Jump to content

Lithium hybrid set up help required


luggsy

Featured Posts

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Perhaps more to the point, how many boats today do not have  a mobile phone on board? Apart from what battery type is used, they have some form of computer in even those quite dated. And they are definitely an electronic system - but so is a tv.

I saw a boat with a microwave on it once.

3 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

LTO. Have you thought about buying up all the supply and waiting for the price to go up?

No.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

And a very good reason, I suppose, not to rely solely on a BMS, which so many people seem to be doing these daisies.

Always good to have belts and braces, so a single failure can't lead to disaster.

 

Being realistic, with LFP batteries even if something goes wrong a battery/boat fire is *extremely* unlikely, AFAIK there's no recorded case of this happening on a boat (or EV?), they've all been with NMC or similar chemistry lithium batteries.

 

However all this is a compelling reason not to do what some websites/blogs are suggesting and install a lithium battery bank made from secondhand EV batteries, which are almost all*** NMC -- this might save a lot of money compared to buying LFP batteries, but should there be a fire -- nor impossible, it's happened to EVs -- you'd almost certainly not be insured.

 

*** yes Peter managed to find some cheap ex-Wrightbus LFP batteries, but in every ad I can find for secondhand EV batteries they come from NMC-equipped cars.

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Like I said earlier. Insurance is the porn of the devil. It is only because it is a legal requirement since 1995 (my first full year of living on a boat) that I give any consideration to it.

 

 

 

The biggest risk is overcharging. LTO 6s has a full charge voltage of 16.8v which is above what you are likely to see on boat systems. You can get about 86% capacity just going to 15v which means inverters will be happy with it.

 

One day everyone on boats will have these batteries. I was right about the strong magnets all those yars ago (2006) wasn't I ;)

 

There's little point going for LTO batteries when LFP ones are far more widely available, cheaper, and will last at least 20 years on a boat...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

There's little point going for LTO batteries when LFP ones are far more widely available, cheaper, and will last at least 20 years on a boat...

I did get my (new) LTO for less than the price of equivalent LFP so it was worth it in a way.

 

Once everyone goes electric the rapid charge option will become interesting. This is where LTO will win the day IF it becomes more widely available. Usually just used for buses at the moment.

 

LTO main battery with fast charge and a lighter higher density removeable battery for range extending.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

*** yes Peter managed to find some cheap ex-Wrightbus LFP batteries, but in every ad I can find for secondhand EV batteries they come from NMC-equipped cars.

The majority of the early adopters on here used ex electric car batteries of the Thundersky variety as far as recall, which are LiFeYPo4, though I suspect are now hard to come by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I did get my (new) LTO for less than the price of equivalent LFP so it was worth it in a way.

 

Once everyone goes electric the rapid charge option will become interesting. This is where LTO will win the day IF it becomes more widely available. Usually just used for buses at the moment.

 

LTO main battery with fast charge and a lighter higher density removeable battery for range extending.

 

 

 

If you think we're ever going to see 100kW+ rapid charging stations on the canals, I've got a bridge you might want to buy... 😉

 

LTO has even lower power density than LFP which (together with the cost) is why hardly anyone uses them -- and super-fast charging isn't much use when you'd need a 1MW charger to take advantage of it...

 

4 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

The majority of the early adopters on here used ex electric car batteries of the Thundersky variety as far as recall, which are LiFeYPo4, though I suspect are now hard to come by.

Very probably, because all EVs now use custom battery packs, which are mostly assembled from cylindrical cells -- a few use prismatic cells but these are custom too.

 

The Winston/Thundersky cells are still available new but aren't cheap, for example https://shop.gwl.eu/Winston-40Ah-200Ah/WB-LYP700AHA-LiFeYPO4-3-3V-700Ah.html

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

If you think we're ever going to see 100kW+ rapid charging stations on the canals, I've got a bridge you might want to buy... 😉

 

I sometimes do wonder about battery to battery charging rather than from the grid. You could have a container full of batteries which are slow charged by the grid then dump the power rapidly into smaller boat based battery systems.

