StLouis HVAC Services Now Offered

HVAC Services are now available - Scotty has teamed up with an Independent St.Louis HVAC Pro and is now servicing and installing HVAC systems.

Air Conditioner Repair and Service, HVAC Installation, Manual J Calculations, Hard Starts, Condensers, Motors, Relays, and Electronics

Part 1 StLouis HVAC Services Now Offered
Part 2 Why Service Is Needed for HVAC Systems
Part 3 Common HVAC Symptoms - Problems
Part 4 Energy Star HVAC Systems 
Part 5 Spring Clean HVAC Special 
Part 6 Spring Clean Coupon 1/2 Off

Thank You for stopping by the Green Blog. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know by posting a question or comment. Together we can make a difference and create a future that will benefit everyone.

Heat Welded TPO Roof Repair

The TPO roof repairs in the prior blog post 

StLouis TPO Roof Repair were done with a Heat Weld process and system that melts the roofing materials together creating a bond that will last for 30 years.

GAF TPO Single-Ply Roofing: An excellent, yet cost-effective membrane suitable for all types of single-ply systems with guarantees up to 30 years.

#FreeShare White #TPO CAD Roof Detail-St Louis Flat Roof Brick Wall
WhiteRoofs save money + reduce Heat-island effect. #StLouis pic.twitter.com/ICCQO0aAAF

— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) April 11, 2017

In the 20+ years that TPO has been in the field, it’s become one the most popular products used for low-slope roofing. Over 1 billion sq. ft. are installed annually, making up over 50% of single ply roofs being installed today. GAF

 EverGuard® Freedom™ 5’ x 50' Dual Heat‑Weld Flashing

Available in 45-mil and 60-mil reinforced membrane, it eliminates waste because of the two heat-weld edges. The 6" heat weld edge makes it more flexible and easier to install. 

The rapid rise in popularity can be associated with several of TPO’s inherent benefits, including:
• Great Value… Excellent performance at a cost effective price.
• Excellent Seam Strength… Heat-welded seams provide greater seam strength to taped and other seams.
• Long-term Weathering… Excellent long-term heat and UV resistance.

The increasing popularity of TPO roofing systems has led to much confusion, exaggerated claims, and misinformation about TPO as a product class. As North America’s largest roofing manufacturer, GAF decided to find out the truth about TPO performance.

GAF engaged Structural Research Inc. (SRI), a well-known and highly respected laboratory that has done testing with UL, NRCA, and MRCA to perform the largest independent performance study ever conducted of the 4 major U.S. TPO brands.

SRI procured all of the materials independently, testing over 400 samples that were subjected to over 6,000 individual measurements over the course of the study. The testing methods included a variety of ASTM physical property tests, including thickness above the scrim and weld strength, which showed that the 4 TPO brands exhibit relatively similar performance on these parameters. 

• Over 130 years in business and North America’s largest roofing manufacturer. 

• Offers a full line of roofing solutions, including TPO and PVC single-ply systems. 

• Capital investments of over $130 million from 2011–2016 in commercial roof manufacturing, giving GAF the most state-of-the-art equipment in the industry. 

• Only GAF offers the patent-pending EverGuard Extreme® membrane with the longest warranty in the industry (up to a 35-year guarantee*). 

• Leader in sustainability, including having EPDs, HPDs, and being on the red list free listings. • Commissioned the largest independent study ever conducted on TPO performance among North American manufacturers. » Results show GAF has the bestperforming TPO membranes in accelerated aging tests (visit TPOResults.com to learn more). 

• Energy Saving… Highly reflective and emissive white surface can help reduce energy costs and urban heat island effect. » Check out your potential energy savings by going with a white roof at cool.gaf.com. 

• Inherently Flexible… No need for plasticizers. 

• Naturally Fungal Resistant… Doesn’t require biocides. 

