Comments on: A New Challenge for the Truckies http://firegeezer.com/2009/10/13/a-new-challenge-for-the-truckies/ The Fire/EMS Digital Dayroom Thu, 24 May 2012 01:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: ECD Fan http://firegeezer.com/2009/10/13/a-new-challenge-for-the-truckies/comment-page-1/#comment-4061 ECD Fan Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:17:49 +0000 http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=16110#comment-4061 To firegeezer: The Dow product does not actually exist yet - it is still a prototype and specifications and pricing have not been finalized yet. And, of course, we have to wait and see whether (and when) these solar shingles will pass the UL and IEC certification requirements (such as UL 1703, IEC 61730, and IEC 61646, etc) before they can even go on roofs. To firegeezer: The Dow product does not actually exist yet – it is still a prototype and specifications and pricing have not been finalized yet. And, of course, we have to wait and see whether (and when) these solar shingles will pass the UL and IEC certification requirements (such as UL 1703, IEC 61730, and IEC 61646, etc) before they can even go on roofs.

]]> By: ECD Fan http://firegeezer.com/2009/10/13/a-new-challenge-for-the-truckies/comment-page-1/#comment-15758 ECD Fan Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:17:00 +0000 http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=16110#comment-15758 To firegeezer: The Dow product does not actually exist yet - it is still a prototype and specifications and pricing have not been finalized yet. And, of course, we have to wait and see whether (and when) these solar shingles will pass the UL and IEC certification requirements (such as UL 1703, IEC 61730, and IEC 61646, etc) before they can even go on roofs. To firegeezer: The Dow product does not actually exist yet – it is still a prototype and specifications and pricing have not been finalized yet. And, of course, we have to wait and see whether (and when) these solar shingles will pass the UL and IEC certification requirements (such as UL 1703, IEC 61730, and IEC 61646, etc) before they can even go on roofs.

]]> By: laurence delorme http://firegeezer.com/2009/10/13/a-new-challenge-for-the-truckies/comment-page-1/#comment-4060 laurence delorme Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:03:59 +0000 http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=16110#comment-4060 hello, here is a link to an article about firefighting and solar panels,entitled:myths and facts: http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-attack/articles/594656-Solar-Safety-for-Firefighters-The-Myths-and-the-Facts/ hello,

here is a link to an article about firefighting and solar panels,entitled:myths and facts:

http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-attack/articles/594656-Solar-Safety-for-Firefighters-The-Myths-and-the-Facts/

]]> By: laurence delorme http://firegeezer.com/2009/10/13/a-new-challenge-for-the-truckies/comment-page-1/#comment-15757 laurence delorme Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:03:00 +0000 http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=16110#comment-15757 hello, here is a link to an article about firefighting and solar panels,entitled:myths and facts: http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-attack/articles/594656-Solar-Safety-for-Firefighters-The-Myths-and-the-Facts/ hello,

here is a link to an article about firefighting and solar panels,entitled:myths and facts:

http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-attack/articles/594656-Solar-Safety-for-Firefighters-The-Myths-and-the-Facts/

]]> By: Dal90 http://firegeezer.com/2009/10/13/a-new-challenge-for-the-truckies/comment-page-1/#comment-4059 Dal90 Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:56:49 +0000 http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=16110#comment-4059 I think the larger concern for firefighting is not the solar cells themselves, but to be aware of the increasing complexity of controlling utilities in structures, both residential and commercial. Simply disconnecting street power is no guarantee the structure is de-energized. Automatic generators, solar panels, windmills, battery banks, and even consumer UPSs could still provide significant shocks inside the home and/or ignition sources. I think the larger concern for firefighting is not the solar cells themselves, but to be aware of the increasing complexity of controlling utilities in structures, both residential and commercial.

Simply disconnecting street power is no guarantee the structure is de-energized. Automatic generators, solar panels, windmills, battery banks, and even consumer UPSs could still provide significant shocks inside the home and/or ignition sources.

