LiFePO4 - an interesting recent video?

[gbclive]

This video has certainly broadened my knowledge concerning LFP / LiFePO4.
Over time this channel (An American firefighter) has made it into my personal “trustworthy” list.

However I’m only a spectator as I'm old school with flooded acid batteries, but I have been considering my options for several years now.

I do appreciate that lead acid batteries can also overheat and vent hydrogen.

However, this was a very big bang, apparently from a careful domestic installation of LiFePO4🫤.

 

 

 

[blackrose]

LiFePO4 batteries don't emit hydrogen during normal use as he seems to imply. In extreme, rare scenarios involving severe malfunction such as intense overcharging, physical puncture, or thermal runaway they can vent hazardous gases, including hydrogen and carbon dioxide. LiFePO4 is considered much safer than other lithium chemistries because they don't easily release oxygen, making catastrophic explosions less likely.

 

He keeps talking about how-well built the structure was while at the same time suggesting that LiFePO4 batteries commonly vent hydrogen in normal operation (they don't). But using his logic I can't help thinking that perhaps the structure should have been vented rather than sealed?

Edited May 5 by blackrose

[GUMPY]

Strangely that account made it onto my list of sensationalist not to be watched tubers  🫣

[MtB]

1 minute ago, GUMPY said:

Strangely that account made it onto my list of sensationalist not to be watched tubers  🫣

 

Same here. 

 

The last video of his I watched was rammed full of half-facts, deliberately stitched together to sensationalise and mislead.

 

This video seems a bit more measured but still makes a few unsubstantiated claims. 

 

 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

I've experienced Lead acid batteries emitting Hydrogen and Hydrogen Sulphide. 

[blackrose]

1 hour ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

I've experienced Lead acid batteries emitting Hydrogen and Hydrogen Sulphide. 

 

Did you keep it all in a sealed structure ready for a source of ignition?

[b00ke23]

Didn't we already establish he posts sensationalist carp in the Gayton Boat Fire thread?

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

I've experienced Lead acid batteries emitting Hydrogen and Hydrogen Sulphide. 

Ive seen one that exploded like a hand grenade 😱 

[blackrose]

30 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Ive seen one that exploded like a hand grenade 😱 

 

I had one that exploded in my engine bay. What a mess!

[wakey_wake]

It's good to hear the unfortunate news, rather than let suppliers hush it up.

I do wish it could be delivered with less of a... grudge against batteries?

 

2 hours ago, blackrose said:

LiFePO4 batteries don't emit hydrogen during normal use as he seems to imply. In extreme, rare scenarios involving severe malfunction such as intense overcharging, physical puncture, or thermal runaway they can vent hazardous gases, including hydrogen and carbon dioxide. LiFePO4 is considered much safer than other lithium chemistries because they don't easily release oxygen, making catastrophic explosions less likely.

Agreed there is a dirty laundry list of dangerous gases they can emit, but I believe you meant to write "including hydrogen and carbon monoxide". (🤓)

 

 

I also agree that LFP is considered safer, but evidence begins to mount that this should be more carefully qualified.

Too many of the puncture tests I've seen on video are performed outside, which is sensible for the giggles but not realistic for testing potential damage.

 

The claim that any battery is "safe" is marketing horsebunk, but they don't like to say "dangerous in ways that might be easier to mitigate than other chemistries".

[MtB]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Ive seen one that exploded like a hand grenade 😱 

 

Me too. 

 

Only the other day I was cranking over the K2 and there was a bang like a shotgun in the engine room (and just as loud) which scared me witless.  At the exact same instant the engine stopped cranking and I thought the starter motor had busted itself expensively. 

 

Further investigation revealed the whole end of one of the two starter batteries (24v in series) had blown itself off under the engine room floor and the remains of the battery was sitting in a pool of sulphuric acid. 

 

LFP batteries are far safer!

 

 

 

* Also Jill (Wrigglefingers here) had a LA battery explode in the engine room a few years ago. Acid everywhere according to Richard (RLWP) who cleared up the mess.

 

That makes four of us had it happen out of a sample of maybe 50 active posters here. A pretty poor safety record for LA batteries, far worse than LFP.

 

 

[alias]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

That makes four of us had it happen out of a sample of maybe 50 active posters here. A pretty poor safety record for LA batteries, far worse than LFP.