• Versatile Application Methods… Including high-performance roofs requiring high wind uplift, increased puncture resistance, or quick economical systems. https://www.gaf.com/en-us/document-library/documents/documents/division7documents/everguardproductliteratureampbrochuresdocuments/EverGuard_TPO__Brochure__2017.pdf

Thank You for stopping by the Green Blog. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know by posting a question or comment. Together we can make a difference and create a future that will benefit everyone.

StLouis TPO Roof Repair

Scotts Contracting now offers TPO Roofing Repairs starting at $255.00 per area.

Photos of the latest TPO Flat Roof Repair 

1st image: For whatever reason the prior contractor installed this section of TPO roofing material with 19 holes that were caulked. To eliminate the future problems the building owner chose to install a 20-30 year TPO roof patch rather than risk the caulking drying out and leaking in the future.

For whatever reason the prior contractor installed this section of TPO roof that had 19 holes that were caulked. To eliminate the future problems the building owner chose to install a 20 year TPO roof patch rather than risk the caulking drying out and leaking in the future.

 Image 2: Patching over more holes in the TPO roofing from the prior contractors screw up.

Patching over more holes in the TPO roofing from the prior contractors screw up.

 Images 3-5 Miscellaneous TPO White Roof Repair Patches

TPO Roof Seam Patch

The Everguard TPO Roofing Patches and materials used in the above photos were locally sourced from Travis Roofing Supply and are GAF TPO Roofing Systems.

The Everguard TPO Roofing Patches and materials used in the above photos were locally sourced from Travis Roofing Supply and are GAF TPO Roofing Systems.

Schedule a Everguard TPO white roof with Scotts Contracting by email,(trying something new using Google Calendar), or use the contact form.

#FreeShare White #TPO CAD Roof Detail-St Louis Flat Roof Brick Wall
WhiteRoofs save money + reduce Heat-island effect. #StLouis pic.twitter.com/ICCQO0aAAF

— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) April 11, 2017

Thank You for stopping by the Green Blog. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know by posting a question or comment. Together we can make a difference and create a future that will benefit everyone.

Solar Panel Deal of The Week

If your looking for a mega watt of Solar Panels my bulk solar provider just informed me he has 1 MW 325 w solar panels priced at $.34/w including delivery.  Sorry credit cards not accepted, Wire Transfers, Bank drafts, or cash.

1 MW solar panels for $.34/w including delivery

325w x .34= $110.50 each 

1,000,000 ÷ 325 = 3,077 Panels

110.50 x 3077 = $340,008.50

Electricity Produced: 325w x 5 sun hours per day x 3077 Panels= 5,000,125 

Scotts Contracting Agriphotovoltaic solutions

In an upcoming one-off product reveal for a 1MW Texas Agriphotovoltaic solution for Shade and Electricity.

Scotty will be sharing how and why the "one-off" Solar Support and Racking system is stronger than the current systems on the market and is easily adaptable for the challenging conditions present in an agriculture business.

Preliminary calculations are showing this Solar Support and Solar Racking system design will withstand windspeeds up to 125mph!


I'll be updating the Green Blog in the near future with additional details.
Scotty

I'm on pins and needles! I'm just a few days away from learning if the Agriphotovoltaic Support System I've designed will receive the Engineers approval! This design let's ranchers + farmers use the area under the Solar Panels for production.

— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) March 8, 2019

Mar 11 update:

 Sleepless in StLouis. 5 hours away from knowing if the Engineer approved my Solar Agriphotovoltaic Invention. 

Sleepless in StLouis. 5 hours away from knowing if the Engineer approved my Solar Agriphotovoltaic Invention. pic.twitter.com/1pEAmOA4KG

— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) March 11, 2019

Friday March 15 update: To say I'm disappointed with this architect is an understatement, but he finally did listen to me and we are finally proceeding on this project, maybe.  A meeting Monday March 18 will determine my next steps.

Here's what a shared with the client: The architect finally listened to me.  Next week I will get more info on the solar project design.  I'm a little disappointed it has taken this long to get the Architect/Engineer on board for the DIY solar support. He finally listened to me yesterday and has a better understanding of what the project is about and all the nuances involved.  Our next meeting is this coming Monday.