 

It may seem unlikely but I'm sure diesel engines were viewed as non feasible by people with horses.

 

ETA the lower energy density is not all that important in a narrow boat. Did you notice a lot of people put quite a lot of bricks and other heavy items under the floor in a cold space?

 

Edited by magnetman
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

I sometimes do wonder about battery to battery charging rather than from the grid. You could have a container full of batteries which are slow charged by the grid then dump the power rapidly into smaller boat based battery systems.

 

It may seem unlikely but I'm sure diesel engines were viewed as non feasible by people with horses.

 

 

 

This has been proposed and in fact some ultrafast chargers do exactly this -- the problem is that it's expensive, needs a big investment, and is made up by selling the electricity at very high prices.

 

All of which is exactly why it won't work on the cash-strapped canal network, populated by penny-pinching boaters... 😉

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IanD said:

 

This has been proposed and in fact some ultrafast chargers do exactly this -- the problem is that it's expensive, needs a big investment, and is made up by selling the electricity at vert high prices.

 

All of which is exactly why it won't work on the cash-strapped canal network, populated by penny-pinching boaters... 😉

There is that !

 

Of course perhaps the best way for the canals to realistically survive is to make it a lot more expensive to use them. This is another topic but it does actually have some merit when you think about it. If electric propulsion was made obligatory and the charging stations were operated by the navigation authority, who also managed all the moorings, it could be quite a nice arrangement.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

My understanding is that an insurance policy is a contract of "upmost good faith" in which the policy holder is expected to tell the company about anything that might affect the risk, EVEN IF THE COMPANY DID NOT ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION.

 

This is my understanding too. An insurance policy is held to be different from an ordinary commercial contract by the courts and total transparency is expected by both parties. 

 

This means that if there is <anything> the policyholder is aware of that might affect the risk being born by the insurance company they MUST declare it. In particular I've heard it said that if there is something the policyholder feels they should perhaps ask the insurance company if they need to declare it, then that thought alone means it must be declared, to comply with the presumption of full transparency. 

 

LiFePO4 batteries strike me as a perfect example of this. 

Edited by MtB
Finesse the point.
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So you would rely on another bit of electronics to do it

The same applies to almost anything nowadays. The key is to have two independent -- and different! -- protection systems, so both are extremely unlikely to fail at the same time.

 

If you want to take this to extremes, IIRC the Airbus flight control computers are not only triply redundant but use different hardware and code bases for exactly this reason -- though of course they have a *lot* more money to spend, and the consequences of going wrong are *much* worse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

This is my understanding too. An insurance policy is held to be different from an ordinary commercial contract by the courts and total transparency is expected by both parties. 

 

This means that if there is <anything> the policyholder thinks might affect the risk being born by the insurance company they MUST declare it. In particular I've heard it said that if there is something the policyholder feels they should perhaps ask the insurance company if they need to declare it, then that thought alone means it must be declared, to comply with the presumption of full transparency. 

 

LiFePO4 batteries strike me as a perfect example of this. 

 

Do they ask for an eye test? 

 

It seems to me the risk of causing an accident would be far greater if the steerer was partially blind than if they had unusual batteries on the boat.

 

There is a recklessness clause so perhaps this comes under it. I assume this clause is to keep people wreckless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

This is my understanding too. An insurance policy is held to be different from an ordinary commercial contract by the courts and total transparency is expected by both parties. 

 

This means that if there is <anything> the policyholder thinks might affect the risk being born by the insurance company they MUST declare it. In particular I've heard it said that if there is something the policyholder feels they should perhaps ask the insurance company if they need to declare it, then that thought alone means it must be declared, to comply with the presumption of full transparency. 

 

LiFePO4 batteries strike me as a perfect example of this. 

 

Agree -- and the exclusion clauses to let them wriggle out of paying if you *don't* tell them (and they give approval) are already there in the contract, in black and white... 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So you would rely on another bit of electronics to do it

Very true. But the more levels of protection you have built in, perhaps the less likely of a problem and resulting insurance claim occurring. Lots of people seem to be taking a lithium battery, dropping it in parallel with a lead acid, sometimes separated by a long length of too small, poorly fused cable and then relying on a BMS to offer protection.

