Lithium batteries

[Russ T]

10 minutes ago, blackrose said:

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

No,there isn't,but when the scheme responsible for boat safety suggests you MUST,then it's easy to believe it is

I just saw on FB a boat fire due to a chip pan fire.

 

Do I need to declare I have a chip pan or air fryer on-board?

[IanD]

47 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

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! 🤣

 

 

You did see the little word "if" in bold, didn't you? For the hard of reading, here are my exact words:

 

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.

 

You suggesting to people that they should swap the batteries out and then put them back to avoid LFP being spotted and the insurers informed (and possibly a premium surcharge added, or conditions like fire extinguishers) -- that's insurance fraud.

 

Saying it won't matter if you haven't told them about LFP (with caveats as above) if there's a claim for another reason -- that's wrong, according to the T&C I've looked at.

 

If you disagree, feel free to do what you want, after all it's your boat/insurance at risk.

 

But I really don't think you should be putting stuff like this on CWDF for others to read, which is the most widely-known public forum about the inland waterways, and is searchable by insurers -- in fact on many Google searches about the UK canals and boats, it's the first site that comes up... 😉 

 

P.S. It's probably also against the CWDF terms and conditions -- "It is not permitted to use CWDF to engage in or promote illegal activities"... 😉 

Edited July 14 by IanD

[Russ T]

4 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

Assume a LA buffer battery on the other side of a B2B charger isn't in parallel?

And how about a BMS in between a LFP and. a LA? Is that a parallel connection?

[blackrose]

51 minutes ago, IanD said:

You suggesting to people that they should swap the batteries out and then put them back to avoid LFP being spotted and the insurers informed (and possibly a premium surcharge added, or conditions like fire extinguishers) -- that's insurance fraud.

NO IT ISN'T AS NO CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE! People can do what they want, albeit that their policy may be invalidated in the event of a claim.

Saying it won't matter if you haven't told them about LFP (with caveats as above) if there's a claim for another reason -- that's wrong, according to the T&C I've looked at.

I didn't say "it won't matter" - you're just making stuff up.

If you disagree, feel free to do what you want, after all it's your boat/insurance at risk.

Thank you, I will. Feel free to do what you want too.

But I really don't think you should be putting stuff like this on CWDF for others to read, which is the most widely-known public forum about the inland waterways, and is searchable by insurers -- in fact on many Google searches about the UK canals and boats, it's the first site that comes up... 😉 

And I really don't think you should be making up unwarranted accusations of insurance fraud.

P.S. It's probably also against the CWDF terms and conditions -- "It is not permitted to use CWDF to engage in or promote illegal activities"... 😉 

More bullsh*t accusations - I haven't promoted any illegal activities. Libelous statements are not permitted on the forum either. 😉

 

Edited July 14 by blackrose

[Tacet]

5 hours 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 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... 😞 

 

I don't agree that's how insurers T&C work.  The Insurance Act 2015 prohibits insurers to limit their liability for non-compliance with a term irrelevant to the claim:

 

"Terms not relevant to the actual loss

(1)This section applies to a term (express or implied) of a contract of insurance, other than a term defining the risk as a whole, if compliance with it would tend to reduce the risk of one or more of the following—

 

(a)loss of a particular kind,

 

(b)loss at a particular location,

 

(c)loss at a particular time.

 

(2)If a loss occurs, and the term has not been complied with, the insurer may not rely on the non-compliance to exclude, limit or discharge its liability under the contract for the loss if the insured satisfies subsection (3).

 

(3)The insured satisfies this subsection if it shows that the non-compliance with the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred."

 

 

 

[matty40s]

10 hours ago, IanD said:

 

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?

It was NEVER a theoretical risk, it was a dork from an ABC owned solar and Lithium installation specialist company who didnt realise that 2 x16 cell batteries might have a higher charging value than a 3rd 15 cell battery required....all looking the same from the same manufacturer....all connected to the same charging software.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, matty40s said:

It was NEVER a theoretical risk, it was a dork from an ABC owned solar and Lithium installation specialist company who didnt realise that 2 x16 cell batteries might have a higher charging value than a 3rd 15 cell battery required....all looking the same from the same manufacturer....all connected to the same charging software.

Allegedly... 😉

[matty40s]

Sick of the bullshit.

Pissed off with the incompetence of the so called experts from HPI administering the laughable £4K PCA certifications.

 

Its money for the boys, stroking wallets and to what end...nothing is safer, and getting  around it costs nothing.

[MtB]

6 hours ago, matty40s said:

Sick of the bullshit.

Pissed off with the incompetence of the so called experts from HPI administering the laughable £4K PCA certifications.

 

Its money for the boys, stroking wallets and to what end...nothing is safer, and getting  around it costs nothing.

 

Quite. Canal boats were never fundamentally dangerous in the first place. None of all this RCR/PCA nonsense is necessary. Arguably some basic BSS safety checks on fuel, gas and mains electricity installations are a Good Idea but its all been spun out into a massive cash-generating gravy train by bureaucrats preying on boaters who are being persuaded to pay out £ks for broadly meaningless bits of paper.