]]> By: Dal90 http://firegeezer.com/2009/10/13/a-new-challenge-for-the-truckies/comment-page-1/#comment-15756 Dal90 Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:56:00 +0000 http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=16110#comment-15756 I think the larger concern for firefighting is not the solar cells themselves, but to be aware of the increasing complexity of controlling utilities in structures, both residential and commercial. Simply disconnecting street power is no guarantee the structure is de-energized. Automatic generators, solar panels, windmills, battery banks, and even consumer UPSs could still provide significant shocks inside the home and/or ignition sources. I think the larger concern for firefighting is not the solar cells themselves, but to be aware of the increasing complexity of controlling utilities in structures, both residential and commercial.

Simply disconnecting street power is no guarantee the structure is de-energized. Automatic generators, solar panels, windmills, battery banks, and even consumer UPSs could still provide significant shocks inside the home and/or ignition sources.

]]> By: firegeezer http://firegeezer.com/2009/10/13/a-new-challenge-for-the-truckies/comment-page-1/#comment-4058 firegeezer Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:16:58 +0000 http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=16110#comment-4058 Thanks, ECD Fan I thought there might be somebody out there who could enlighten us some more on these things. Do you know if Dow's panels can be walked on? I read in a forum (not the best of authorities, I know) that they could be. (sorry about the delay in posting your comment. the spam filter grabs anything with more than two links in it and holds it for approval) Thanks, ECD Fan

I thought there might be somebody out there who could enlighten us some more on these things. Do you know if Dow’s panels can be walked on? I read in a forum (not the best of authorities, I know) that they could be.

(sorry about the delay in posting your comment. the spam filter grabs anything with more than two links in it and holds it for approval)

]]> By: firegeezer http://firegeezer.com/2009/10/13/a-new-challenge-for-the-truckies/comment-page-1/#comment-15755 firegeezer Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:16:00 +0000 http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=16110#comment-15755 Thanks, ECD Fan I thought there might be somebody out there who could enlighten us some more on these things. Do you know if Dow's panels can be walked on? I read in a forum (not the best of authorities, I know) that they could be. (sorry about the delay in posting your comment. the spam filter grabs anything with more than two links in it and holds it for approval) Thanks, ECD Fan

I thought there might be somebody out there who could enlighten us some more on these things. Do you know if Dow’s panels can be walked on? I read in a forum (not the best of authorities, I know) that they could be.

(sorry about the delay in posting your comment. the spam filter grabs anything with more than two links in it and holds it for approval)

]]> By: ECD Fan http://firegeezer.com/2009/10/13/a-new-challenge-for-the-truckies/comment-page-1/#comment-4057 ECD Fan Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:32:38 +0000 http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=16110#comment-4057 You are incorrect, picture #2 does not show the Unisolar shingles. It is obvious - just look for the three thin white stripes on each shingle on picture #2 - they are missing from picture #1. Now, back to Unisolar's shingles: Unisolar's shingles (product SHR-17) were commercialized in 1998, but have been taken off the market for a few years now, as they lost their UL certification (due to roof penetrations and fire hazards?). Moreover, the government NREL laboratory's long-term degradation study indicated that the shingles likely violate their performance warranty (Unisolar is still suppressing the final results from that study): http://ecdfan.blogspot.com/2009/07/power-output-warranty-part-ii-or-nrel.html It is not true that the shingles are not damaged by walking on them (Unisolar's reseller Soprema, for example, explicitly prohibits walking on the photovoltaic material): http://www.soprasolar.com/index.php?module=media&action=Display&cmpref=12144&lang=fr&width=&height=&format=&alt= The fire hazard is real, and you don't need an axe to start a Unisolar fire. For example, Unisolar's photovoltaic laminates ignited on the (huge) rooftop of the Long Beach Convention Center in February of 2008. Here is the fire report: http://picasaweb.google.com/fan.of.ecd/LongBeachConventionCenterFireReport Luckily, Unisolar's share in the rooftop solar market is insignificant (just 0.2% in California over the past 22 months, according to the CSI, and California accounts for about 60% of the North American solar installations). That share is likely to dwindle further as Unisolar's products are not priced competitively at present time. You are incorrect, picture #2 does not show the Unisolar shingles. It is obvious – just look for the three thin white stripes on each shingle on picture #2 – they are missing from picture #1. Now, back to Unisolar’s shingles:

