Energy Matters Forums

[470rigby]

From the Citizens Electoral Council, viz;

"Not only does solar energy cost more to produce than it gives back, but rooftop solar panels are dangerous to your health and hearth. In Germany, Australia, and the U.S.A., fire brigades are warning of the deadly threat of fighting blazes associated with solar panels.

In Germany the issue has recently become a major news item. While city and local governments, swept by the Green mania, are demanding more rooftop panel installations, many fire authorities have warned that fires cannot be fought on houses with rooftop solar panel units, and the property will be completely destroyed.

The largest solar panel blaze in history took place in June 2009 in Germany at the warehouse complex of BP Solar! Talk about “accident prone”. BP’s 200 square metre array, at Bürstadt, near Mannheim, was one of the largest roof-mounted installations in the world. And it was fabricated by BP Solar.

A rooftop solar array produces direct current electricity at a potential of 600 to 800 volts, more than enough to kill—and it cannot be turned off. The standard firefighting technique of opening up the roof to vent a blaze is not possible, because putting an axe through the solar panels exposes the firemen to deadly voltages.

Firefighters in the U.S. also have a policy of letting the solar panel-related fire burn out, rather than fighting it. Reporting on a 2009 meeting of New Jersey fire chiefs, a Florence Township chief wrote: “The final question which was asked really put things in perspective—someone asked that since California is number one when it comes to Solar Panel System installations, ‘What do their firefighters do when a structure fire involves these systems?’ Answer was ‘they let it burn’!”

And the solar panels themselves are often the cause of the blaze. Here in Australia, currently experiencing a government-subsidised boom in rooftop panel installations, a survey of 200 systems found 3 per cent were incorrectly wired, leading to serious fire risk. Apart from faulty wiring by installers, poor quality control in manufacturing has led to fracture in the joints between the solar cell modules, which can lead to electrical arcing. The resultant fires burn at quite high temperatures.

Solar electricity generation is ridiculously costly, and has only caught on because of huge government subsidies. Studies in the U.S. show that the true cost for the average home is 35 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), and 25 cents per kWh in the desert. Electricity can be generated from nuclear plants at 1.3 cents/kWh, if plant construction time is reduced to a reasonable five years or less. Uranium fuel is so energy dense, that the main cost of nuclear power is in the plant construction. Knowing this, the Green Nazis in the U.S.A. fought for punitive regulations which dragged out construction times to 10 years or longer. They thus ran up amortisation costs at high compound interest rates to high levels, making it appear cheaper, in the short run, for a utility to build coal or gas-fired plants.

Meanwhile, Green alternative energy is subsidised at huge taxpayer expense. In Australia, under the federal government’s Solar Credits scheme, a typical home solar package including panels and inverter is subsidised, astoundingly at close to $10,000. Additionally, five states and the NT subsidise net feed-in to the grid—power generated minus the household consumption—from rooftop solar panels at up to a guaranteed minimum 60 cents/kWh, while NSW and ACT subsidise gross feed-in—the total generated—at the incredible rate of 50.05 cents in the ACT, and 60 cents in NSW!

In Germany, Der Spiegel reports that a study by the Arrhenius Institute for Energy and Climate Policy calculated that solar energy receives €2.7 million per day in subsidies! This figure is obtained simply by multiplying the 35 euro-cents/kWh which consumers pay as a subsidy on solar energy, by the overall production of one day, as measured on 8th July. Today, one of the largest solar panel installations in the world is atop the roof of the Reichstag building in Berlin.

Shall history soon repeat itself in bizarre fashion, with a new Reichstag fire, this time caused by the solar panel mania of the new Green Nazis?

Comments?

[Inspector]

" In Australia, under the federal government⤮s Solar Credits scheme, a typical home solar package including panels and inverter is subsidised, astoundingly at close to $10,000."

Really? You'd need a 10kw system to get RECs near that value.

331x$35 = $11585 but as RECs are now $31 then it's just over $10k.

[Tracker]

.
No doubt there is fact within the emotion.. This mob is opposed to solar because of it's very high relative cost. Solar will only ever be supplemental to power needs, except for the Island Installations like Gordon's.
In a fire - I would see the wires being charred first (just before the panels shattered), thus exposing fire-fighters to dangerous voltages. Not too sure about a suggestion of PV panels causing fires.

Some of their claims are a bit left field

http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=articles&id=2009_02_06_astounding-high-cost-free-energy.html

The CEC seems rather keen on Nuclear power and the above article supports it with some very good concepts, and arguments (if accurate)
An interesting "Bottom Line"

Burning one molecule of natural gas will generate 9.24 electron volts, whereas The energy released in the fission of a single uranium atom is 200 million electron volts

Oh how good it would be to break every energy source down to a common denominator..

