Lithium batteries

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

3. Nobody is suggesting such a rule, in fact we're actively trying to prevent it

 

 

If no-one is suggesting such a rule, why would anyone need to try to actively prevent it?

 

Just curious. 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

Just now, Russ T said:

A few hundred quid is a drop in the ocean to the savings they have already had and will continue to get, assuming the requirements are not too Draconian 

Agreed, but a lot of boaters are poor (or cheapskates) and will hate the idea of having to cough up hundreds of pounds because some unaccountable bureaucrat says they have to -- yeah, stick it to the man... 😉 

 

As I keep on saying, I think it's the insurers who will force change to happen, not BSS (too slow, not their job anyway) or RCR (only really new boats, nobody's going to resurvey 35000 boats to check for an MCA).

 

If boaters want to ignore all this or tell porkies to their insurers then that's their choice, they just won't be insured if anything bad happens to their boat -- not just LFP-related, all insurance cover is invalid if you lie to them.

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

Look, what's the point you're trying to make -- that there shouldn't be any restrictions on LFP use because "they're really safe"? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

 

 

I think Russ and I have an instinctive dislike for being tied up in regulations based on mile upon mile of "what if?" scenarios.

 

Yes fine if there is a history of actual bad consequences. But so far there isn't. So why the big push to regulate something that (so far) isn't proving to be a problem? 

 

 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

If no-one is suggesting such a rule, why would anyone need to try to actively prevent it?

 

Just curious. 

 

<sigh> I meant nobody involved in drafting the Guidance Note, I'd have though that was obvious.

 

Some insurers in the USA already refuse to cover DIY lithium installations, and insurance companies are mostly global nowadays. We don't want that to spread to the UK, do we?

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I think Russ and I have an instinctive dislike for being tied up in regulations based on mile upon mile of "what if?" scenarios.

 

Yes fine if there is a history of actual bad consequences. But so far there isn't. So why the big push to regulate something that (so far) isn't proving to be a problem? 

 

Bad consequence so far -- one boat destroyed, probable cost £100k or so.***

 

Nobody was killed but they could have been -- yes it didn't happen, does that make you happy?

 

Are you happy with the regulations about LPG installs on boats?

 

If so what's your beef with regulating LFP installs, since the risks are obviously similar?

 

Or do you think anyone with little or no knowledge ought to be able to do LPG installs?

 

*** Better hope the insurer doesn't do their maths and decides to charge a premium of £1000/yr for LFP... 😉 

Edited July 14 by IanD

[MtB]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Some insurers in the USA already refuse to cover DIY lithium installations, and insurance companies are mostly global nowadays. We don't want that to spread to the UK, do we?

 

Frankly, I don't see why not. Anyone needing insurance for legal reasons (e.g. to get a licence) can buy third party.

 

And anyone wanting fully comp is free to comply with their Ins Co requirements anyway, in order to get it. 

 

We don't need it written into the BSS for that. 

 

 

[Momac]

18 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The BSS apply requirements retrospectively.

This is a very good point.  

I imagine by now there are many lithium battery installations on boats .

If the BSS should wish to change their requirements they should perhaps have done so some time ago.

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Frankly, I don't see why not. Anyone needing insurance for legal reasons (e.g. to get a licence) can buy third party.

 

And anyone wanting fully comp is free to comply with their Ins Co requirements anyway, in order to get it. 

 

We don't need it written into the BSS for that. 

 

If you lie to get third party insurance then the insurer will pay out to the third party victims, but may then cancel your policy and sue you to recover the claim amount. I suppose if you don't have any money or don't mind being bankrupted -- or think they won't do it -- then that might be considered a win over the system... 😉 

 

If it's not written into the BSS, what alternative would you suggest?

 

(genuine question -- the BSS anyway may very well not consider this to be in their remit)

 

13 minutes ago, Momac said:

This is a very good point.  

I imagine by now there are many lithium battery installations on boats .

If the BSS should wish to change their requirements they should perhaps have done so some time ago.

Maybe they would have, if they'd had a crystal ball.

