Issues with lithiums in very cold weather?

[Tony1]

2 minutes ago, booke23 said:

I have a Victron Lithium Iron Phosphate battery in my engine bay, and the BMS won't allow charging below 5c. You can change this setting in the app but it warns of permanent damage and void warranties if you do this. 

 

Some winters it can be a pain...but I'm a leisure boater. Sometimes I'm only at the boat once every fortnight. On one cold snap last winter the BMS wouldn't allow solar charging for at least 10 days as the battery never got above 5c. However starting the engine does bring the temp up in the engine bay after about an hour of running.

 

Obviously if you were living on the boat I imagine it wouldn't get so cold soaked. 

 

It does look as if the official regs will say dont charge below 5 degrees (regardless of current knowledge), but the great thing is that most of these systems are configurable, so you can set it at 5 degrees to meet the regs during the BSS inspection, and then (if you are prepared to risk your Victron warranty) you can change it so that it will charge down to a more realistic limit of zero (although maybe dont charge so hard). 

 

My plan is to get through BSS as it is now, and hope that the regs become more sensible over the next few years, as the BSS folks gain more experience of how safe LIFeP04 batteries really are. 

 

I think you're right that even the engine bay wouldn't get so cold if the boat is being lived on 24/7, but I can tell you that the temps in the engine bay do fall below zero on some days, so I think the batteries will occasionally need a little bit of help. Nick might have come up with a cheap solution though. 

 

 

[magnetman]

35 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

 

A small tube/pipe using a low power computer fan would probably push enough air to keep the batteries well above zero. 

I think you've hit on a great idea there. 

Be careful about engine bay bulkhead. I don't know if there is one in your boat and how high it is but if there was and it was steel I would not be cutting a hole in it. 

 

That isn't intended to detract from the Good Idea of using cabin air to keep batteries happy its just it would want doing carefully. 

 

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Tony1 said:

I hope you'll keep us posted on how the Fogstars perform in colder weather. I'm particularly curious about how much energy they are going to use in keeping themselves above zero on those very cold nights. If you can fill in a chart of temp vs SoC every 30 minutes throughout the night that would be very helpful.

 

That reminds me of when I worked for a living 

39 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

My plan is to get through BSS as it is now, and hope that the regs become more sensible over the next few years, as the BSS folks gain more experience of how safe LIFeP04 batteries really are. 

 

 

 

Remember, it only took them 20 years to realise that you didn't need a flame arrestor gauze on a diesel tank breather.

[booke23]

30 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

It does look as if the official regs will say dont charge below 5 degrees (regardless of current knowledge), but the great thing is that most of these systems are configurable, so you can set it at 5 degrees to meet the regs during the BSS inspection, and then (if you are prepared to risk your Victron warranty) you can change it so that it will charge down to a more realistic limit of zero (although maybe dont charge so hard). 

 

My plan is to get through BSS as it is now, and hope that the regs become more sensible over the next few years, as the BSS folks gain more experience of how safe LIFeP04 batteries really are. 

 

I think you're right that even the engine bay wouldn't get so cold if the boat is being lived on 24/7, but I can tell you that the temps in the engine bay do fall below zero on some days, so I think the batteries will occasionally need a little bit of help. Nick might have come up with a cheap solution though. 

 

 

 

I should have mentioned, my boat is a cruiser stern so the engine bay does get very cold compared to a trad.

 

I'm sure some sort of insulated box would help, although it would need some experimentation....for instance if I boxed it in completely then my trick of starting the engine to warm the engine bay wouldn't work so well, so I'd probably need to incorporate a heat pad. 

 

[Tony1]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Be careful about engine bay bulkhead. I don't know if there is one in your boat and how high it is but if there was and it was steel I would not be cutting a hole in it. 

 

That isn't intended to detract from the Good Idea of using cabin air to keep batteries happy its just it would want doing carefully. 

 

 

You're quite right to counsel caution re cutting holes in bulkheads, and thanks for the reminder. 

There is a hole for the wiring to pass through the rear bulkhead, and I think its maybe 18 inches above the engine bay floor, so its a safe height, in terms of water passing through from the engine bay into the cabin. 

But its a right pain to access the current hole- it's tucked away in a corner where all the spiders hang out and where I almost have a hernia trying to get in there with a spanner.

But the current wiring/piping hole is now full up anyway, thanks to the extra cables for the lithiums.

So my thinking is to drill out a new hole in the bulkhead, a bit higher up, and a bit further away from the hull side.

So it'll be easier to reach, and to work cables through it- and it'll be even higher and safer than the current hole.  

I'll post a photo of the proposed site here before I go ahead and drill it though, just in case I've missed any issues. 

