Lithium battery abuse

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Two separate questions.

No I don’t think they are safe to use on boats as a diy solution unless the DIYer is competent in that field, which is unlikely.

Yes I think there will be no problem with insurance provided the installation has passed a BSS check.

 

We are not arguing about the technical aspects of Li batteries, we are arguing about the old chestnut of using insurance fear as a means to justify almost any argument.

 

The tow bar thing is interesting, my car came out of the factory with a tow bar, so it’s presence isn’t a modification. But of course it was an option so lots of other seemingly identical cars don’t have a tow bar. I doubt that the insurance Co. Is aware of the exact specification of each car leaving the factory in terms of factory fitted options.

 

Our last car had a factory fitted towbar fitted but tbh I still declared it to the meerkats as that was one thing specifically listed as an example of a modification when I got/get my quotes. Im guessing because of the increased risk to third parties associated with towing a big white box on wheels.

 

Also modern towbars and electrics are expensive and I didnt want the chew of arguing the toss with them about a replacement.

 

However I guess in IanD's world it would be wrong to declare a factory fitted option as a modification so you will likely be OK 🤣🤣🤣

[IanD]

49 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Two separate questions.

No I don’t think they are safe to use on boats as a diy solution unless the DIYer is competent in that field, which is unlikely.

Yes I think there will be no problem with insurance provided the installation has passed a BSS check.

 

We are not arguing about the technical aspects of Li batteries, we are arguing about the old chestnut of using insurance fear as a means to justify almost any argument.

 

 

I'm not "using insurance fear to try and justify any argument", I'm simply pointing out what plenty of other people have reported when considering lithium installations on boats, and that they reported that they found insurance cover problematic with anything other than (or even sometimes with!) LFP, especially DIY installations without properly certified protection. If you think all the yachties are lying then that's your prerogative, obviously captains of (possibly foreign) yoghurt pots are not as trustworthy as those of narrowboats (or wideboats) made out of good old British steel 😉

 

The question about whether a BSS check will mean "no insurance problem" is an interesting one, because AFAIK the BSS check is simply whether it meets all the existing rules and the examiner believes it safe -- it's a necessary condition for  insurance (you have to have BSS) but not necessarily a sufficient one (a valid BSS does not mean insurance will cover the boat in the event of a claim), especially if you don't disclose relevant information.

 

Since the BSS rules predate the widespread availability of lithium batteries I don't think they have much to say about them, and certainly there is no consideration of LFP vs. NMC safety, this is just too much modern technology for them. I also doubt that many BSS examiners have a clue about this since it's so out of the ordinary for canal boats, so long as the batteries are securely mounted and protected from short-circuits they'll be happy.

 

Is my understanding correct, or have the regulations and BSS examiners caught up with the modern post-EV NMC/LFP world?

 

If you have any actual evidence to the contrary -- that the BSS rules and examiners are aware of the issue, or that insurers are happy to provide cover to NMC installations -- especially DIY -- I'd genuinely love to see it. No, I really would, because this would open up the opportunity for people to use these batteries on boats, and there are lots of them around at reasonable prices.

 

Until then my suspicion is still that people like Peter's mate who has (DIY-installed?) ex-BMW EV batteries (and even boatbuilders who might install them) are treading on a potential minefield if anything goes wrong.

Edited February 22, 2022 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

The question about whether a BSS check will mean "no insurance problem" is an interesting one, because AFAIK the BSS check is simply whether it meets all the existing rules and the examiner believes it safe -- it's a necessary condition for  insurance (you have to have BSS) but not necessarily a sufficient one (a valid BSS does not mean insurance will cover the boat in the event of a claim), especially if you don't disclose relevant information.

 

Surely the BSS only means the boat meets the requirments of C&RT, EA et al, not that 'it is safe'.

 

If we consider that there are some 300,000 leisure boats in UK waters that do not have a BSS (and for which there is no requirement to have a BSS) and are insured against some 30,000 on the canals that do have a BSS.

One wonders the real 'value' of the BSS 

[IanD]

47 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Surely the BSS only means the boat meets the requirments of C&RT, EA et al, not that 'it is safe'.

 

If we consider that there are some 300,000 leisure boats in UK waters that do not have a BSS (and for which there is no requirement to have a BSS) and are insured against some 30,000 on the canals that do have a BSS.

