>>>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 <davecl...@fsec.ucf.edu
<mailto:davecl...@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
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List-Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org