 

 

[MtB]

3 hours ago, rusty69 said:

Mine passed the BSS this time round (last year). I doubt they will be safe next time though. 

 

Ah but next time you'll be able to play the "But you passed it last time" card, and also the "But I've have them for years with no problem at all" card, too....

 

 

[Col_T]

That line wouldn’t pass muster with a gas engineer servicing a boiler against changed regulations, now would it?

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, Col_T said:

That line wouldn’t pass muster with a gas engineer servicing a boiler against changed regulations, now would it?

 

Actually yes it would.

 

The regulations in force on the date of installation are what count. 

[DaveP]

I've got a pair of 100ah lithiums (bms is basic with no low-temp cutoff) in a trad stern engine bay.  Had them for three winters so far.  This last one, they did fail to charge on two mornings after prolonged multi-day sub-zero temps.  Ran the engine without the charger engaged for a couple of hours and it all came back and no permanent damage appears to have occurred.  I'm going to be in London for the coming winter, so am postponing putting in a thermostat and heating pad into their enclsure until I return to the artic waters of Warwickshire in '24....

[Col_T]

@MtB Ah - that’s furthered my education!

 

Many thanks

[nicknorman]

27 minutes ago, DaveP said:

I've got a pair of 100ah lithiums (bms is basic with no low-temp cutoff) in a trad stern engine bay.  Had them for three winters so far.  This last one, they did fail to charge on two mornings after prolonged multi-day sub-zero temps.  Ran the engine without the charger engaged for a couple of hours and it all came back and no permanent damage appears to have occurred.  I'm going to be in London for the coming winter, so am postponing putting in a thermostat and heating pad into their enclsure until I return to the artic waters of Warwickshire in '24....

If they “failed to charge” then the BMS must have a low temp cutoff. The bare cells will charge at sub-zero temperature, it’s just that at low temperatures the chemical reaction isn’t fast enough to absorb a fast-ish charge and the “overload” charge goes to plating lithium metal on the electrode. Which is irreversible and blocks up the electrode. And can cause dendrite formation which can puncture the membrane barrier and cause a short circuit.

Edited July 23, 2023 by nicknorman

[TheBiscuits]

5 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

it was only after a prolonged cold spell that the battery got cold enough for the BMS to stop it accepting charge.

 

See, that's Tony's problem.  He doesn't have a proper BMS and doesn't want to fork out the fifty quid to get one.  He'd rather spend another hundred on another battery monitor instead, while still worrying about his battery health.

 

Dunno why, it seems daft to me.

[DaveP]

10 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

If they “failed to charge” then the BMS must have a low temp cutoff. The bare cells will charge at sub-zero temperature, it’s just that at low temperatures the chemical reaction isn’t fast enough to absorb a fast-ish charge and the “overload” charge goes to plating lithium metal on the electrode. Which is irreversible and blocks up the electrode. And can cause dendrite formation which can puncture the membrane barrier and cause a short circuit.

I misspoke - thevoltage shot up immediately to 14.5v and the bms went to float after only about 1-2Wh of input....

[rusty69]

10 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Ah but next time you'll be able to play the "But you passed it last time" card, and also the "But I've have them for years with no problem at all" card, too....

 

 

Yeah. I tried that with the weed hatch. The boat hadn't sunk for 40 years previously, but all of a sudden I was required to raise the height of the weed hatch to secure fully comp insurance. 

 

Like an idiot, I  complied, instead of just buying third party cover. 

 

Still, it hasn't sunk since the modification, so maybe they were right. Shame it's too high to actually use anymore though. 

Edited July 24, 2023 by rusty69

[Tony1]

9 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

See, that's Tony's problem.  He doesn't have a proper BMS and doesn't want to fork out the fifty quid to get one.  He'd rather spend another hundred on another battery monitor instead, while still worrying about his battery health.

 

Dunno why, it seems daft to me.

 

Believe me if I could easily install a BMS for £100 on each of my three batteries,  I'd be more than happy to do it, but its not a straightforward job for an amateur.

 

 

Also, I would worry about what a BSS inspector would make of an ex-EV battery whose casing extruded BMS wires that were not shown in the manufacturer's data sheet. It seems daft to set up a likely BSS failure for the future (after the incoming regs are in place), by making a major alteration to the battery's internals. 

 

I dont particularly like the idea of using a BMV unit to control a temperature disconnect, but in this case I can use the BMV units and the charging disconnect switch that I already have- I just need to add a couple of temp sensors (one high and one low), so it will be a lot simpler than a separate BMS install inside the batteries. 

For most batteries your solution would be the preferred one, I can see that.