One wonders the real 'value' of the BSS 

That's why I said "it meets all the existing rules and the examiner believes it safe" -- I think people are aware of BSS examiners making unreasonable demands which have been challenged, and also where they have missed things, but I doubt an examiner would pass a boat unless he thought it was safe -- or at least, not unsafe... 😉

 

To some extent it's a box-ticking exercise, but at least it tries to stop some of the worst safety problems -- however I don't think NMC ex-EV batteries are in the scope of the BSS rules, I'm sure there are things you could do on a boat which don't break the BSS rules but are definitely unsafe (this could be one of them) and vice versa.

 

I don't know how often the BSS rules are updated (and when the last update was) but this particular lithium battery issue has only really emerged in the last couple of years, and I very much doubt that they've caught up with it yet -- likewise the insurers of boats on the canals. Given their level of technical expertise they might well not do so until there's a fatal lithium battery fire on a boat, then they'll be all over it like a rash...

Edited February 22, 2022 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

don't know how often the BSS rules are updated (and when the last update was) but this particular lithium battery issue has only really emerged in the last couple of years, and I very much doubt that they've caught up with it yet -- likewise the insurers of boats on the canals. Given their level of technical expertise they might well not do so until there's a fatal lithium battery fire on a boat, then they'll be all over it like a rash...

 

2015 was the last major update

2017 issue 'titivated' around the edges

 

There is a new completly revised BSS due for issue April 2022.

 

It goes in much more deatil than ever before with dozens of additional 'appendix' on safety particcularly gas and shows photographs of typical installation in yachts (for some reason), On the subject of electric propulsion it simply says :

 

Electric propulsion systems Appendix 4 is currently intentionally blank. Supporting information on recognising electric and hybrid propulsion systems can be found in the BSS Core Electrical Knowledge Handbook

[IanD]

24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

2015 was the last major update

2017 issue 'titivated' around the edges

 

There is a new completly revised BSS due for issue April 2022.

 

It goes in much more deatil than ever before with dozens of additional 'appendix' on safety particcularly gas and shows photographs of typical installation in yachts (for some reason), On the subject of electric propulsion it simply says :

 

Electric propulsion systems Appendix 4 is currently intentionally blank. Supporting information on recognising electric and hybrid propulsion systems can be found in the BSS Core Electrical Knowledge Handbook

What about batteries in general (and lithium in particular), not specifically for electric propulsion? Many boaters are considering lithium (mostly LFP today) for domestic batteries but most are staying with diesel propulsion.

 

IIRC there are regulations in the BSS for things like ventilation for LA battery compartments to avoid gas buildup, but there are no similar safety regulations for lithium batteries which are potentially a lot more dangerous if overcharged (NMC -- LFP are probably safer than LA).

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

What about batteries in general (and lithium in particular), not specifically for electric propulsion? Many boaters are considering lithium (mostly LFP today) for domestic batteries but most are staying with diesel propulsion.

 

IIRC there are regulations in the BSS for things like ventilation for LA battery compartments to avoid gas buildup, but there are no similar safety regulations for lithium batteries which are potentially a lot more dangerous if overcharged (NMC -- LFP are probably safer than LA).

 

 

Absolutely no mention of battery type / construction in the 'Electrical  Section'.

 

There are simply 4 criteria covering both DC and AC electicity.

 

 

 

[Tacet]

3 hours ago, nicknorman said:

We are not arguing about the technical aspects of Li batteries, we are arguing about the old chestnut of using insurance fear as a means to justify almost any argument.

 

Quite apart from insurance , install the wrong batteries and Farmer Jones will return.

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Absolutely no mention of battery type / construction in the 'Electrical  Section'.

 

There are simply 4 criteria covering both DC and AC electicity.

 

 

 

So how is point 8 judged by the BSS examiner with a DIY lithium battery system, especially NMC? Presumably they can't be expected to understand the details (they're not auditing the design) so they just ask the owner "Is this designed to minimise the risks of explosion or fire?" and the owner says "Yes"? This would effectively be self-certification by somebody (the owner) who very likely doesn't understand the risks, or prefers to ignore them because "it won't happen to me".