 

Not in a boat, but I've had it happen once when turning the ignition key on a diesel car that had been left standing for a day outside work.  A load bang, one end blown off the battery, and a large puddle under the car - fortunately the security team liked playing with their fire response vehicle and were happy to turn out and hose down the engine compartment.

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, alias said:

 

Not in a boat, but I've had it happen once when turning the ignition key on a diesel car that had been left standing for a day outside work.  A load bang, one end blown off the battery, and a large puddle under the car - fortunately the security team liked playing with their fire response vehicle and were happy to turn out and hose down the engine compartment.

 

Great, so that's five of us. A full ten percent!!!! 

 

 

These lead acid batteries need to be banned on safety grounds before they catch on.

 

 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, wakey_wake said:

It's good to hear the unfortunate news, rather than let suppliers hush it up.

I do wish it could be delivered with less of a... grudge against batteries?

 

Agreed there is a dirty laundry list of dangerous gases they can emit, but I believe you meant to write "including hydrogen and carbon monoxide". (🤓)

 

 

I also agree that LFP is considered safer, but evidence begins to mount that this should be more carefully qualified.

Too many of the puncture tests I've seen on video are performed outside, which is sensible for the giggles but not realistic for testing potential damage.

 

The claim that any battery is "safe" is marketing horsebunk, but they don't like to say "dangerous in ways that might be easier to mitigate than other chemistries".

Anything which stores a lot of energy cannot be completely "safe", pretty much by definition -- that includes big batteries as well as petrol (and to a lesser extent diesel) tanks... 😉 

 

AFAIK the ABC boat fire/vapour cloud explosion is the only recorded case of this happening with LFP batteries on boats, in spite of the fact that there have been thousands of these installed for many years -- mostly in lumpy water boats abroad (e.g. USA), not on UK canals/rivers.

 

In contrast there have been numerous super-hot fires in EVs with high-energy-density chemistries, and quite a few on boats, and there's about one fire per day in houses caused by them, with a significant number of fatalities. There have of course been far more fires/explosions caused by petrol, both in EVs and boats.

 

So the risk with LFP is not zero (but then neither are LA batteries!) but is certainly much lower than "lithium-ion" batteries (and petrol!) -- and the risk is different, it's not a super-hot fire but emission of potentially explosive and toxic gases.

 

Which is why the industry and standards bodies are moving towards emphasizing things like proper charging control and ventilation (and separation from living spaces) for LFP batteries, not "lithium fire extinguishers" which are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard... 😉 

 

This is probably going to cause a lot of hassle in future (Insurers? BSS?) for boaters who have installed LFP batteries inside their cabins, who will find it difficult or impossible to seal them off from inside the boat and provide ventilation to the outside... 😞 

Edited May 5 by IanD

[GUMPY]

My LA battery system sent me TXT messages warning me there was a duff cell so I avoided an explosion 😉

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solar was charging the batteries every day, system was set to TXT me when charge percentage dropped below 70%, which happened at 4am  3 nights on the trot with no appreciable load. On the 4th day I drove up to check out the "problem" and discovered the duff cell.

 

[wakey_wake]

15 hours ago, MtB said:

LFP batteries are far safer!

 

What I keep saying, is that "safety" needs qualifying because it is multi-dimensional. Anything else is hyperbole and likely to be misleading.

 

15 hours ago, MtB said:

* Also Jill (Wrigglefingers here) had a LA battery explode in the engine room a few years ago. Acid everywhere according to Richard (RLWP) who cleared up the mess.

 

That makes four of us had it happen out of a sample of maybe 50 active posters here. A pretty poor safety record for LA batteries, far worse than LFP.

 

Perhaps it is sensible to stash a kilo of bicarb on board. It'll keep indefinitely if sealed.

What else is useful? I've never had to do it.

 

Count me for nearly three. One: pieces of casing found in boat and evidence of splashing. Two: paralleled bank with no charge or load, I saw it after he cleaned up most of the acid. Three: it was on charge and gobbling far too much power, so I removed the duffer before it went pop. Another few hours should have done it.

 

 

14 hours ago, IanD said:

So the risk with LFP is not zero (but then neither are LA batteries!) but is certainly much lower than "lithium-ion" batteries (and petrol!) -- and the risk is different, it's not a super-hot fire but emission of potentially explosive and toxic gases.

