Estevan considered for solar power

[chuckChuck]

I still have not heard from Sask Power either.

You cannot install a grid tied solar system in Saskatchewan or probably anywhere without an automatic switch to shut it off when the grid is off.

I am not sure how risky they are when they are not feeding the grid. But simply having production switched to going to a ground may solve the problem during fires.

If you ask insurance companies what the cost of insurance is for roof top panels that would give you some kind of idea of their risk assessment.

There will be no issue like this with ground mount systems.

If Germany gets up to 40 Gw from solar they must have figured the risk out as they use a lot of roof top.

Either gas or hydro are good to pair with wind and solar. Saskatchewan already has a lot of gas plants. Only 40% of our electricity comes from coal.

If 1600 Mw of wind is installed by 2030 coal will be only 25% more or less by 2030.

[oneoff]

Probably should have quit a LOSERr

[farmaholic]

Oneoff:

No, no, no, take no offense. If everyone looked at the issues with as much common sense as yourself I think things would be for the better.

It was my feeble attempt at humor, since I have nothing constructive to add to the debate or conversation.

There was a lot of discussion and research done by the main contributors. Each should take some pride in defending their opinions, I never followed it to a tee but it even seemed some views and opinions softened and changed a bit.

"..............." had to put some in!

Added comment... Geez now I don't know of any of those comments were directed at me!

[tweety]

Because PV electricity has that political element along with the electrons which makes it cause fires. Loom burners had the same arguments.

[URL="http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/public/en/bussmann/electrical/products/pv-fuses.html"]http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/public/en/bussmann/electrical/products/pv-fuses.html[/URL]

[tweety]

Can't be..... "package fuse links specifically designed for protecting and isolating photovoltaic strings"

Impossible.

[URL="http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/public/en/bussmann/electrical/products/pv-fuses/solar-pv-fuse-14x51mm.html"]http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/public/en/bussmann/electrical/products/pv-fuses/solar-pv-fuse-14x51mm.html[/URL]

[burnt]

Well, someone with your intellectual capacity should then have no problem convincing the local fire chief - and many other who share his opinion - that they have nothing to worry about when the next roof-top PV equipped shed burns down around here.

And also, tell them that they've wasted their time in developing protocol and infrastructure to deal with those types of fires.

Oh, and while you are talking to them, ask them if they've figured out why so many of those buildings have burned...

[tweety]

Of course they do. When they started putting natural gas in houses, did procedures change? When houses were being wired for electricity at first , did fire fighters need training and new techniques?

Or did they say its too risky to fight fires, we better not have those in houses, because that's what is being said here.

[burnt]

Of course they do. When they started putting natural gas in houses, did procedures change? When houses were being wired for electricity at first , did fire fighters need training and new techniques?

Or did they say its too risky to fight fires, we better not have those in houses, because that's what is being said here.

You're closer to right than you think!

The reality is that buildings with rooftop PV systems receive a lower level of fire suppression efforts due to the demonstrable, proven risks from high-volume noxious fumes produced as well as a less unpredictable collapse factor.

According to reports after the fire referenced earlier, the chief said that they are not going to send men into those kind of known risks.

Bottom line - no water, no entry, no proximity - but how does any of that relate to "too risky"?

So it appears that this alternative energy source also needs an alternative safety network - which the public pays for, with no public benefit.

But no big deal, I guess.

[tweety]

So when Dow Chemcial starts on fire, all the firemen run away because its too dangerous?

[tweety]

Proper permitting, inspections, the recording of which houses do and do not have solar, proper spacing and access around the installation are procedures being used. The solar in extremely rare incidences causes the fire, it hampers the fighting of it. As the technology matures - just like arc fault breakers for bedrooms for example, procedures get better, education happens, building techniques match needs of safety and even fire concerns.

There are solutions to issues, but you guys throw up your hands and say its impossible. That's ridiculous.

Solar will continue to get 10% cheaper per year and installation numbers will continue to increase no matter what you post for silly reasons.

[oneoff]

Rest assured farm_aholic that no comments were directed your way. Quite often there are replies whilst a person is collecting their thoughts and putting pen to paper. So just because any reply happens to follow another doesn't mean anyone is aware of intervening posts.

I just can't seem to allow the last word to anyone who persists in publishing drivel , innuendo and patently false statements about that which they obviously only know enough to be dangerous.. As has been mentioned and confirmed by others; roof solar panels have some serious concerns in regards to preventing access to "ventilating" attics during certain types of fires; concerns about toxic smoke; roof collapse that isn't consistent with what is normally anticipated; potential electrocution and danger to responders and so on.

For those promoting self installing to save money;for those who may not have an installation even close to meeting standards; for those who may ignore development permits, be negligent in reporting specific hazards to local fire department personelle ; and the multiple concerns that unexpectedly pop up in tense situations.....anyone is being totally irresponsible to pooh pooh any concern when they really don't have a clue about anything they may believe.

Imagine grounding a 10 Kw capacity electrical generating source of any sort and thinking that you have eliminated the problem. Assuming that the wiring for that ground connection is of large enough ampacity and assuming the connections are clean and assuming the ground rod does provide an adequate return to ground......what is the assurance that when some portion of that wiring ground does collapse.....breaking that ground wire or pulling any ground connection apart .....THEN YOU INSTANTLY DONT HAVE ANY EFFECTIVE GROUND AT ALL ... do you.

Now electrical inspectors are capable of being real sticklers for fully complying with CSA Standards and bring everything up to code. Its correct that the electrical code evolves as fatalities and accidents happen that weren't anticipated. And that's why visible disconnects (as far as I know) are the only acceptable means of disconnecting power sources. The problem with solar panels is that with sunlight they are built for outputting voltage and current within those sealed chambers.

Grounds are for unexpected faults that might occur through failure of power mains shorts and leakages. Disconnects are for adequately interrupting power to loads (and in case of solar panels for isolating their connection to the electrical grids). All according to my understanding and logic only

I'd think that using a ground which you might think renders solar output down to zero volts wouldn't be considered at all adequate to do the job in all scenarios (eg disconnected ground connection or some failure caused half way through the fire fighting exercise.

[oneoff]

If there are known problems then you don't start firing up installations before corrective action ensures those problems are addressed fully and satisfactorily remedied. Another gross instance of very faulty logic.