 

Point 11 is dealing with LA gassing, but the result of this is likely to be a relatively harmless small squeaky pop compared to a burning NMC battery bank...

 

Which means -- as you suggested -- the BSS isn't worth the paper it's written on with respect to this risk.

 

Unless the owner is silly enough to 'fess up to the insurance company what they've done (and who would?) they'll then have what they think is a valid policy, assuming the insurance company doesn't directly ask (which they don't).

 

Now look at the situation if the worst happens (e.g. chronic overcharging) and there is a massive battery fire -- and once NMCs get going they're almost impossible to stop or keep the fire to one cell, the whole pack tends to go up. The fire investigators track the source down to the batteries, which turn out to be NMC, which are known to be risky if ignited (ask Boeing), and the insurance company will then have a justifiable claim that BSS point 8 was not followed so the BSS requirements were not met, and the insurance is deemed invalid.

 

I'm not "insurance panic-mongering" here, this seems like a very real risk, and one that will sooner or later lead to somebody losing their boat -- or worse, their life.

Edited February 22, 2022 by IanD

[nicknorman]

Jeez you always have to be RIGHT and wont let it go until you force your opinion on everyone else. If the BSS man gave it a certificate then any problem is down to the BSS examiner, not the boat owner. Clause 8 does not say batteries will never go on fire or must be of a type which are not prone to going on fire, it just says that the way they are installed must be so as to minimise the risks etc.

 

We had a chap like you at the gliding club, constantly finding imaginary safety problems where none existed. In the end he even called the fire brigade round because he felt there was a fire risk with the fuel store and the oxygen store. The firemen said everything was fine. Some time later, he was the first person in 50 years to be thrown out of the club.

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Jeez you always have to be RIGHT and wont let it go until you force your opinion on everyone else.

 

 

Oh, the irony..! 

 

[nicknorman]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Oh, the irony..! 

 

Well I know, but I think he is slightly worse than me!

Anyway, the important difference is that I AM always right.

Edited February 22, 2022 by nicknorman

[MtB]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

Well I know, but I think he is slightly worse than me!

 

 

Risky to say, but I think i agree!

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Jeez you always have to be RIGHT and wont let it go until you force your opinion on everyone else. If the BSS man gave it a certificate then any problem is down to the BSS examiner, not the boat owner. Clause 8 does not say batteries will never go on fire or must be of a type which are not prone to going on fire, it just says that the way they are installed must be so as to minimise the risks etc.

 

We had a chap like you at the gliding club, constantly finding imaginary safety problems where none existed. In the end he even called the fire brigade round because he felt there was a fire risk with the fuel store and the oxygen store. The firemen said everything was fine. Some time later, he was the first person in 50 years to be thrown out of the club.

 

I've said this before he reminds me of the ruddy faced loudmouth who everybody has to listen to and endure in the pub, untill that is people get sick and stop going.

 

The funniest bit is that he said he'd 'had his say' about six of his posts ago.

 

He keeps putting me on what he pathetically calls his 'naughty step' and crows about it and then a couple of weeks later it turns out he has 'granted me permission' to come off it as I notice he starts to respond to my posts again. 

 

I honestly cant take the bloke seriously any longer.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Anyway, the important difference is that I AM always right.

 

 

My dear old departed Dad used to say "Look, I am always right, even when I am wrong..."

[IanD]

3 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Well I know, but I think he is slightly worse than me!

Anyway, the important difference is that I AM always right.

I'm also quite willing to admit that I'm wrong. Except I think you'll find... 😉

 

P.S. It would also be nice if you actually addressed the issue instead of resorting to personal attacks -- I could have accused you of being many derogatory things but didn't, so maybe to keep the discussion civilised you could do the same? 🙂

Edited February 22, 2022 by IanD

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm also quite willing to admit that I'm wrong. Except I think you'll find... 😉

 

P.S. It would also be nice if you actually addressed the issue instead of resorting to personal attacks -- I could have accused you of being many derogatory things but didn't, so maybe to keep the discussion civilised you could do the same? 🙂

 

This the problem some people on here have with you.

 

You complain about personal attacks aimed at you, but indulge in the very same thing. Of course not everybody on here will see you doing this because they dont go to the politics section but you should know some of us go there too and see you doing it.