[RE-wrenches] How Is Rapid Shut-Down Not A Farse...

[Mark Frye]

...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

Re: [RE-wrenches] How Is Rapid Shut-Down Not A Farse...

[Dave Click]

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



___
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

Re: [RE-wrenches] How Is Rapid Shut-Down Not A Farse...

[Jerry Shafer]

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  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
>>
>>
>>  ___
> 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
>
>
___
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

List Addres

Re: [RE-wrenches] How Is Rapid Shut-Down Not A Farse...

[Ray Walters]

Solar is just one tiny little issue that fire fighters have to face.
There's no placard for 5 gal propane bottles stored in the basement.
I'm glad we're looking to make firefighters safer, but this has really 
gotten a bit out of control.
Whatever is planned for 2017, I hope there are some sensible exceptions 
for lower voltage, lower current, off grid, or systems that cover only a 
small percentage of the roof, short conduit runs, etc.
For many years, I have supported some sort of ability to de-energize PV 
closer to its source, but that was based on large, higher voltage 
systems with long virtually unprotected wire runs.
We have decades of proven safety with small off grid systems. Batteries 
are the hazard there.
Currently, the latest code is just driving more folks to do 
un-inspected, DIY installs, and that's not helping the firefighters or 
our industry one bit.
What if instead of all these electronics on every house, we get the 
firefighters a special foam that they spray over the modules to smother 
the fire and block the sun.

That would work regardless of the vintage or design of the system.

R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

On 2/5/2015 9:37 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 > 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 conform

Re: [RE-wrenches] How Is Rapid Shut-Down Not A Farse...

[b...@midnitesolar.com]

>>>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 > 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