[RE-wrenches] How Is Rapid Shut-Down Not A Farse...
boB at midnitesolar.com
boB at midnitesolar.com
Thu Feb 5 22:29:58 PST 2015
>>>but the first time there is a system out there that does not work
some guy may just go and bypass it,
hell its a cheap fix. now who thinks they are protected and they are
not, bad deal.<<<
Sounds like a good reason for the system to have proper feedback to
let the firefighters know that the PV really was disconnected.
boB
On 2/5/2015 8:37 PM, Jerry Shafer wrote:
> Mark and the wrenches group
> You do have a point, in the many years of my PV life, we have had
> three building fires not at all related to the PV, on the first, all
> of the insulation on the wires inside the metal conduit was gone, the
> at the time required AC disconnect was turned off, and after all was
> over we were called in to remove our system for the re-construction at
> which time I found a glove print on the conduit in the attic, it was
> wet, smoky and had live wires inside shorted and all that was required
> was a solid ground which it had and worked perfect.
> The second fire was the result of someone else and started under the
> home, right next to our EMT conduit, here they were able to turn off
> DC disconnect at the array which was on the ground away from the home
> and the conduit was properly grounded. again this protected the
> firefighters which I support.
> The third fire was to far back recall to much but again it was not PV
> related.
> I hesitate to say this but all the wigets and waldos will not protect
> against bad installs and some non NEC following related repairs, sure
> shutting down the array on the roof may help, but the first time there
> is a system out there that does not work some guy may just go and
> bypass it, hell its a cheap fix. now who thinks they are protected and
> they are not, bad deal.
> We all need to remember these systems requires power and we are in the
> industry of reducing power demands not increasing them. home owners
> may in time disconnect it them selves for this same reason.
> We need more KIS-S
> Jerry
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Dave Click <daveclick at fsec.ucf.edu
> <mailto:daveclick at fsec.ucf.edu>> wrote:
>
> Mark-
>
> 690.56(C) provides the placard you're looking for and 690.56(B)
> tells the first responder where that 690.12 switch is, right?
>
> For 2017 there are a couple of proposals out there. One is trying
> to better educate that first responder (quickly!) as to what
> hazards exist. Another is clarifying some of the language for
> 690.12 such that we continue to have [better] array-level
> shutdown. Another is changing 690.12 to [basically] module-level
> shutdown, which has been signed onto by the IAFF, insurance
> companies, and... some module-level electronics vendors.
>
> We've installed many, many rooftop systems but we're only about
> 0.1% done with them. Regardless of how 690.12 changes, I think
> that in the next few years we'll all be revisiting every system
> we've ever worked on to make sure there's enough labeling to
> inform firefighters about the hazards. I'm curious how we're going
> to do that so that a 2027 firefighter can quickly distinguish
> between 2014's Rapid Shutdown, 2017's Even Rapider Shutdown,
> 2020's BlockOutTheSun Shutdown, 2014's Rapid Shutdown That
> Actually Still Works, 2011's System That Will Only Shock You If
> You Cut Through a Module, and 2005's Never-Code-Compliant system
> that incorrectly has a "Rapid Shutdown" label on it because the
> homeowner noticed that their neighbor had one. Somehow we need to
> make sure firefighters know exactly what they're up against.
>
> Non-farcically,
> DKC
>
>
>
> On 2015/2/5 20:08, Mark Frye wrote:
>
> ...without a mandatory "Stop" switch co-located with the
> service meter
> or main breaker?
>
> How many roof top systems have been installed to date? Many,
> many, many,
> many.
>
> OK ,now I am a first responder showing up at a home that is on
> fire. How
> do I know whether or not the DC has been installed such that
> it provided
> the protections afforded by 690.12? I don't. Because it is not
> require
> for systems conforming to 690.12 to look any different to me
> than those
> that do not.
>
> So does the "stop" switch become the new "fire fighters club"
> logo? If
> you have the switch the FD will save your home, if you don't
> they will
> let it burn down, even if you have a 690.12 compliant system
> that does
> not include an "initiator switch"?
>
> Mark Frye
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20150205/39a267c6/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the RE-wrenches
mailing list