 

The problem with adopting any new technology before the regulations and rules have cottoned on to it is always that this might come back and bite you afterwards when new problems with it emerge.

 

Yes it's true that before the ABC dayboat incident almost everyone (including me, and the BSS...) thought that LFP batteries were pretty damn safe, certainly *far* safer than those other nasty lithium batteries that keep bursting into flames, and very likely safer than LA batteries with their nasty acid and explosive gas emissions.

 

Unfortunately that belief went up in flames with the ABC dayboat, which turned a theoretical safety risk that only a few dorks knew about (e.g. those writing ISO regulations) into a smoking pile of rubble... 😞 

 

So now there is a new risk, and it's not the "unstoppable battery fires" that plague other lithium chemistries (and LFP fans felt so superior about), its gassing from overcharging causing a vapour cloud fire/explosion.

 

Do you think the BSS should ignore this, or do something about it?

Edited July 14 by IanD

[Momac]

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Do you think the BSS should ignore this, or do something about it?

 

What would you suggest the BSS does ?

 

Given the day boat fault and fire your described and the root cause you stated was overcharging (if I understand correctly) would you suggest the BSS inspector is somehow required to check the safe operation of the battery charging systems ? That seems like a big ask and potentially adding considerably to the time required for a BSS test. Bear in mind testing battery charging systems (of any battery type)  is not presently part of the BSS test . 

Would you say the battery charging system testing be applied regardless of battery type? 

 

PS

 

Alternatively should a battery gassing alarm become a BSS requirement  ?

[blackrose]

If this gets too complicated it sounds like it might end up as a "BSS Inspection/Fire Extinguisher/Petrol Generator" scenario. You know those people who don't have the required number of fire extinguishers on board and borrow some from a neighbour for the date of their inspection. Or those with petrol generators on board but nowhere to safely store them, who hide the generator somewhere before the inspector arrives.

 

In this case it'll be removing the LFPs and installing a couple of cheap LA batteries for the day of the test... 

 

Get your BSS cert, insurance, license, and if you know your LFP installation is safe then you'll never have to worry about an insurance claim for a LFP fire anyway. 

 

I'm generally happy to comply with the regs, but if they become to onerous and are applied retrospectively there are always other options...

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Momac said:

 

What would you suggest the BSS does ?

 

Given the day boat fault and fire your described and the root cause you stated was overcharging (if I understand correctly) would you suggest the BSS inspector is somehow required to check the safe operation of the battery charging systems ? That seems like a big ask and potentially adding considerably to the time required for a BSS test. Bear in mind testing battery charging systems (of any battery type)  is not presently part of the BSS test . 

Would you say the battery charging system testing be applied regardless of battery type? 

 

You could always answer my question before asking your own... 😉

 

I'm not suggesting the BSS does anything right now, because BSS inspectors are not qualified (see below) to pass an LFP system as "safe". But I don't think they can ignore the issue forever either. What's needed is a separate qualification which BSS inspectors could take on (like being Corgi registered, or a qualified marine surveyor) outside their BSS role, or somebody else could take on (which would mean paying twice).

 

To do LFP safety surveys for insurance companies they would have to be a ‘competent person’ in the field and, as has been said repeatedly, there is no current process to define one. That's what's missing from the whole picture right now, and possible ways to fix this are being discussed... 😉 

11 minutes ago, blackrose said:

If this gets too complicated it sounds like it might end up as a "BSS Inspection/Fire Extinguisher/Petrol Generator" scenario. You know those people who don't have the required number of fire extinguishers on board and borrow some from a neighbour for the date of their inspection. Or those with petrol generators on board but nowhere to safely store them, who hide the generator somewhere before the inspector arrives.

 

In this case it'll be removing the LFPs and installing a couple of cheap LA batteries for the day of the test... 

 

Get your BSS cert, insurance, license, and if you know your LFP installation is safe then you'll never have to worry about an insurance claim for a LFP fire anyway. 

 

I'm generally happy to comply with the regs, but if they become to onerous and are applied retrospectively there are always other options...