@Foundation_Tech I introduced an architect to your anchors today for "one off" Agricultuure Solar project I have designed!

He's a believer now and understands concrete is optional and not always needed.

— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) March 15, 2019

He had questions I did not know about, this was causing him to drag his feet.  I answered his questions, he gets it now I believe.

One of the things we've discussed is a “geotechnical” report/testing needs to be done (or if one has been done previously we need the numbers) on the feedlot pens to determine how big or small the foundation supports needs to be, regardless of what type of foundation used. A smaller foundation translates into money saved whether it's a concrete pier or my preferred choice of “helical anchors” system.  

A non farming person doesn't realize a few things about cattle, feedlots, and stress on cattle, one of which in my eyes is spending as little time as possible disrupting their surroundings, this is what a helical anchor accomplishes because it eliminates time as well as expenses from digging a big hole, pouring concrete, waiting for concrete to dry, then going back and building and installing the system. 

I also want to eliminate any chances of cattle getting hurt in some freak accident where they could break a leg in a trench or a hole in their pen.

FERC Data: Renewables Now 21% Of U.S.' Energy Capacity - Solar Industry

Even though natural gas dominated new electrical generating capacity in 2018, renewable energy sources seem poised to swamp fossil fuels as new generating capacity is added over the next three years, according to a SUN DAY Campaign analysis of newly released data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

FERC’s “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with data through Dec. 31, 2018) notes that new natural gas generation placed in service in 2018 totaled 20,048 MW, or 64.9% of the total (30,881 MW).

Renewable sources (biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind) accounted for 10,392 MW, or 33.7%. The balance (1.4%) was provided by nuclear (350 MW), waste heat (51 MW), oil (25 MW), coal (10 MW) and “other” (5 MW).

Supported by a late surge of new generating facilities in December (1,943 MW), wind ended 2018 with 6,028 MW of additional capacity for the year, or over 19.5% of the total. It was followed by solar (4,181 MW), or 13.5%. However, new capacity from wind and solar combined in 2018 (10,209 MW) was actually one-quarter less than that added in 2017 (13,601 MW), SUN DAY points out.

FERC’s numbers also reveal that renewable sources now account for 21.0% of total available installed U.S. generating capacity. Five years ago, renewables were 16.0%. Their total installed generating capacity has increased by 35.6% over the past half-decade (from 185.16 GW to 250.99 GW). Utility-scale solar has now reached 3.0% of the nation’s generating capacity while hydropower and wind account for 8.4% and 7.9%, respectively.....article continues
FERC Data: Renewables Now 21% Of U.S.' Energy Capacity - Solar Industry: Even though natural gas dominated new electrical generating capacity in 2018, renewable energy sources seem poised to swamp fossil fuels as new generating capacity is added over the next three years, according to a SUN DAY Campaign analysis of newly released data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC’s “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with …

MEETING: Bridgeton Landfill Public Health Consultation

State and federal health departments have determined this community, including workers, could have been harmed by the emissions from the underground fire at the landfill. 

From the meeting 

A resident of the community Mike Mason asks: how could they forget to under report 600 times previously. 

West Lake Landfill Public Group | Facebook

West Lake Landfill has 21,177 members. This group has been formed by concerned residents to inform and keep the public updated about the radioactive waste in the West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton, Mo Please like us at Just Moms STL on facebook Website: www.stlradwastelegacy.com

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) is holding a public meeting to present their findings and hear from this community concerning their health consultation. Our comments and engagement will help shape their final conclusions as well as determine how to protect us in the future.

PLEASE help us protect our community by attending and participating in this very important meeting.

