Heat in the home

[roubaixtuesday]

Solar panels aren't made of materials that catch fire. Question anyone telling you otherwise.

From the linked article.

most fires in 2024 began in the inverter or panel itself, components that can overheat when installation or ventilation is inadequate.

Right, so it's misleading nonsense then, because:

1. an inverter fire is not a panel fire, same as a fire in a faulty battery that was charged by solar power is not a panel fire;

2. the panel overheating is still not going to make the panel catch fire unless there's another installation fault. The panels themselves do not catch fire. If a magnifying glass or similar lens starts a forest fire, we still call that a forest fire, not a glass fire.

I bet whoever wrote that report is not an NUJ member.

It would probably help if you read the article before deriding it?

[mjr]

From the linked article.

most fires in 2024 began in the inverter or panel itself, components that can overheat when installation or ventilation is inadequate.

Right, so it's misleading nonsense then, because:

1. an inverter fire is not a panel fire, same as a fire in a faulty battery that was charged by solar power is not a panel fire;

2. the panel overheating is still not going to make the panel catch fire unless there's another installation fault. The panels themselves do not catch fire. If a magnifying glass or similar lens starts a forest fire, we still call that a forest fire, not a glass fire.

I bet whoever wrote that report is not an NUJ member.

It would probably help if you read the article before deriding it?

Only in that the derision is more detailed, it would seem. The basic point stands: it's calling stuff solar panel fires that aren't fires in/of the solar panel. It's renewables-bashing.

( I didn't read the article because 200+ "partners" wanted to do stuff with my browser and personal details, I didn't have time to wade through the terms just now and I'm not in the habit of blithely clicking the "accept". It would be nice if the people who do accept such browser harvesting posted some details, but it seems like it wouldn't have mattered this time.)

[roubaixtuesday]

Meanwhile, gas prices have near *doubled* in the last week as a result of the Mango Mussolini's adventures in Iran.

Anyone still thinking investing in renewables is too expensive?

[rjb]

Just a temporary hiccup. There's still a glut of oil around. We could all be buying it from Russia soon. Petrol has jumped up from £1.29 to £1.33 at our local garage.

[RickH]

Right, so it's misleading nonsense then, because:

1. an inverter fire is not a panel fire, same as a fire in a faulty battery that was charged by solar power is not a panel fire;

2. the panel overheating is still not going to make the panel catch fire unless there's another installation fault. The panels themselves do not catch fire. If a magnifying glass or similar lens starts a forest fire, we still call that a forest fire, not a glass fire.

I bet whoever wrote that report is not an NUJ member.

It would probably help if you read the article before deriding it?

Only in that the derision is more detailed, it would seem. The basic point stands: it's calling stuff solar panel fires that aren't fires in/of the solar panel. It's renewables-bashing.

( I didn't read the article because 200+ "partners" wanted to do stuff with my browser and personal details, I didn't have time to wade through the terms just now and I'm not in the habit of blithely clicking the "accept". It would be nice if the people who do accept such browser harvesting posted some details, but it seems like it wouldn't have mattered this time.)

There is a reasonably easy to spot "decline all" option which is what I selected.

The article refers to solar panel installations or systems and pins the blame mostly on items integral to the useful functioning of the panels, such as inverters or storsge batteries, being poorly installed.

It's a bit like arguing that fires in houses aren't "house fires" because they caused by poorly installed electrical equipment.

[mjr]

It would probably help if you read the article before deriding it?

Only in that the derision is more detailed, it would seem. The basic point stands: it's calling stuff solar panel fires that aren't fires in/of the solar panel. It's renewables-bashing.

( I didn't read the article because 200+ "partners" wanted to do stuff with my browser and personal details, I didn't have time to wade through the terms just now and I'm not in the habit of blithely clicking the "accept". It would be nice if the people who do accept such browser harvesting posted some details, but it seems like it wouldn't have mattered this time.)

