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	re-wrenches-request at lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	re-wrenches-owner at lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RE-wrenches digest..."
>
>
> When responding to posts within the Digest, be sure to restore the
> Subject: line to the original, and please edit out any extraneous lines
> from the quoted message.
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: VAWT recommendation (Dan Fink)
>    2. Re: Mounting Enphase when using S-5-PV Clamps (benn kilburn)
>    3. Re: The perfect solar ready roof (Hans Frederickson)
>    4. Re: VAWT recommendation (Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind)
>    5. Re: VAWT recommendation (Dan Fink)
>    6. Re: Mounting Enphase when using S-5-PV Clamps
>       (North Texas Renewable Energy Inc)
>    7. Re: VAWT recommendation (Kelly Keilwitz, Whidbey Sun & Wind)
>    8. Re: Inverter 1741 Listing Process (Exeltech)
>    9. Re: The perfect solar ready roof
>       (North Texas Renewable Energy Inc)
>   10. Re: The perfect solar ready roof (Chris Daum)
>   11. Re: The perfect solar ready roof (Richard L Ratico)
>   12. Re: The perfect solar ready roof (Chris Daum)
>   13. Re: VAWT recommendation (Darryl Thayer)
>   14. Re: The perfect solar ready roof (benn kilburn)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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_sk
ype_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/attachme
nts/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/attachme
nts/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/attachme
nts/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/attachme
nts/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/attachme
nts/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/attachme
nts/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/attachme
nts/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






More information about the RE-wrenches mailing list