[RE-wrenches] MLSD module level shutdown

Sun Feb 7 12:57:05 EST 2021

Dear Wiliam and all,

I am a strong proponent for MLSD.

Smiles,

Andrew Koyaanisqatsi
President
Solar Energy Solutions, Inc.
The BRIGHT CHOICE
Since 1987, helping you and your Portland neighbors
move towards an environmentally sustainable future.
503-238-4502
www.SolarEnergyOregon.com

On Feb 6, 2021, at 8:38 PM, William Miller <william at millersolar.com> wrote:

> Dear Friendly Neighborhood Solar Man:
>  
> I read this email below several times and looked carefully through all of the photographs.  I could not let this message go without comment.  See below:
>  
> The pictures make exactly the case you are arguing against.  Extinguishing this fire in the daytime without MLSD would be much more dangerous than with MLSD. 
>  
> Your logic that you don’t like squirrel guards also makes no sense because squirrel guards, if installed properly, would have prevented this event absolutely. 
>  
> Furthermore, I don’t accept the argument that roofs can be dangerous so let’s not bother doing anything to try and make them a bit less dangerous.
>  
> What also makes no sense is the adoption of MLSD requirements is some kind of conspiracy.  You offer that as a rumor without any evidence to the contrary.  Letting that go without comment serves to infer that some of us on this forum might agree with the assertion.  That is how conspiracy theories thrive.  I need facts, not conjecture.  I imagine others here might agree.
>  
> Seatbelts are a hassle.  Fall protection harnesses are a hassle.  Safety procedures in general are a hassle.  That is no reason to blow them off.  I try to adapt and get proficient at the procedures so they are a bit less of a hassle and then enjoy the reduction in workplace hazards that those procedures provide.
>  
> All in all, the entire logic you present makes no sense.  No disrespect intended.
>  
> Most Sincerely,
>  
> William Miller
>  
> Miller Solar
> 17395 Oak Road, Atascadero, CA 93422
> 805-438-5600
> www.millersolar.com
> CA Lic. 773985
>  
>  
> From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Solar Energy Solutions
> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:49 AM
> To: re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
> Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] MLSD module level shutdown
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> I apologize for letting this conversation get a little stale before being able to comment further.
>  
> Before I reply, I would like to say I don't believe MLSD has anything to do with firefighter safety.  If being on dangerous roofs was really a concern, steep roofs, slate roofs, metal roof, wet metal or shake roofs and snow on roofs would get the same kind of scrutiny as solar on roofs.  I can only guess and think that some HUGE solar hating utility company devised this whole firefighter safety thing.  It is also my understanding none of the string inverter folk turned up to the code development meetings where MLSD was determined and you can guess who was.    But much of this is only rumor and the dark thoughts of a solar bozo.
>  
> I HATE the hassle and maintenance issues of MLSD.  I loved string inverters and hated to see them go.  So far as I can tell the US is the only place on planet Earth to make String inverters all but illegal.  This said... a picture is worth a thousand words.  All of the attached photos of systems had the wire management done very well.  If you look at the metal roof photo you can see a small hole in it from the arc.  I have many more photos of different squirrel damaged systems.  Ground Fault protection has saved the inverters, but not the roofs.
>  
> I don't really like the idea of squirrel guards.  It seems like I may be creating another problem down the road that I can't really imagine.  Debris build up could be an issue.  Rainwater could back up from a damn and get under shingles and into the cavity of the house.  For me the easiest thing that could be done is for some kind of a bittering agent to be part of the wires so that one little lick would send a critter looking for a better food source.
>  
> Your Friendly Neighborhood Solar Man,
>  
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/3g5c57nqke9x7b2/Fire%201.JPG?dl=0
> Fire 2.JPG
>  
> <image001.jpg>
>  
> 
> <image002.png>
> 
> Fire 2.JPG
> Shared with Dropbox
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/3g5c57nqke9x7b2/Fire%201.JPG?dl=0
> Fire 3.JPG
>  
> <image003.jpg>
>  
> 
> <image002.png>
> 
> Fire 3.JPG
> Shared with Dropbox
> Fire 4.JPG
>  
> <image004.jpg>
>  
> 
> <image005.png>
> 
> Fire 4.JPG
> Shared with Dropbox
> Fire 5 Voltair the culprit.jpg
>  
> <image006.jpg>
>  
> 
> <image005.png>
> 
> Fire 5 Voltair the culprit.jpg
> Shared with Dropbox
> Metal Roof Squirrel damage.JPG
>  
> <image007.jpg>
>  
> 
> <image002.png>
> 
> Metal Roof Squirrel damage.JPG
> Shared with Dropbox
> Shadow of scorched squirrel on metal roof.JPG
>  
> <image008.jpg>
>  
> 
> <image005.png>
> 
> Shadow of scorched squirrel on metal roof.JPG
> Shared with Dropbox
>  
>  
> Andrew Koyaanisqatsi
> President
> Solar Energy Solutions, Inc.
> The BRIGHT CHOICE
> Since 1987, helping you and your Portland neighbors
> move towards an environmentally sustainable future.
> 503-238-4502
> www.SolarEnergyOregon.com
>  
>  
> On Friday, January 29, 2021, 8:15:28 PM PST, Ray <ray at solarray.com> wrote:
>  
>  
> I totally agree; where else does the NEC allow loose single conductor cables to run unprotected? outdoors?  All because the module manus and industry in general has made no effort, zero, to accommodate any type of electrical industry standard K/Os for conduit, or TEK 90 (great stuff BTW).   If we hadn't gone this wacky direction, starting about 15 years ago, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, because there would be much less reason for MLSD.
> 
> I could see whips of TEK 90 that plugged into polarized 2 pole quick connects mounted integrally to a J box on the back of each module.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray Walters
> Remote Solar
> 303 505-8760
> On 1/29/21 8:10 PM, Hilton Dier wrote:
> There’s a buried-in-plain-sight issue here that has bugged me for years. 
>  
> In the bad old days we had to hard wire into J-boxes on the backs of modules. A pain, but it meant that, if necessary, we could install conduit from the module to the combiner box. Now we have convenient pigtails.
>  
>  However, we are stuck with #10 PV wire hanging under the module from the box to the nearest attachment point. There are all sorts of trays and wire management systems, but there’s always that one loop of wire hanging in the open. 
>  
> I know that the module industry has near zero margins as a commodity market. Perhaps one manufacturer could differentiate themselves by making a module with either 1) armored pigtails, or 2) provision for some kind of conduit starting at the J box.
>  
> I’m thinking of all the various back covers installers have to improvise on ground mounts. I’m thinking of squirrels and ice dams. 
>  
> Why can’t there be a module with the equivalent of Teck 90 cable on it?
>  
> Maybe I’m just being naive. 
>  
> Hilton 
>  
> Hilton Dier III
> Renewable Energy Design
> Missisquoi River Hydro LLC
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
> 
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
> 
> Change listserver email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> There are two list archives for searching. When one doesn't work, try the other:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List rules & etiquette:
> http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
> 
> Check out or update participant bios:
> http://www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches_lists.re-wrenches.org/attachments/20210207/bcb14279/attachment.htm>