 

I agree entirely with your post, and I think it's mostly preaching to the choir (if we're allowed to do that any more).

 

Quoting this because I believe that the multi-dimensionality of "safety" could use way more pedantry 👍

up to the point where the risk of a thumping for pedantry nearly exceeds the risk of more direct damage from batteries. 🤪

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, wakey_wake said:

 

What I keep saying, is that "safety" needs qualifying because it is multi-dimensional. Anything else is hyperbole and likely to be misleading.

 

Perhaps it is sensible to stash a kilo of bicarb on board. It'll keep indefinitely if sealed.

What else is useful? I've never had to do it.

 

Count me for nearly three. One: pieces of casing found in boat and evidence of splashing. Two: paralleled bank with no charge or load, I saw it after he cleaned up most of the acid. Three: it was on charge and gobbling far too much power, so I removed the duffer before it went pop. Another few hours should have done it.

 

I agree entirely with your post, and I think it's mostly preaching to the choir (if we're allowed to do that any more).

 

Quoting this because I believe that the multi-dimensionality of "safety" could use way more pedantry 👍

up to the point where the risk of a thumping for pedantry nearly exceeds the risk of more direct damage from batteries. 🤪

@MtB is right though, LFP batteries are far safer than "lithium-ion" (and petrol!).

 

How much safer they are than LA depends on how you measure safety/risk; it seems likely that the risk of LA going bang (gas explosion) and spraying (hot?) acid everywhere is much higher than the risk of LFP doing the same, but then the ABC boat fire/explosion shows that if LFP do this (much less common!) the consequences can be more severe, a destroyed boat or potentially deaths rather than destroyed batteries and potential injuries.

 

What is becoming obvious is that though many people understood why "lithium-ion" batteries can be dangerous, very few realised that LFP are not as super-safe as many people thought before the ABC fire -- even though this was probably caused by a badly designed/configured system and should never happen in a properly-designed one, it did show what *can* happen if things go badly wrong.

 

And since it's not always easy to distinguish between badly-designed/built/configured systems and good ones -- and remember, the ABC boat had a professional installation! -- it's likely that insurers (and BSS?) will have to assume that such an incident *could* happen again on any LFP installation, and put requirements in place to try and prevent this or at least reduce the danger, not just of fire/explosion but also breathing in the emitted toxic gases, which can be far higher in volume than from overcharging LA batteries... 😞 

 

Which is likely to mean separation of LFP batteries from people (e.g. not in living space), and making sure any gases emitted don't end up inside the boat but get vented to the outside (e.g. ventilation -- which is also needed for non-sealed LA batteries) -- also possibly gas detection/warning systems if deemed necessary (e.g. triggering fans?), and audible alarms to warn if something has gone wrong. That's the way the ISO regulations are going, which in turn drive boat standards like ABYC and BSS, which in turn drive insurance companies.

 

If this becomes retrospective -- either through BSS or insurance requirements -- then it's going to cause big problems for all those boaters who have put their nice safe LFP batteries (e.g. drop-in, or rackmounted, or at the bottom of a cupboard, or under the bed, or under the floor...) inside the boat, and can't easily seal them off from people and vent them to the outside... 😞 

Edited May 6 by IanD

[Rob-M]

Even batteries in an engine room on a trad are going to be linked via a door to a cabin space, often that door will have some ventilation holes in it to meet the current BSS ventilation requirements.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Even batteries in an engine room on a trad are going to be linked via a door to a cabin space, often that door will have some ventilation holes in it to meet the current BSS ventilation requirements.

I know -- it's all going to be interesting, isn't it? I think quite a few boaters are going to wish that the ABC incident had never happened... 😉 

 

(though TBH it only confirmed what some people were starting to suspect might happen sooner or later if things went badly wrong with an LFP installation...)

[David Mack]

21 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Even batteries in an engine room on a trad are going to be linked via a door to a cabin space,

Not all trad boats. Belfast has an engine room with two pairs of side doors and no access through the front and back bulkheads. But there are a few holes where cables and pipes have passed through or fittings/equipment has been bolted in place. As well as a larger hole for the propshaft.  I wonder how much connection of the spaces will be acceptable.