There is a reasonably easy to spot "decline all" option which is what I selected.

There's literally no such option in the version of the popup that I get. I attach a screenshot. I'm fairly sure hiding the decline like that is illegal, so even if you find where they bury it, why would you trust them not to also illegally ignore it?

The article refers to solar panel installations or systems and pins the blame mostly on items integral to the useful functioning of the panels, such as inverters or storsge batteries, being poorly installed.

Most batteries aren't integral to panel functioning. They're an optional extra.

And fires in then are called "battery fires" or similar, unless you have some irrational agenda against solar panels, or similar.

It's a bit like arguing that fires in houses aren't "house fires" because they caused by poorly installed electrical equipment.

At least in those fires, the house is actually alight, but even they are more often called after what started the fire, like a bin fire, cooker fire or chip pan fire.

[RickH]

There's literally no such option in the version of the popup that I get. I attach a screenshot. I'm fairly sure hiding the decline like that is illegal, so even if you find where they bury it, why would you trust them not to also illegally ignore it?

Sorry, I'm on my phone browser so can't switch back & forth as easily as on the computer. It is one of the choices when you go onto "options" which gives you the "decline all" (or something like that) without having to doomscroll down a massive list, as well as ploughing through individual choices if you so wish. So not hidden but, also, not in-your-face obvious.

It probably isn't worth arguing about it too much. If you're into all the technicalities of it then it matters which bit is which. Most people will just "get solar panels" and not be bothered about all the ins & outs that there is more to the complete installation. If they get a battery that will probably be part of the package.

I think the important lesson is that people ensuring they find someone reputable to do the job.

[mjr]

I think the important lesson is that people ensuring they find someone reputable to do the job.

Well, yes, and guess what religion the pope is? That's far from unique to solar panels, and doesn't merit blaming them in the headline. I wonder how many fires are linked to bad building work in total.

[roubaixtuesday]

For the people who believe that authorising more drilling would solve our energy problems

[Cugel]

I think the important lesson is that people ensuring they find someone reputable to do the job.

Well, yes, and guess what religion the pope is? That's far from unique to solar panels, and doesn't merit blaming them in the headline. I wonder how many fires are linked to bad building work in total.

Yet some heating devices are of themselves dangerous, inefficient and generally to be avoided or even banned. Another report concerning “smokeless or low-smoke fuels" used in wood burners discovers that despite appearing "clean" they in fact emit two-to-three times the dangerous ultrafine particles of bog-standard woodburning, particles that lodge in the lung then gradually kill the victim.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ungs-study

The fans of the flame will have the usual rebuttals, no doubt - "It smells nice, looks nice and is comforting". Yet it will kill them too, slowly, just as it will those of us who do not care for the stinks and damages. The killing process is just a lot harder to see and admit to than being, say, electrocuted by a a badly-installed electric heater or burnt-up in a vanishingly-rare battery fire.

[PDQ Mobile]

I think the important lesson is that people ensuring they find someone reputable to do the job.

Well, yes, and guess what religion the pope is? That's far from unique to solar panels, and doesn't merit blaming them in the headline. I wonder how many fires are linked to bad building work in total.

Yet some heating devices are of themselves dangerous, inefficient and generally to be avoided or even banned. Another report concerning “smokeless or low-smoke fuels" used in wood burners discovers that despite appearing "clean" they in fact emit two-to-three times the dangerous ultrafine particles of bog-standard woodburning, particles that lodge in the lung then gradually kill the victim.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ungs-study

The fans of the flame will have the usual rebuttals, no doubt - "It smells nice, looks nice and is comforting". Yet it will kill them too, slowly, just as it will those of us who do not care for the stinks and damages. The killing process is just a lot harder to see and admit to than being, say, electrocuted by a a badly-installed electric heater or burnt-up in a vanishingly-rare battery fire.

"Fans of the flame"
Glad to see "bog standard" fares somewhat better!