 

There were many posts on this in the early days where people on here were building systems with various fail safes and levels of protection.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

I think that is missing the point. If you think your eyesight is dodgy, the onus is on you to tell them unprompted. 

There's nothing in the policies about things like eyesight (or having to inform the insurer), but it does say:

 

"You or another Competent person will always be on board
and in charge of the Vessel at all times when underway"

 

Oh dear, I think that would exclude a lot of boaters with perfect eyesight... 😉

 

Does being in a lock count as "when underway"? An interesting issue for solo boaters if it does, and they cill the boat and it sinks while they're working the lock (and therefore not "on board")... 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is interesting. I've always wondered about the "out of control canal boat kills 14 stand up paddleboarders while owner, who had fallen off the back of his boat, is run down by a following day boat" type of scenario.

 

Even if Lithium batteries were implicated it definitely is interesting about the boat having nobody in charge.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There is that !

 

Of course perhaps the best way for the canals to realistically survive is to make it a lot more expensive to use them. This is another topic but it does actually have some merit when you think about it. If electric propulsion was made obligatory and the charging stations were operated by the navigation authority, who also managed all the moorings, it could be quite a nice arrangement.

 

 

I'm not sure that the liveaboards here on K&A would universally agree  . . but is agreement necessary or a good idea? No-one ever suggested that democracy is an efficient way of making decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I'm not sure that the liveaboards here on K&A would universally agree  . . but is agreement necessary or a good idea? No-one ever suggested that democracy is an efficient way of making decisions.

True, a dictatorship is a *much* more efficient way of making decisions... 😉

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, IanD said:

All fine so long as you're not a frog -- an amphibian, not French... 😉

 

Well thats the point isn't it? If you canvass opinions from people who will be affected by a development, you already know they will object so best not to ask them and stir up opposition. That's the attitude of the French anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Well thats the point isn't it? If you canvass opinions from people who will be affected by a development, you already know they will object so best not to ask them and stir up opposition. That's the attitude of the French anyway. 

 

If you want to see efficient decision-making, go to China.

 

I was there about the time of the Foxconn suicides scandal when workers were jumping from the roof of the massive Foxconn factory/compound in Shenzhen where 300,000 people work (and mostly live), and the short-term answer was to put nets up. A large part of the cause of worker unhappiness was that their families were a thousand miles away in the remote provinces so they never got to see them. Solution : build factories there and move the workers closer to home.

 

The first one -- for 60,000 workers IIRC -- was built, up and running within 6 months. I'm pretty sure little considerations like consultation with locals, planning permission, environmental impact assessments and so on played absolutely no part in the process -- the CCP said "this will happen" and it did.

 

Do you really think this would work -- or even be possible -- anywhere in the West with a democratic government and laws?

 

Like I said, it's all fine just so long as you're not one of the frogs whose pond/swamp is being drained... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

If you want to see efficient decision-making, go to China.

 

I was there about the time of the Foxconn suicides scandal when workers were jumping from the roof of the massive Foxconn factory/compound in Shenzhen where 300,000 people work (and mostly live), and the short-term answer was to put nets up. A large part of the cause of worker unhappiness was that their families were a thousand miles away in the remote provinces so they never got to see them. Solution : build factories there and move the workers closer to home.

 

The first one -- for 60,000 workers IIRC -- was built, up and running within 6 months. I'm pretty sure little considerations like consultation with locals, planning permission, environmental impact assessments and so on played absolutely no part in the process -- the CCP said "this will happen" and it did.

 

Do you really think this would work -- or even be possible -- anywhere in the West with a democratic government and laws?

 

Like I said, it's all fine just so long as you're not one of the frogs whose pond/swamp is being drained... 😉

No chance of them cutting carbon emissions then. We are all done for.😱😱😱

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.