[IanD]

16 hours ago, David Mack said:

Not all trad boats. Belfast has an engine room with two pairs of side doors and no access through the front and back bulkheads. But there are a few holes where cables and pipes have passed through or fittings/equipment has been bolted in place. As well as a larger hole for the propshaft.  I wonder how much connection of the spaces will be acceptable.

I expect that will depend on what LFP ventilation precautions are taken -- for example a gas detector triggering extractor fans (which would need to be spark-proof, so no brushes) so none of the gas goes into the living space. Then what happens if the side doors are open, does this count as enough ventilation? (I expect it would...) What if any internal doors to the living space are open?

 

In these cases the only safe solution is probably to put the batteries in a gas-tight box (in the engine room) with ventilation (natural and forced?) to outside the boat. Which would be a major PITA, same as for boaters who have put LFP in the living space... 😞 

 

The key points are keeping the (toxic) gases separate from people, and stopping them building up to a potentially explosive mixture with air. Like I said, this is probably going to create major hassle for quite a lot of boaters... 😞 

 

And yes I know that this is very unlikely to happen on most boats with properly-installed LFP batteries including mine and @nicknorman and most of those with good-quality drop-in batteries -- but the point is that it *not* happening depends on the quality of components and installation and setup, and the ABC incident showed that this can go wrong even with a professional install, and there's a general safety principle that installations should be safe against single mistakes/failures even if these are unlikely -- especially as LFP gets installed in more and more in boats.

 

Since LFP *can* go wrong (even though this is unlikely), extra measures to stay safe if this happens are almost certainly going to be required by insurers (now or very soon) and BSS (possibly after a long and drawn-out decision process)... 😞 

[MtB]

19 minutes ago, IanD said:

and BSS (hopefully after a long and drawn-out decision process)... 😞 

 

FTFY 

 

 

[wakey_wake]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

I expect that will depend on what LFP ventilation precautions are taken -- for example a gas detector triggering extractor fans (which would need to be spark-proof, so no brushes) [... In these cases ] the only safe solution is probably to put the batteries in a gas-tight box

One problem with forced ventilation - what is the power source?

The starter? An auxiliary battery? Some fancy unit which takes whatever power remains available, prioritising to spare the starter?

 

The battery most strongly suspected of gassing should be isolated, automatically if possible.

 

I haven't reminded myself of the pie chart of gases, but I think the major explosion risk is hydrogen.

Hydrogen should self-ventilate quite effectively given only a gas resistant layer (mylar sheet?) and its own mushroom vent.

The CO isn't going to self-ventilate, and is also a fuel gas capable of exploding, but it might be best handled with an evacuation alarm.

I think there are not significant quantities of the heavier hydrocarbon gasses coming off?

 

HF is scary stuff. I recall the percentage is low, but it may damage things including ventilation equipment (as well as people).

[IanD]

2 hours ago, wakey_wake said:

One problem with forced ventilation - what is the power source?

The starter? An auxiliary battery? Some fancy unit which takes whatever power remains available, prioritising to spare the starter?

 

The battery most strongly suspected of gassing should be isolated, automatically if possible.

 

I haven't reminded myself of the pie chart of gases, but I think the major explosion risk is hydrogen.

Hydrogen should self-ventilate quite effectively given only a gas resistant layer (mylar sheet?) and its own mushroom vent.

The CO isn't going to self-ventilate, and is also a fuel gas capable of exploding, but it might be best handled with an evacuation alarm.

I think there are not significant quantities of the heavier hydrocarbon gasses coming off?

 

HF is scary stuff. I recall the percentage is low, but it may damage things including ventilation equipment (as well as people).

All this has already been thought about by the people writing the most stringent marine standards (aimed at commercial vessels/ships, not private narrowboats) who do this for a living as experts -- if you really want to dig into the rules, they include separate power supplies for fans as well as alarms and control circuits so they don't all stop working if there's an emergency battery disconnect... 😉 

 

7 hours ago, MtB said:

 

FTFY 

 

 

 

If the rules end up applying to all LFP installs including existing ones (will there be grandfathering*** or not?), it would be a lot better is this *wasn't* delayed -- because delay would means more and more boats being built which won't pass (or be insurable) and which will need expensive/difficult refitting... 😉 

 

*** Even if the BSS allows grandfathering the insurance companies may well not do if it's too difficult/too much effort for them to check... 😞 

Edited May 7 by IanD