Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a house has had solar power for decades, it will not meet current code. When we put in our Solar Power, we had to have a disconnect breaker at the photovoltaic array. So it is obvious where they can go to shut off the power.
Talking to local Firefighters, they are trained to toss blankets over the panels to de-energize them.
I can see where it could be a concern.
Quote:
Fire departments main concerns:
When firefighters cut power to a house, solar panels can still be electrified.
Panels make the roof heavier and -- maybe-- more likely to collapse.
And when firefighters punch holes in roofs to let heat out, panels can get in the way.
I can see where each of these could be legitimate concerns.
All engineering solutions have their trade-offs.There are concerns about electric vehicles in accidents too. If it ain't one thing, it's another.
That horrendous high rise fire in London the other day also has to do with
"environmentalism"-- building codes were amended to allow biodegradable (ie-flammable) cladding.
A person who wants to help mitigate global warming while ensuring their home doesn't pose more risks in the event of a fire could always switch to a green energy supplier instead of installing solar panels on their own roof. This is usually cheaper as well, as solar panels can take years to pay themselves off in terms of the energy they generate as opposed to their hefty cost.
... This is usually cheaper as well, as solar panels can take years to pay themselves off in terms of the energy they generate as opposed to their hefty cost.
If anyone is concerned over how long it takes to break even, keep in mind that the IRS says solar systems depreciate over 7 years. If you depreciate the expense you can write-off all of it over 7 years.
All engineering solutions have their trade-offs.There are concerns about electric vehicles in accidents too. If it ain't one thing, it's another.
That horrendous high rise fire in London the other day also has to do with
"environmentalism"-- building codes were amended to allow biodegradable (ie-flammable) cladding.
That there wasn't any sprinkler system or fire alarms had nothing at all to do with it though, right?
That there wasn't any sprinkler system or fire alarms had nothing at all to do with it though, right?
As in any "perfect storm" scenario, there's the synchronization of multiple factors. If the cladding were the only problem, Watson, then only the cladding would have burned.
Trade offs: you want environmental friendliness, then you'll have put up with a little more flammability. Risks vs. benefits. A scientist evaluates those quantitatively. A pseudo-scientist puts preconceived ideology as the determining factor for action.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