I can just see it now.. Nuclear plants spaced around the nation, generating power for distributed populations and industries, and turning salt of brackish water into potable water.
.
.

[Sojin_Muneshi]

In a fire - I would see the wires being charred first (just before the panels shattered), thus exposing fire-fighters to dangerous voltages. Not too sure about a suggestion of PV panels causing fires.

Without commenting on the CEC report you link I can comment on the fire and safety issues raised above.

Electicity Safe Victoria recently audited 81 Solar Installations of which 9 (more than 10%) were fitted with AC switches or Circuit Breakers in the DC mains from the Solar Panels to the Inverter.

This is not permitted under AS4777 part 3 or AS3000, yet at 10% seems to be a common installer practice as the AC switches are much cheaper than DC switches as DC requires arc suppression (there is no zero crossover to assist the switch in breaking the current).

Unfortunately most Inspectors are not climbing onto the roof and inspecting the DC wiring or isolator installation, and it is expected regulations will soon change to make that mandatory.

I recently saw footage of some Australian tests of AC switches being operated under DC to simulate the outcome of these installations, in all cases the switch ignited, and despite being made of thermosetting plastic continued to burn because of the heat source of the ongoing DC.

I also saw more concerning footage of a solar panel that self ignited and continued to burn regardless of being isolated at the correctly installed DC switch because the panel is the supply not the switch, the panel continued to burn with flames eventually existing from the top and the bottom of the panel in a slow but continuous process expanding across the panel, as it burnt hot metal and glass dropped from the bottom of the panel - I am yet to see a technical report on the cause or source of the flames, but it may be this poor jointing mentioned as panel arcing?

Fire Authorities are now very concerned about the following during daytime house fires:

1. In a house fire who's responsibility is it to isolate the solar generator and make it safe?, normally the Distributor isolates Grid supply to a house to make it safe for the fire fighters - ie ensure no live circuits.

2. In a house fire isolation of the Grid by the Distributor should cause the Inverter to anti-island and therefore cease generating AC into the circuits (as long as some "WALLY" has'nt by-passed that feature!)

3. In a house fire isolation of the Grid by the Distributor, and anti-islanding of the Inverter, will not stop DC volts being present at the output terminals of the panels, within the DC cabling or at the input to the inverter (unless the DC isolation is operated on the roof).

4. Even after the Grid is isolated, the Inverter has anti-islanded, and the DC Isolator has been located and operated there will be DC volts across the output terminals of the panels, within the DC Cabling and on the input terminals of the DC Isolator.

The Fire Authorities are concerned about the safety of their members climbing onto the roof to fight fires in the roof cavity, in an environment where water has been sprayed over the panels, cabling and switches, that the DC isolator may be an AC switch which itself may ignite if operated, and the presence of live DC volts, fire damaged DC cables, and water could create a real electrocution risk for their fire fighters?

I have seen no authoritive reports or information from the Solar Industry to comment on, or refute the fire or safety risks being raised, or propose solutions to avoid the risk?

regards

Sojin Muneshi

[bpratt]

3. In a house fire isolation of the Grid by the Distributor, and anti-islanding of the Inverter, will not stop DC volts being present at the output terminals of the panels, within the DC cabling or at the input to the inverter (unless the DC isolation is operated on the roof).

How would they operate the isolation switch if it is on the roof near the panels, without someone getting on the roof to get to that isolation switch ??

So what are you going to do, put two isolation switches, one up on the panels, and one down near the inverter ?

[Sojin_Muneshi]

How would they operate the isolation switch if it is on the roof near the panels, without someone getting on the roof to get to that isolation switch ??

So what are you going to do, put two isolation switches, one up on the panels, and one down near the inverter ?

I have not reviewed the details of the Standards myself in this regard (AS4777 part 3 etc), but I understand from recent discussions that the DC isolation is meant to be at the panels, not the inverter end of the DC cabling, therefore you would have to get on the roof to switch it off, ie isolate the DC cabling and the inverter, not just the input to the inverter?

I would assume experienced and qualified installers on this site will quickly confirm the correct design requirements?

actually found this already on this site via a google search:

http://forums.energymatters.com.au/solar-wind-gear/topic1248.html

["Re: Rooftop isolation
by Inspector » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:47 pm

In Victoria, it's mandatory for an isolator to be fitted adjactent to the panels (on the roof). This is not a requirement in NSW but I have heard that the powers-that-be are trying to make this a national requirement. Some installations are designed and/or supplied by Victorian companies, and they include the roof-top isolator in their kits, so the NSW install teams install them anyway."]