But the Valences are a bit of a special case- they are a very well-made battery it must be said, and they have excellent performance, but that lack of an internal BMS will over time come back to bite some of the owners, unless they can do something to meet the incoming future regs. 

 

But would a DIY BMS installation meet those incoming regs? That's the question...

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Tony1

[nicknorman]

Do we actually know what might become BSS requirements for Li, or is it entirely speculation at this stage?

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Do we actually know what might become BSS requirements for Li, or is it entirely speculation at this stage?

 

I think its all speculation but if not, peterboat must be creaming it. 

 

 

[Tony1]

 

 

47 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Do we actually know what might become BSS requirements for Li, or is it entirely speculation at this stage?

 

It's fair to say that its still speculation in terms of BSS, but new requirements seem to be ratified for RCD, so the thinking is BSS and insurers will follow a similar route (eventually). 

 

I think this info by Ian and DaveP from the solar dump thread probably sums up the current situation (the US regs are E-13 and the UK version is ISO/TS 23625:2021 , adopted only for BSS.)

 

https://panbo.com/abyc-ratifies-e-13-their-first-lithium-battery-standard/

 

E-13’s recommendations take effect for systems manufactured or installed after July 31, 2023. So, manufacturers, installers, and boat owners have a year to prepare for the requirements. Also, the standard’s scope lists that it applies to systems of 600-watt hours or greater. For a 12-volt system, that means systems with a capacity of 50 amp-hours or more.

 

Much of E-13 requires the batteries be installed, operated, and maintained according to manufacturers’ recommendations. In the case of the higher quality batteries that include thorough documentation and specifications, that seems like a fine recommendation. But, there are lots of lithium batteries available on Ali-Express, Amazon, eBay, and other sites that come with varying amounts of information. Additionally, the information they do include can be of dubious quality.

 

Edit 9/9/2022 – I’ve been in touch with a representative of the ABYC who clarified that E-13 is more restrictive than E-10’s 1 inch of movement requirement. His point being no visible movement is a higher standard than one inch of movement. For whatever reason, in my first reading, that wasn’t how I interpreted it. With his clarification, I now see how that’s a stricter requirement. But, it also seems more subjective than a specific measurement.

 

 dave

August 12, 2022 at 12:19 pm

by the way ISO/TS 23625:2021 is also ratified and will be approved standard for RCD boats . in Europe the RCD has the force of law unlike ABYC

ISO/TS 23625:2021 is very similar to ABYC TE-13 except in places it offers more stringent specifications then TE-13, but both look like they used the same root documents !!

 

This is the UK doc:

 

https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/76438/9f817478349b4f4f8770642cb1748902/ISO-TS-23625-2021.pdf

 

 

What seems odd is that Rusty's insurers recently sent him a list of requirements for lithium batteries, that they called an information sheet. 

I even spoke to an engineer about a week ago about my lithiums, and he knew one BSS inspector who (he said) would fail my setup because the batteries were indoors, and not in a steel box with some fire-resistant insulation. 

It seems to be coming increasingly onto various people's radar, and that's what prompted me to move my lithiums into the engine bay before I go through my BSS. I know there isn't a current requirement to do that, but its just to avoid getting into difficult discussions.   

 

By the way, if anyone knows of a failry relaxed BSS inspector in the Northwest, do please PM me with details. 

I dont want a zealot who doesnt know the difference between LiFeP04 and the other types. 

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Tony1

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

It's fair to say that its still speculation in terms of BSS, but new requirements seem to be ratified for RCD, so the thinking is BSS and insurers will follow a similar route (eventually). 

 

 

As per discussions on this subject which we have had over the last few years>

 

It would be rather embarrasing if a new boat buit to comply with the RCR was failed by the BSS for non compliance to its requirements.

 

Everything* in the BSS (which is required by the RCR) is in compliance with RCR requirments.

 

* Everything I have compared.

[ditchcrawler]

12 hours ago, rusty69 said:

Yeah. I tried that with the weed hatch. The boat hadn't sunk for 40 years previously, but all of a sudden I was required to raise the height of the weed hatch to secure fully comp insurance. 

 

Like an idiot, I  complied, instead of just buying third party cover. 

 

Still, it hasn't sunk since the modification, so maybe they were right. Shame it's too high to actually use anymore though. 

That wasn't to comply with a regulation it was a surveyors view it was too low

[Tony1]

7 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I think its all speculation but if not, peterboat must be creaming it. 

 

 

 

I must admit, when I heard about the likely future regs for lithiums, and then Rusty's insurance letter- and even some dark mutterings from the boat engineer I spoke to- I did briefly consider ditching the valences altogether, and just buying myself a 460Ah fogstar with a full-featured internal BMS, like our illustrious Mr n-baj has done. 