 

Though you will have to worry if there's a fire (or any other claim e.g. sinking) for some other reason and the insurance company surveyor/loss adjuster turns up before you can get rid of the incriminating LFP evidence... 😉 

 

P.S. You might want to consider not suggesting insurance fraud quite so openly on a public forum... 😞 

Edited July 14 by IanD

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, Momac said:

Alternatively should a battery gassing alarm become a BSS requirement  ?

 

This question still misses the point. 

 

You can install a battery gassing alarm if your insurance company specifies it.

 

It doesn't need to be in the BSS thus forcing all installations to have it including those who prefer to self-insure. 

 

And by self-insuring there is still an incentive to install one's LFPs safely, obviously. I'm just opposed to hard-coding how one has to do it in order to address a problem that doesn't exist. (So far.) 

 

 

 

 

[Anonathy]

17 minutes ago, blackrose said:

In this case it'll be removing the LFPs and installing a couple of cheap LA batteries for the day of the test... 

 

That's what I would doing too if forced to do so to stay legal, and many others I'm sure. You could argue that making everyone dismantle and reassemble their battery and charging systems every few years is a good opportunity to check it over and make sure connections are tight but that's not really the point of it is it. The competent person clause has always been fine, it doesn't need changing. If you do it right you are competent. If you don't you are incompetent and responsible for any resulting mayhem. Being a professional has nothing to do with it. Many professionals are incompetent. Many non-professional are competent. It doesn't need changing.

[Russ T]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Look, what's the point you're trying to make -- that there shouldn't be any restrictions on LFP use because "they're really safe"? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

 

If it's the first one (and you have a dodgy LFP installation) -- good luck with getting insurance in future, you'll need it.

I don't have a point. This argument has been thrashed out on any thread with the word lithium in it. 

 

The point I made in my first post on this thread is relevant though. The OP is best asking their question elsewhere 🤓

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, Anonathy said:

 

That's what I would doing too if forced to do so to stay legal, and many others I'm sure. You could argue that making everyone dismantle and reassemble their battery and charging systems every few years is a good opportunity to check it over and make sure connections are tight but that's not really the point of it is it. The competent person clause has always been fine, it doesn't need changing. If you do it right you are competent. If you don't you are incompetent and responsible for any resulting mayhem. Being a professional has nothing to do with it. Many professionals are incompetent. Many non-professional are competent. It doesn't need changing.

Your last statements don't line up with reality... 😉 

 

By definition professionals have been educated in their subject and passed some kind of test to become "qualified" -- and will have liability insurance, which is why insurers like you using them. This doesn't mean there aren't a few incompetent bad apples in the barrel, but the whole point is to try and reduce the number as far as possible -- though it'll never be zero (see Oakums, ABC?).

 

Amateurs include a small minority of skilled people like @nicknorman who can undoubtedly produce something as good as you'd expect from a professional, and a majority ranging from not-quite-as-good-as-Nick through adequate-but-not-expert all the way to I-got-everything-I-know-off-Youtube-so-I'm-an expert (the Dunning-Kreuger effect).

 

Any time spent talking to people in this subject or reading what they post online makes it obvious that most amateurs fall into the "not-Nick" categories -- the last one being the most dangerous, because they think they know a lot more than they actually do.

 

So yes, a "competent person" can be professional or amateur -- it's just that the odds of this label being correct are far higher in the first case than the second one... 😞 

Edited July 14 by IanD

[Russ T]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Your last statements don't line up with reality... 😉 

 

By definition professionals have been educated in their subject and passed some kind of test the become "qualified". This doesn't mean there aren't a few incompetent bad apples in the barrel, but the whole point is to try and reduce the number as far as possible -- though it'll never be zero (see Oakums, ABC?).

 

Amateurs include a minority of skilled people like @nicknorman who can undoubtedly produce something as good as you'd expect from a professional, and a majority ranging from not-quite-as-good-as-Nick through adequate-but-not-expert all the way to I-got-everything-I-know-off-Youtube-so-I'm-an expert (the Dunning-Kreuger effect).

 

Any time spent talking to people in this subject or reading what they post online makes it obvious that most amateurs fall into the "not-Nick" categories -- the last one being the most dangerous, because they think they know a lot more than they actually do.