 

I'm sure that ABC boat that went up will have had all the right BSS and RCR tickets 'proving' it was 'safe', and those obviously counted for nothing. 

 

 

[jonathanA]

7 hours ago, matty40s said:

Its money for the boys, stroking wallets and to what end...nothing is safer, and getting  around it costs nothing.

Well said that man...

 

The rcd/rcr and pca is largely ignored by most. The few brokers insisting on it are losing business to those not or private sales. Who cares ?

Despite the efforts of people like ianD, if the lithium guidelines are as silly as they seem to be heading then they too will be ignored and circumvented and rightly so.  

[cuthound]

17 hours ago, Russ T said:

I just saw on FB a boat fire due to a chip pan fire.

 

 

Do I need to declare I have a chip pan or air fryer on-board?

 

Careful, or the insurers will be insisting on "marine grade oven chips" at ten times the price!

 

Edited July 15 by cuthound
phat phingers

[Russ T]

2 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Careful, or the insurers will be insisting on "marine grade oven chips" at ten tomes the price!

 

I only use silly con chips

[IanD]

1 hour ago, jonathanA said:

Well said that man...

 

The rcd/rcr and pca is largely ignored by most. The few brokers insisting on it are losing business to those not or private sales. Who cares ?

Despite the efforts of people like ianD, if the lithium guidelines are as silly as they seem to be heading then they too will be ignored and circumvented and rightly so.  

 

I have pointed this out, that to be effective (i.e. not ignored/evaded/flouted) the guidelines should focus on things which are definitely risky rather than trying to aim for perfection by removing every single theoretical risk that anyone can think of, no matter how small... 😉 

 

I've also pointed out that insurance companies requiring the installation of handheld "lithium-capable" fire extinguishers when domestic or propulsion LFP batteries are installed (which some are starting to do) makes no sense; the advice from the fire service (and BSS, and the IWA/CA Guidance Note) is that in the event of a large LFP battery fire/gassing the boater should not try and fight it but should get off the boat as quickly as possible and call the fire brigade. A handheld extinguisher is of no use in this case, and having one on board is likely to encourage boaters to try and fight the fire, and therefore increase the risk to life -- in other words, as a "safety precaution" it's not only useless but actually dangerous.

 

And yes, this will be pointed out to insurance companies... 😉 

 

And if they come back and say "oh it's not for installed batteries, it's for portable appliance fires" -- then this prompts the question of why are they requiring this for (35k) boats when they don't require it for (35M) households, where there is roughly one fire per day from lithium batteries...

 

Any boater who sees such a requirement from their insurance company should use these two arguments to challenge them.

 

In the Guidance Note section on "Insurance considerations", it says this:

 

"Keep written confirmation from the insurer of any requirements or policy conditions. If the insurer asks for daylight charging only, no unattended charging, manufacturer approved chargers, aqueous vermiculite dispersion (AVD) extinguishers or other specific measures, make sure these are practical for the boat and highlight where a condition seems unreasonable or unachievable." 

 

So could I suggest that before labelling the guidelines as "silly" you wait until they're published? Then you can criticise all you want... 😉 

 

 

Edited July 15 by IanD

[Jen-in-Wellies]

5 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Careful, or the insurers will be insisting on "marine grade oven chips" at ten tomes the price!

 

The melting point of Lithium metal is 180C, so liquid lithium would make an ideal alternative to chip fat, for deep frying, if you are worried about the insurance issues. 😀

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

The melting point of Lithium metal is 180C, so liquid lithium would make an ideal alternative to chip fat, if you are worried about the insurance issues. 😀

I'd love to be there -- well, at a safe distance -- when somebody lowers a basket of chipped potatoes into a pan full of molten lithium.

 

I imagine it wouldn't be that different to what happens when you drop a brick (yes, a couple of pounds) of sodium into a dustbin full of water -- that was quite exciting, to put it mildly... 😉 

[Russ T]

1 hour ago, jonathanA said:

if the lithium guidelines are as silly as they seem to be heading then they too will be ignored and circumvented and rightly so.  

Absolutely. It's fairly obvious what is likely to happen.

[MtB]

45 minutes ago, IanD said:

I have pointed this out, that to be effective (i.e. not ignored/evaded/flouted) the guidelines should focus on things which are definitely risky rather than trying to aim for perfection by removing every single theoretical risk that anyone can think of, no matter how small... 😉 

 

 

A criticism that could be levelled at large sections of the BSS. And the RCR too.

 

Labels stating this is the gas locker, for example. 

 

 

18 hours ago, Russ T said:

No,there isn't,but when the scheme responsible for boat safety suggests you MUST,then it's easy to believe it is

 

 

I'm still curious about why one MUST NOT connect an LFP in parallel with a LA battery. Works fine when I do it and nothing has exploded. 

 

Yet....

