Fire Fighting System for Hydrogenerators

Safety...

Local codes are the first place to check.

Next stop will be the manufacturer of the dynamo for their recommendation, then

http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/document-information-pages

I'll give you a little hint. NFPA 79 is a good place to start and then you might want to peruse NFPA 850.

The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of ...

Hello everybody:

Thanks to all for your comments.

Robin, I have already perused the code NFPA 851 Recommended Practice for Fire Protection for Hydroelectric Generating Plants.

I beg your pardon but, I agree more with the direction taken by Jack when answering my questions.

I think that despite of the codes, the decision finally might be based on economic reasons.

So long.

It generally takes longer and is more expensive to engineer based upon solo opinions, and usually gets clients' backs up. Using the local codes instead is rather quicker and cheaper for all concerned, especially when backside-covering is required.

<unsubscribes>

You do realize that 851 has been rolled into 850, yes? Ignoring local codes at your own risk. Your insurer will want to know what you are doing as well. To each their own.

Cheers!

I suspect that this arrogant attitude has killed more often than it shows a local code to be flawed.

I see clearly why one would post this kind of comment anonymously, coward.

That is dangerously incompetent advice.

Use you own best judgment in this decision

Local codes and standards must be followed regardless, but they generally allow a choice of multiple solutions allowing functionality and cost considerations to be addressed based on customer budget and needs. Ignoring them and doing your own thing is pure folly.

Be aware that many of the older hydrogenation plants in other countries do not incorporate all of the features of the modern NFPA standards.

I am not fully up on all the applicable NFPA standards, but if they are anything like our local standards then new plant needs to comply with the current code, regardless of what old existing plant may still legally comply with (what we would call a 'grandfather' clause).

Cost and real estate primarily.

Both systems, properly designed, will be effective. It can be argued that CO2, being a 3 dimensional agent, will extinguish a fire faster than water, a 2 dimensional agent.

A CO2 system will cost much more than a water system.

A CO2 system (either low or high pressure) will take up a substantial amount of floor space.

Other considerations:

A CO2 system can also extinguish life.

A CO2 system will cause no damage to equipment, property, etc., resulting in little down time of plant. This might not be true for a water system.

You will have to have the CO2 system recharged after use.

If using water, is the existing water supply sufficient? If not, is there money and space for a storage tank?

There are other considerations, but those are the biggies.

The best source of advice is surely the organisation supplying fire indemnity insurance cover for the facility. And this organisation is on the telephone. So do let the forum know how those telephone calls went, please.

<Beam me up, Scottie>

Aye, Cap'n.