January 7th, starting at 5 p.m.
DHSS public meeting will begin with an availability session that has a come-and-go format from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. A presentation will follow starting at 6:30 p.m., which will last approximately 30 minutes, and the meeting will conclude with time for community comments until close at 8:30 p.m.
Location: Bridgeton Banquet Center, 12259 Natural Bridge Road, Bridgeton, MO 63044
DHSS Consultation Report Key Findings:
● In the past, breathing sulfur-based compounds at concentrations detected in the air near the landfill may have harmed the health of people living or working near the landfill by aggravating existing chronic diseases such as asthma or chronic cardiopulmonary disease, or caused respiratory effects such as chest tightness or difficulty breathing, especially in sensitive individuals living or working near the landfill. Breathing the odors of sulfur-based compounds may have also caused headache, nausea or fatigue.
● In the past, long-term or repeated exposure to sulfur-based compounds and their odors in the air near the landfill may have increased stress, impaired mood or increased the risk of respiratory infection for those living or working near the landfill.
WE MUST HAVE 24/7, REAL-TIME AIR MONITORING NOW
In case you missed it or would like a refresher you can read our full newsletter on the Health Consultation here
Volunteers Needed
Since this is such an important meeting, we are seeking volunteers to hand out flyers in your neighborhoods and community. It would also be great if we can get people out this weekend near Walmart or the Machinist Hall intersections on St Charles Rock Road. 

If you are available to help, please respond to this newsletter or email us at westlakemoms@gmail.com for instructions on where to pick up the flyers. If you prefer to print them yourself, you can find the flyer here. 

Thank you in advance! 
DHSS PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-ON LETTER
Re: Evaluation of Exposure to Landfill Gases in Ambient Air, Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill, Bridgeton, St. Louis County, Missouri
Prepared by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services
I support and request the following suggestions made by Stephen Lester, Science Director at
Center for Health, Environment & Justice be considered and implemented to improve upon the Health Consultation for the
Bridgeton Landfill in Bridgeton, Saint Louis County, Missouri.

1) ATSDR should address whether the ambient air samples that were used to evaluate
the public health risks considered in this report were adequate and sufficient to
properly evaluate the public health risks posed by the Bridgeton Landfill.

2) ATSDR should conduct an analysis and include a robust discussion of how only using
existing available data impacts its evaluation of the public health risks posed by the
Bridgeton Landfill.

3) The agency should expand its cancer risk calculations to include a full range of the
benzene concentrations found in the ambient air including the highest concentrations
found in ambient air.

4) ATSDR should address the cancer risk data for benzene and include a discussion of the
significance of this cancer risk which exceeds the generally used acceptable cancer risk
target value of one-in-a-million.

5) ATSDR should include a discussion of the potential health impacts on nearby residents
of the emissions from the subsurface smoldering event (SSE) also known as the
underground fire including what data would be needed to assess these risks.

6) ATSDR should include an analysis of the cumulative risks in its evaluation of the public
health risks posed by the Bridgeton Landfill.

7) In cooperation with MDHSS, MDNR and the USEPA, ATSDR should define what air
monitoring locations are considered upwind and which are downwind and identify
which data discussed in Health Consultation Report were collected at each of the
upwind and downwind sites.

8) ATSDR should conduct an analysis and include a robust discussion of the limitations of
screening guidelines and how best to use these values to evaluate the public health
risks posed by the air monitoring data evaluated in this report.

9) ATSDR should recognize and discuss the scientific limitations in our understanding of
the toxicity of chemicals in the Health Consultation Report. As a scientific community,
we know very little about what specific level of exposure to a single chemical, let
alone to multiple chemicals with continuous (or intermittent) exposures over
undetermined or unknown periods of time, will result in an adverse health outcome in
a person. Consequently, public health officials at best can provide their opinion on
what will health effects if any may result from exposure to a chemical in air.

10) ATSDR should direct the MDNR to conduct additional testing to determine the extent
of vapor intrusion may be occurring from the Bridgeton Landfill. Testing for vapor
intrusion in nearby homes and along pathways in between the landfill and nearby
homes should be done by the MDNR not the landfill operator who has a clear bias in
not finding anything.

11) In the future ATSDR should always define its objectives for a health consultation in
consultation with community leaders.


12) ATSDR should rewrite its third conclusion to make clear what it is trying to say. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeVwZnW7oMQx89NYtWrfAtOU-lDd7_HOrHS2T-z9qxFIzSOaA/viewform