 

 

 

 

 

[Russ T]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

I'm still curious about why one MUST NOT connect an LFP in parallel with a LA battery. Works fine when I do it and nothing has exploded. 

 

Yet

Cos battery manufacturer says not too innit.

 

Isn't it something to do with different charging requirements?

 

But it comes back to my other question. Does having a BMS in between a LA and an LFP constitute a parallel connection. 

 

I would think the answer is yes.

 

What you think You're smart?

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

A criticism that could be levelled at large sections of the BSS. And the RCR too.

 

Labels stating this is the gas locker, for example. 

 

I'm still curious about why one MUST NOT connect an LFP in parallel with a LA battery. Works fine when I do it and nothing has exploded. 

 

Yet....

 

Because the first safety principle with anything*** is always "install and use according to the manufacturer's instructions" (to allow for any "special cases" that might apply) -- and all the LFP cell/battery manufacturers categorically forbid connecting them in parallel with batteries of different chemistries, sometimes in CAPITAL LETTERS... 😉 

 

*** which may include insurance policies as well as regulations...

Edited July 15 by IanD

[David Mack]

Leaving aside manufacturers' instructions, what is the technical reason for forbidding parallel connections of LFP and LA batteries?

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Leaving aside manufacturers' instructions, what is the technical reason for forbidding parallel connections of LFP and LA batteries?

 

 

Which is of course, the question I was asking too. 

 

"Because you must not", isn't an explanation at all. It's just an instruction. 

 

[Russ T]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

 

Which is of course, the question I was asking too. 

 

"Because you must not", isn't an explanation at all. It's just an instruction. 

 

Answer courtesy of AI

 

Voltage Mismatch: Lead-acid batteries have a nominal voltage that sits significantly lower than Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) during the majority of their discharge curve, leading to constant, uncontrolled current flow from the LFP battery into the lead-acid battery.

Charging Profile Incompatibility: LFP batteries require a constant-current/constant-voltage (CC/CV) charging profile, whereas lead-acid batteries require a multi-stage charging process (bulk, absorption, and float) with specific temperature compensation, preventing the Battery Management System (BMS) of the LFP from managing the charge correctly.

Destructive Overcharging: When connected in parallel, the LFP battery will attempt to "top off" the lead-acid battery due to its higher resting voltage; this causes the lead-acid battery to overcharge, leading to electrolyte boiling, plate degradation, and potential thermal runaway.

Internal Resistance Disparity: Lead-acid batteries have much higher internal resistance compared to LFP cells; this causes the LFP battery to shoulder a disproportionate share of the load demand, potentially exceeding the LFP's discharge C-rating.

BMS Protection Tripping: The LFP's internal BMS may detect the current flowing toward the lead-acid battery or the load imbalance as a fault condition (over-current or short circuit), causing the BMS to disconnect the LFP battery unexpectedly, potentially leaving the system without power.

Uneven Self-Discharge: The drastically different self-discharge rates between the two chemistries lead to a state-of-charge (SoC) imbalance, where one battery constantly discharges into the other during idle periods.

Voltage Floor/Ceiling Conflicts: The cut-off voltage for a lead-acid battery (often around 10.5V for a 12V system) is much lower than the safety threshold for an LFP battery (typically 10V–11V), risking permanent cell damage to the LFP battery before the lead-acid battery reaches its own depleted state.

Courtesy of Russ T

 

The BMS should not be used as a charge control device,but a safety device 🤣

[IanD]

Just now, David Mack said:

Leaving aside manufacturers' instructions, what is the technical reason for forbidding parallel connections of LFP and LA batteries?

Good question. The charge/discharge characteristics are very different, but the other issue is that people who do this often also don't follow the LFP manufacturer's recommendations for charging, they keep the good old dumb alternator along with the LA batteries. Whether this is the case or not, having LA in parallel can make it difficult) or impossible?) to properly control the LFP charge/discharge, which can lead to reduced life or damage to the cells -- and if this leads to things like dendrite growth, maybe leakage or an internal short-circuit and then possibly a battery fire.

 

Yes these are all "maybes" but there are just too many things that can go wrong (with either the LFP or LA), so the only safe option is to not do it. If you choose to do it (maybe using the "long wire" method) then you might be fine, or it might reduce the battery lifetime, or sooner or later a setup like this might burst into flames -- at which point the unfortunate boater is very likely to find their insurance is not valid... 😞 

[Russ T]

 

 

Imagine the current flow from an LFP to a faulty LA

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Which is of course, the question I was asking too. 

 

"Because you must not", isn't an explanation at all. It's just an instruction. 

 

Yes it is, so I've tried to explain what the justifications for this might be.

 

But unless you can convince all the battery/cell manufacturers to withdraw this instruction from their product use instructions, no regulatory body (RCR, BSS, ISO...) or insurer is ever going to approve connecting LA and LFP in parallel. That's the reality of it, whatever the reasoning behind it is... 😞 

Edited July 15 by IanD