 

So yes, a "competent person" can be professional or amateur -- it's just that the odds of this label being correct are far higher in the first case than the second one... 😞 

And yet all these poor shoddy installs have yet to show themselves in the real world....so far.

 

Intriguing 🤔

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Russ T said:

And yet all these poor shoddy installs have yet to show themselves in the real world....so far.

 

Intriguing 🤔

Don't tell me, tell the insurers -- good luck with that.

 

Of course at least one of them has already shown itself in the real world, which is why we're having this discussion... 😉 

 

I'm getting tired of trying to have a sensible discussion with people who are either being deliberately ignorant or deliberately provocative, or twisting everything I say to give it a different meaning... 😞 

Edited July 14 by IanD

[Russ T]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Don't tell me, tell the insurers -- good luck with that.

 

Of course at least one of them has already shown itself in the real world, which is why we're having this discussion... 😉 

Which one? The professional.ABC one,or the "professional" American one you linked to with the array oversized for the controller?🧐

Edited July 14 by Russ T
Over not under

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Russ T said:

Which one? The professional.ABC one,or the "professional" American one you linked to with the array undersized for the controller?🧐

I'm now bored with pointless arguments with you, go sit on the naughty troll step.

 

Anyone else want to have a sensible discussion on the subject? 🙂 

 

As soon as the IWA/CA Guidance Note is released, I'll post it here so everyone can have their say -- hopefully constructive and helpful, so if appropriate it can be taken into account for the next revision. Meanwhile, I think I've said everything I usefully can for the moment... 🙂 

Edited July 14 by IanD
Last paragraph added

[Russ T]

I do feel a little sorry for Ian. Whenever the word lithium is mentioned,he charges out on his white steed,armour glowing in the sun. His lance sharpened to see off all comers because he is fighting on behalf of us poor boaters. But we all inevitably give him a hard time.

 

Perhaps we should all do what he did and pay someone to install LFP for us. Of course,not all boaters have such deep pockets.

 

I'm glad he can't see this comment,as I am sure his efforts will reward us boaters in the long term.

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I think Russ and I have an instinctive dislike for being tied up in regulations based on mile upon mile of "what if?" scenarios.

 

Yes fine if there is a history of actual bad consequences. But so far there isn't. So why the big push to regulate something that (so far) isn't proving to be a problem? 

 

 

Yes, absolutely. I am somewhat miffed that the BSS could have introduced life saving alarms that I previously referred to,yet it took them two decades,yet they seem to be all over LFP. 

 

Maybe the boaters who kept asking insurers the question in the first place about LFP bought on a self fulfilling prophecy. Afterall,of no claims were made,why would they be bothered.🤣

 

Or were there hundreds of claims?

[blackrose]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Though you will have to worry if there's a fire (or any other claim e.g. sinking) for some other reason and the insurance company surveyor/loss adjuster turns up before you can get rid of the incriminating LFP evidence... 😉 

 

P.S. You might want to consider not suggesting insurance fraud quite so openly on a public forum... 😞 

 

I think you need to read more carefully. I wasn't suggesting insurance fraud. I was suggesting that if the LFP installation is a decent one then there would be no need for an insurance claim in the first place, since there would be no LFP fire or explosion.

 

I also never suggested removing the LFP batteries before any insurance surveyor or loss adjustor arrived in the event of a claim for another reason. In the event of theft from the boat, flood damage, stove fire, etc, the presence of LFP batteries in the engine space would be irrelevant.

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

I think you need to read more carefully. I wasn't suggesting insurance fraud. I was suggesting that if the LFP installation is a decent one then there would be no need for an insurance claim in the first place, since there would be no LFP fire or explosion.

 

I also never suggested removing the LFP batteries before any insurance surveyor or loss adjustor arrived in the event of a claim for another reason. In the event of theft from the boat, flood damage, stove fire, etc, the presence of LFP batteries in the engine space would be irrelevant.