That battery is probably capable of being 95% compliant with any future regs, as it comes out of the box.

But when I calmed down a bit, it seemed to me that most of the potential new/future requirements can be met- even for my valences- using the kit I already have, with BMVs and sensors etc. 

 

I think maybe the critical issue will be whether the BSS regs insist on BMS control at cell level, battery level, or just for the whole bank of batteries. 

At the moment my plans will make me 90% compliant with the possible future regs, but only as long as I manage all three batteries as an overall entity. 

I.e. a single voltage measurement, or temp measurement, that will be taken and acted upon for all three batteries. 

 

After my next BSS I have four years for them to come to their senses. But if they don't, and if a future inspector says there must be BMS management at battery level, then that means I have to have two BMV712s and two temp sensors for each battery, costing me about £700. 

 

But rather than have half a dozen BMV712 displays dotted around the place, plus all the shunts and the wiring, it might make more sense to just ditch the batteries, as there will be more powerful and cheaper models available by then. 

 

Or ditch the lithiums and go back to burning large amounts of diesel for lead acid battery charging in winter, because who cares about the climate when the BSS have got a bee their bonnets about lithium batteries?

 

I spoke to an electrician who installs lithiums but who shall remain nameless, and he said he had struggled to get his insurance company to cover his lithium install work. We have this incredible LiFeP04 technology that saves on fuel for electricity generation and really helps boaters, and they are acting like 15th century peasants that have a witch on trial. Its pathetic, is what it is.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Tony1

[rusty69]

Just chuck a blanket over them on BSS day and show him your lead acid. 

[Tony1]

Just now, rusty69 said:

Just chuck a blanket over them on BSS day and show him your lead acid. 

 

Tbh Rusty if my lithium install does fail, they will be temporarily disappeared and replaced with cheap and nasty lead acids in time for the follow up inspection.  

 

I think all the B2Bs and MPPTs can stay in place, and the 'domestic' bank of lead acids could be charged via B2Bs, in the same way as my lithiums are at the moment- at least that shouldn't be a failure. 

 

And then, as soon the BSS is issued, the lead acids will be found a new home with a deserving nearby boater. 

You just hope it doesnt come to that really, but I can see all sorts of shenanigans going on if/when the new regs come into force. 

 

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, Tony1 said:

 

Tbh Rusty if my lithium install does fail, they will be temporarily disappeared and replaced with cheap and nasty lead acids in time for the follow up inspection.  

 

I think all the B2Bs and MPPTs can stay in place, and the 'domestic' bank of lead acids could be charged via B2Bs, in the same way as my lithiums are at the moment- at least that shouldn't be a failure. 

 

And then, as soon the BSS is issued, the lead acids will be found a new home with a deserving nearby boater. 

You just hope it doesnt come to that really, but I can see all sorts of shenanigans going on if/when the new regs come into force. 

 

Sad to say, I suspect a lot of people will be doing the same, including me, if the hoops are too arduous to jump through. 

 

The technology is just too useful to ditch altogether. 

[Tony1]

20 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Sad to say, I suspect a lot of people will be doing the same, including me, if the hoops are too arduous to jump through. 

 

The technology is just too useful to ditch altogether. 

 

I'm guardedly optimistic re the BSS. One of the kind members here has given me a suggestion to use for the coming BSS, who has not been hostile to lithiums in the past. So fingers crossed etc.

 

But if that inspector has moved on, or has changed his attitude, then we'll have to see. 

There's no telling what they might object to, if the mood takes them and if they are too ignorant to realise that LifeP04s are far far safer than lithium ion etc. It might be some aspect of the BMS arrangements, the siting, the fire risk mitigation- or maybe the lack of proof that the batteries are being used for a task that the manufacturer originally said was OK. 

But since the BSS dont yet have any firm/specific rules in place for lithiums, and an over zealous inspector can be challenged, the odds are this time it'll all be fine.

 

But that said, I am starting to get an impression that the relevant stakeholders and authorities are bringing their focus onto lithiums.

For example, your letter is evidence that some insurance companies have got lithiums on their radar, so who knows where that will go in future. 

My guess is that letter is just the start, and in 5 years time all insurance companies will add a specific question about lithiums (or will ask to be informed if you install them). And then there is the risk that if you dont tell them, a future claim might be disputed. 

 

So removing your DIY lithium install for the BSS inspection will no longer be something you'll want to do. 

Let's just hope that as Ian says, they are smart enough to distinguish between LiFeP04 and the other more risky types, and that they dont introduce a raft of BSS regs that DIYers will struggle to comply with. 

 

But as you say, these batteries are too good to be sidelined. They are not going away.

  

Edited July 24, 2023 by Tony1