• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Solar Panels & fire

RJJ

RJJ

Co-Founder
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,940
Location
about 1' east of the white water
Not sure if all read the NFPA Journal, but an interesting article appears in this months addition. " Common Interests"

How will we handle Solar installs either residential or commercial when a fire starts and the sun is out. Read the article because it raises some interesting questions.
 
RJJ said:
Not sure if all read the NFPA Journal, but an interesting article appears in this months addition. " Common Interests"How will we handle Solar installs either residential or commercial when a fire starts and the sun is out. Read the article because it raises some interesting questions.
Click to expand...
Wait for nightfall???
 
Thought someone posted on this awhile back

Thought some calif's had regs on it, like can cover only a certain per centaur of the roof so the ff can work o. The roof

Will have do to a search
 
I remember some good testomony in Baltimore on this from an esteemed colleague from NJ that the IFC committee didn't buy. It is scary stuff operating around those PV's and CA and the East Coast had some very good data on dangers also.
 
It's the same hazard EMS people experience when there is a car accident involving a hybrid car.
 
It's the same hazard EMS people experience when there is a car accident involving a hybrid car.
Click to expand...
True, but the hybrid cars typically have an Emergency Response Guide for each vehicle prepared for Fire Service, Law enforcement, EMS, and Professional towing personnel telling you where and where not to cut..... Plus, it's harder to vent a building roof covered with PV panels!!!

This is from our SFM: http://www.osfm.fire.ca.gov/training/pdf/photovoltaics/pvstudentmanual.pdf
 
Beach:

Thanks for that State Fire Marshal's link, I've posted it on the JLC for contractors installing solar panels, or contemplating installing them. I think getting excellent information like that out to the contractors building the homes with solar panels is very useful.
 
The one problem with the CA-SFM link is that it never really defines what a PV system is. If there are panels mounted top the roof it would seem obvious. But there are shingles that are now PV embedded so that when they are connected the roof looks homogeneous. Would the CA-SFM requirement demand a different roofing to be installed?

Some of the fire fighters described the use of tarps to cut light from reaching the PV units before progressing. If the roof is breached by flame the issue is moot but that would reduce the electrical hazard. Another point that was discussed was a requirement to limit the amount of voltage in any given location on the roof. This would require a different type of wiring but may allow for negligible power when activated.

FYI: The UL is testing mounted PV panels for compliance with the burning brand test. From some of the limited tests performed an unsettling pattern is emerging: When the panels are on the roof they comply but form a barrier against water drainage (the kind of thing roofs are known for). When elevated to allow water to drain the gap below forms a chimney and allows for flame spread much farther and faster than with an uncovered roof.
 
Gene,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by definition of PV, I think the definition would include the shingles also. We have quite a few PV installations here, but I've never seen the shingle style actually installed. If you look at page 16 of the SFM link, the shingles are pretty obvious as PV arrays and would still fall under the guidelines from the OCFA link that Mark Handler posted. Those guidelines are pretty much identical to most of the cities in Southern california as they were produced as a group effort.

As far as using tarps, if you refer to page 16 of the SFM link, it will show that tarps aren't 100% effective. As far as limiting voltage before entering the combiner box, as shown in the OCFA guideline, a remote cutoff is used.

Any other ideas are always welcome!
 
YA! The shingle will becoming. Over the last year I have been working with a tile company and a solar company and now shingle companies are in the mix. Seems like nobody has had first hand encounter with a fire and a solar install. If you have give me some feed back.
 
beach said:
Gene,I'm not sure I understand what you mean by definition of PV, I think the definition would include the shingles also. We have quite a few PV installations here, but I've never seen the shingle style actually installed. If you look at page 16 of the SFM link, the shingles are pretty obvious as PV arrays and would still fall under the guidelines from the OCFA link that Mark Handler posted. Those guidelines are pretty much identical to most of the cities in Southern California as they were produced as a group effort.

As far as using tarps, if you refer to page 16 of the SFM link, it will show that tarps aren't 100% effective. As far as limiting voltage before entering the combiner box, as shown in the OCFA guideline, a remote cutoff is used.

Any other ideas are always welcome!
Click to expand...
The SFM text uses the term "PV panel" so does that include a single shingle that is also the roof or something attached on top of the roof? It could be either.

The cutoff works well if the issue is transmission to other areas of the building. It does nothing if the issue is venting the roof. I think that's the reason why the SFM criteria includes a 3 ft gap at the ridge and a 6 ft gap on one side.. However, if it's the shingle, how can you tell which side has the 6 ft gap without making the roof look striped? The idea with the shingle is to create a uniform appearance as opposed to having the roof look like a science experiment.

The last thing is that in many parts of the country, there isn't the amount of sunshine that there is in CA. They need to maximize the entire roof to get the benefit of the PV capacity. That's why this whole thing needs a more standardized approach. The SFM text is a great start. I hope we can take it and make something a bit more acceptable in all of the country.
 
I just skimmed over a lot of the posts to see if what I am fixing to say was said and didn't see if anyone said what I am saying.................whew...

Just because tarps are used doesn't mean that they kill the power. The batteries are still charged and the only way to "kill" the power would be to require a disconnect on each panel. The PV's are wired in parallel therefore the leads coming from them are energized down to the disconnect by the meter. The last installation we had the installer went through the attic space and then exited through a gable end and then down to the disconnect. At least that way there wasn't an energized section of wire along the roof.
 
Mule,

I believe what you are saying is in the link for the OCFA guideline that Mark Handler posted, it gives options on how it can be run. As far as tarps..... see page 16 of the SFM link I posted, it agrees that tarps don't work.

Gene,

I think you will always see the difference between a PV shingle and a regular roofing shingle, so the 6' and 3' gaps would be obvious..... I don't know about "striped" looking, maybe more of a picture frame look. We're less concerned about aesthetics for now. PV panels don't HAVE to be installed on roofs, we have a "Green" home here that installed them on their slope, the neighbors aren't too happy though! PV panel aren't going to work in every part of the country, I don't know how a standardized approach can work when local climate conditions are so different through out the country.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/06/ultimate-green-home-draws-protests-in-newport-beach-over-solar-panel-glare.html
 
Talk about totalitarian laws, now we even get rid of the ugly things through Design Review or Zoning!

Under the California Solar Rights Act, homeowner associations and city government are prohibited from denying permits or otherwise preventing the installation of solar panels based on aesthetics.However, Olson believes he has found an answer by applying a 2004 amendment, Assembly Bill 2473, which allows for the relocation of solar panels as long as moving the panels does not cost more than 20 percent of the total project or lower it's efficiency by 20 percent.

Lawyers whom Olson has consulted with have been in agreement with his interpretation of the amendment, he said; although he has not signed with any firm as of Wednesday.

It is not clear as to whether the amendment, which may have been intended to regulate projects before installation, will also apply to projects that have been already completed.¹
Click to expand...
¹ http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0618-solar,0,5099044.story
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top