No it wouldn't -- if the insurance company says you need to tell them if you install LFP and you don't and they find out then your policy will be invalidated, even if the claim is nothing to do with LFP. That's how insurers T&C work... 😞 

 

It's why the BSS Advice to Boaters says you must tell your insurer if you install LFP, and why the IWA/CA Guidance Note will say exactly the same -- and incidentally what was clearly stated on the BM course on Lithium Batteries I attended on behalf of the IWA.

 

Might I suggest that all those put together (with the approval of "industry experts") are much more likely to be right about this than you are?

Edited July 14 by IanD

[blackrose]

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

No it wouldn't -- if the insurance company says you need to tell them if you install LFP and you don't then your policy will be invalidated, even if the claim is nothing to do with LFP. That's how insurers T&C work... 😞 

 

It's why the BSS Advice to Boaters says you must tell your insurer if you install LFP, and why the IWA/CA Guidance Note will say exactly the same -- and incidentally what was stated on the BM course on Lithium Batteries I attended on behalf of the IWA.

 

Might I suggest that all those put together (with the approval of "industry experts") are much more likely to be right about this than you are?

 

It really depends on the particular insurer. The BSS advice is based on that, however there's no single way that insurance companies work.

 

Anyway, my main point was that I never suggested committing insurance fraud as you said above. You've conveniently avoided responding to that bit, probably because you realised you're wrong. You really should read and think more carefully before making such accusations.

Edited July 14 by blackrose

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

It really depends on the particular insurer. The BSS advice is based on that, however there's no single way that insurance companies work.

 

Anyway, my main point was that I never suggested committing insurance fraud as you said above. You really should read and think more carefully before making such accusations.

Sorry to disagree, but what you said was this:

2 hours ago, blackrose said:

If this gets too complicated it sounds like it might end up as a "BSS Inspection/Fire Extinguisher/Petrol Generator" scenario. You know those people who don't have the required number of fire extinguishers on board and borrow some from a neighbour for the date of their inspection. Or those with petrol generators on board but nowhere to safely store them, who hide the generator somewhere before the inspector arrives.

 

In this case it'll be removing the LFPs and installing a couple of cheap LA batteries for the day of the test... 

 

Get your BSS cert, insurance, license, and if you know your LFP installation is safe then you'll never have to worry about an insurance claim for a LFP fire anyway. 

 

I'm generally happy to comply with the regs, but if they become to onerous and are applied retrospectively there are always other options...

That's encouraging people to commit insurance fraud in black and white, plain and simple.

 

If you disagree, go and ask a lawyer and I'm sure they'll tell you the same.

 

When in a hole, stop digging... 😉 

Edited July 14 by IanD

[blackrose]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

Sorry to disagree, but what you said was this:

That's encouraging people to commit insurance fraud in black and white, plain and simple.

 

If you disagree, go and ask a lawyer and I'm sure they'll tell you the same.

 

When in a hole, stop digging... 😉 

 

No it's not encouraging anyone to commit insurance fraud. I said "you'll never have to make a claim for an LFP fire or exploding batteries", so perhaps you'd like to explain how it can be insurance fraud if you don't make a claim? 

 

As for telling your insurance company that you've installed LFP/or not telling them; that's up to the boat owner. There's no law saying that one has to tell their insurer anything and again that's not insurance fraud unless one makes a claim based on that omission. 

 

On the other hand what you said was this: Though you will have to worry if there's a fire (or any other claim e.g. sinking) for some other reason and the insurance company surveyor/loss adjuster turns up before you can get rid of the incriminating LFP evidence... 

 

So perhaps you can show me where I said I would get rid of the incriminating evidence before any insurance company surveyor/loss adjuster turned up?  

 

It's you that needs to stop digging and for once admit you're wrong. No, that's never going to happen! 🤣

 

 

Edited July 14 by blackrose

[Rob-M]

Insurance companies, or at least the one I use, aren't asking any questions related to battery type when renewing a policy and there was no where in their T&C's that stated it needed to be declared.  It wasn't until I mentioned lithium batteries that they then gave me the additional information in an email about not leaving phones, escooters, etc with lithium batteries charging when not on board.  It would be an interesting challenge if they refused a claim when their insurance documents didn't not mention anything related to lithium batteries.