# Solar Panels & fire



## RJJ (Jul 23, 2010)

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.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jul 23, 2010)

Will do, thanks for the heads up. I haven't even taken it out of the plastic wrap yet


----------



## TJacobs (Jul 23, 2010)

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.


Wait for nightfall???


----------



## RJJ (Jul 23, 2010)

Ok! Don't put water on burning roof before dark!


----------



## mark handler (Jul 23, 2010)

Don't put water on burning metal roofs!


----------



## cda (Jul 23, 2010)

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


----------



## mark handler (Jul 23, 2010)

cda said:
			
		

> Thought someone posted on this awhile backThought 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


Depends on agency

http://bcodes.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/151091073/m/996108384

http://www.ocfa.org/_uploads/pdf/PhotovoltaicGuideline.pdf


----------



## FM William Burns (Jul 23, 2010)

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.


----------



## peach (Jul 31, 2010)

It's the same hazard EMS people experience when there is a car accident involving a hybrid car.


----------



## beach (Aug 2, 2010)

> It's the same hazard EMS people experience when there is a car accident involving a hybrid car.


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


----------



## conarb (Aug 2, 2010)

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.


----------



## beach (Aug 2, 2010)

Conarb,

I think they will find it useful, too! Thanks for posting it on their website.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Aug 2, 2010)

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.


----------



## peach (Aug 2, 2010)

I can't believe that NFPA was totally unaware of the PV shingles.


----------



## beach (Aug 2, 2010)

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!


----------



## beach (Aug 2, 2010)

> I can't believe that NFPA was totally unaware of the PV shingles.


They were?


----------



## RJJ (Aug 2, 2010)

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.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Aug 3, 2010)

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!


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.


----------



## Mule (Aug 3, 2010)

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.


----------



## beach (Aug 3, 2010)

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


----------



## conarb (Aug 3, 2010)

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


¹ http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0618-solar,0,5099044.story


----------



## beach (Aug 3, 2010)

Don't you mean CAN'T get rid of them?


----------



## peach (Aug 3, 2010)

oh, it's all low volt anyway.. what's the harm?

*sheesh*


----------



## beach (Aug 3, 2010)

> [oh, it's all low volt anyway.. what's the harm?
> 
> *sheesh*
> 
> ...


----------