Unisolar’s shingles (product SHR-17) were commercialized in 1998, but have been taken off the market for a few years now, as they lost their UL certification (due to roof penetrations and fire hazards?). Moreover, the government NREL laboratory’s long-term degradation study indicated that the shingles likely violate their performance warranty (Unisolar is still suppressing the final results from that study):

http://ecdfan.blogspot.com/2009/07/power-output-warranty-part-ii-or-nrel.html

It is not true that the shingles are not damaged by walking on them (Unisolar’s reseller Soprema, for example, explicitly prohibits walking on the photovoltaic material):

http://www.soprasolar.com/index.php?module=media&action=Display&cmpref=12144&lang=fr&width=&height=&format=&alt=

The fire hazard is real, and you don’t need an axe to start a Unisolar fire. For example, Unisolar’s photovoltaic laminates ignited on the (huge) rooftop of the Long Beach Convention Center in February of 2008. Here is the fire report:

http://picasaweb.google.com/fan.of.ecd/LongBeachConventionCenterFireReport

Luckily, Unisolar’s share in the rooftop solar market is insignificant (just 0.2% in California over the past 22 months, according to the CSI, and California accounts for about 60% of the North American solar installations). That share is likely to dwindle further as Unisolar’s products are not priced competitively at present time.

]]> By: ECD Fan http://firegeezer.com/2009/10/13/a-new-challenge-for-the-truckies/comment-page-1/#comment-15754 ECD Fan Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:32:00 +0000 http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=16110#comment-15754 You are incorrect, picture #2 does not show the Unisolar shingles. It is obvious - just look for the three thin white stripes on each shingle on picture #2 - they are missing from picture #1. Now, back to Unisolar's shingles: Unisolar's shingles (product SHR-17) were commercialized in 1998, but have been taken off the market for a few years now, as they lost their UL certification (due to roof penetrations and fire hazards?). Moreover, the government NREL laboratory's long-term degradation study indicated that the shingles likely violate their performance warranty (Unisolar is still suppressing the final results from that study): http://ecdfan.blogspot.com/2009/07/power-output-warranty-part-ii-or-nrel.html It is not true that the shingles are not damaged by walking on them (Unisolar's reseller Soprema, for example, explicitly prohibits walking on the photovoltaic material): http://www.soprasolar.com/index.php?module=media&action=Display&cmpref=12144&lang=fr&width=&height=&format=&alt= The fire hazard is real, and you don't need an axe to start a Unisolar fire. For example, Unisolar's photovoltaic laminates ignited on the (huge) rooftop of the Long Beach Convention Center in February of 2008. Here is the fire report: http://picasaweb.google.com/fan.of.ecd/LongBeachConventionCenterFireReport Luckily, Unisolar's share in the rooftop solar market is insignificant (just 0.2% in California over the past 22 months, according to the CSI, and California accounts for about 60% of the North American solar installations). That share is likely to dwindle further as Unisolar's products are not priced competitively at present time. You are incorrect, picture #2 does not show the Unisolar shingles. It is obvious – just look for the three thin white stripes on each shingle on picture #2 – they are missing from picture #1. Now, back to Unisolar’s shingles:

Unisolar’s shingles (product SHR-17) were commercialized in 1998, but have been taken off the market for a few years now, as they lost their UL certification (due to roof penetrations and fire hazards?). Moreover, the government NREL laboratory’s long-term degradation study indicated that the shingles likely violate their performance warranty (Unisolar is still suppressing the final results from that study):

http://ecdfan.blogspot.com/2009/07/power-output-warranty-part-ii-or-nrel.html

It is not true that the shingles are not damaged by walking on them (Unisolar’s reseller Soprema, for example, explicitly prohibits walking on the photovoltaic material):

http://www.soprasolar.com/index.php?module=media&action=Display&cmpref=12144&lang=fr&width=&height=&format=&alt=

The fire hazard is real, and you don’t need an axe to start a Unisolar fire. For example, Unisolar’s photovoltaic laminates ignited on the (huge) rooftop of the Long Beach Convention Center in February of 2008. Here is the fire report:

http://picasaweb.google.com/fan.of.ecd/LongBeachConventionCenterFireReport

Luckily, Unisolar’s share in the rooftop solar market is insignificant (just 0.2% in California over the past 22 months, according to the CSI, and California accounts for about 60% of the North American solar installations). That share is likely to dwindle further as Unisolar’s products are not priced competitively at present time.

]]>