More on the panel fire and Fire fighters concerns on a Lateline clip on whirlpool:

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1387139


Regards

Sojin Muneshi

[Inspector]

I have not reviewed the details of the Standards myself in this regard (AS4777 part 3 etc), but I understand from recent discussions that the DC isolation is meant to be at the panels, not the inverter end of the DC cabling, therefore you would have to get on the roof to switch it off, ie isolate the DC cabling and the inverter, not just the input to the inverter?

There is exemption in AS4777 or AS5033, which states that a DC isolator built-in to the inverter (as the Latronis PVEdge and Oelmaeir inverters have), is acceptable for DC isolation porposes, and does not require an additional DC isolator. (I'll find the exact clause if you need it). Would this not imply that the isolator is intended to be at the inverter?

[Joey]

I have not reviewed the details of the Standards myself in this regard (AS4777 part 3 etc), but I understand from recent discussions that the DC isolation is meant to be at the panels, not the inverter end of the DC cabling, therefore you would have to get on the roof to switch it off, ie isolate the DC cabling and the inverter, not just the input to the inverter?

There is exemption in AS4777 or AS5033, which states that a DC isolator built-in to the inverter (as the Latronis PVEdge and Oelmaeir inverters have), is acceptable for DC isolation porposes, and does not require an additional DC isolator. (I'll find the exact clause if you need it). Would this not imply that the isolator is intended to be at the inverter?

The SMA inverters have the same built in disconnection device., Also there is no requirement for DC isolators at the panels in WA.
I do have Double Pole DC breakers on each string beside the inverter but they weren't that easy to find and are a lot more expensive that AC breakers so is probably why so many installations have AC breakers on the DC.
I noticed this at a friends new installation just recently so I will let him know they are a fire risk and to get them changed , their are AC breakers on the roof and near his inverter., Inspectors should be made aware of this as nothing was noticed and all passed inspection.

[Inspector]

The SMA inverters have the same built in disconnection device., Also there is no requirement for DC isolators at the panels in WA.
I do have Double Pole DC breakers on each string beside the inverter but they weren't that easy to find and are a lot more expensive that AC breakers so is probably why so many installations have AC breakers on the DC.

I didn't think the SMA one was rated to be operated under load? If it is, then about 80% of systems I've inspected have had the extra isolator when it's not required!

Re: Inspectors failing to notice AC isolators used... I've came across only one - and that was about a year ago - so it must only be common with interstate installers (or other regions of NSW) as I haven't heard any other EA inspectors coming across them. The RRP price for SolarConnect brand DC isolator in Sydney is under $40 - and probably alot cheaper wholesale by the box... I would think it's lack of installer's knowledge rather than cost being a factor.

[Joey]

The SMA inverters have the same built in disconnection device., Also there is no requirement for DC isolators at the panels in WA.
I do have Double Pole DC breakers on each string beside the inverter but they weren't that easy to find and are a lot more expensive that AC breakers so is probably why so many installations have AC breakers on the DC.

I didn't think the SMA one was rated to be operated under load? If it is, then about 80% of systems I've inspected have had the extra isolator when it's not required!

It would seem a total waste of time having a "quick disconnection device" EUT as SMA call it if it couldn't be used legally disconnect DC from the inverter. , so it not necessary to have extra DC isolators at the inverter.

This might help

Declaration of Conformity
according to AS4777.3
AS4777_EN60335-1_SB30-40-50TL-20-ZEN093111 2/2
Conclusions:
The Sunny Boy SB 5000TL-20 grid connected inverter was tested for compliance with requirements of the“Australian guidelines for Grid
Connection of energy systems via inverters”. Based on the testresults for the tested inverter it complies with the requirements of AS4777
parts 2 & 3 for Grid Connection of Energy Systems via Inverters for the test mentioned in Table 4.
Test House Details:
Reslab
Murdoch University
South St. Murdoch
Western Australia 6155r
TÜV SÜD Product Service GmbH
Mergenthalerallee 27
D-65769 Eschborn
Germany
Only for
AS4777.2 clause 4.1
Product Family SB 3000TL-20 / 4000TL-20 / 5000TL-20
We hereby declare that the Solar Inverters SB 3000TL-20, SB 4000TL-20 and SB 5000TL-20 technically are members of one single
product family and have identical technical features. The compliance of the SB 5000TL-20 according to Australian Standards AS 4777
was tested at ResLab (Renewable Energy Systems Test Centre) at Murdoch University and can be reviewed in the test report
REP-RL0808-T-0002 Rev 2.Doc and in the electrical safety test report 71338871 (AS4777.2 clause 4.1).
Standards Test type Comments
AS4777.3 clause 5.2
Disconnection device
The EUT disconnection device incorporates an electromechanical
switch to provide galvanic isolation between the energy source(s)
and the grid in normal operation. Complies

All SMA inverter have an EUT