IWA press release about LFP Guidance Note

[IanD]

https://waterways.org.uk/about-us/news/new-guidance-helps-boaters-navigate-the-switch-to-lithium-batteries

[Stroudwater1]

Thanks Ian, No direct skin in this game and appreciate the work that’s gone into this.
 

I do feel the recommendation not to self fit is odd given that the ABC incident appears to be the only dangerous scenario so far l. We think this was NOT a self fit. 
 

We overlook that many boaters have significant knowledge and skills. Looking at several self fits I have been astonished at the skills shown.
 

I can see this becoming a BSS mandated policy (“No self fits”) which runs against current evidence. 
 

I feel this should have gone out to consultation first before a pronouncement from influential bodies. 

[IanD]

34 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Thanks Ian, No direct skin in this game and appreciate the work that’s gone into this.
 

I do feel the recommendation not to self fit is odd given that the ABC incident appears to be the only dangerous scenario so far l. We think this was NOT a self fit. 
 

We overlook that many boaters have significant knowledge and skills. Looking at several self fits I have been astonished at the skills shown.
 

I can see this becoming a BSS mandated policy (“No self fits”) which runs against current evidence. 
 

I feel this should have gone out to consultation first before a pronouncement from influential bodies. 

 

The problem is that it doesn't matter how good *some* DIYers may be (or how poor *some* professionals might be?) I don't think there's any doubt that the *typical* skill level of DIYers in this area is much lower than professionals (as you'd blooming well hope!), just read anything online about electrics (and LFP!) on boats -- the world is full of DIYers who don't understand even the basics of electrical installations, and even worse those who think they do but don't (Dunning-Krueger) and will buy all sorts of cheap Chinese rubbish and connect it up and hope... 😞 

 

Given that there are no workable detailed standards even for DIYers who would like to follow them -- or indeed, any recognised certification for professionals! -- I can't see what other stance the two organisations could take on giving advice to their members. Saying "we don't recommend DIY installation for the vast majority of members" is another way of saying "DIY installs are OK if you know what you're doing, but there's no way to tell whether this is the case or not (and it probably isn't in most cases) so we can't possibly advise people to do this". The recommendation purposely did *not* exclude DIY installs, precisely because there are *some* DIYers who can do as good a job as professionals, and we didn't want to shut them out.

 

I thought this was made clear in the introduction, I don't see how else it could have been put. How do you think wider consultation (and with who?) might have changed this? Would it magically have made DIYers in general more knowledgeable about electrics in general and LFP in particular? How can you separate the "DIY experts" from the "DIY bodgers" who greatly outnumber them? Don't forget that the Guidance Note is aimed at *all* boaters considering LFP installations, not the minority... 😉 

 

(but I expect it would have delayed the release even further as the "wider discussions" descended into infighting and bickering, see previous thread...)

 

The fact that the ABC install was "professional" doesn't change this, much as some of us would like it to... 😞 

Edited August 18 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

53 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

I do feel the recommendation not to self fit is odd given that the ABC incident appears to be the only dangerous scenario so far l. We think this was NOT a self fit. 

I think the phrase "IWA and the CA do not recommend self-installation for the vast majority of boat owners" is fair enough. A small (I suspect a very small) minority of boat owners will have the skills to understand what to do, but I suspect the great majority are more like me, and wouldn't install a Lithium battery if you paid me. Most owners pay people to install solar because they don't even understand how to do that (nor do I, for that matter, though I'm pretty sure I could if I could be bothered!).. Certainly, there's only one person on my mooring who might have a clue what to do, and I'm not sure about him. Think of the vast number of boats in marinas whose owners maybe visit a couple of weeks a year, if that. They're the majority the report is talking about.

Edited August 18 by Arthur Marshall

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the phrase "IWA and the CA do not recommend self-installation for the vast majority of boat owners" is fair enough. A small (I suspect a very small) minority of boat owners will have the skills to understand what to do, but I suspect the great majority are more like me, and wouldn't install a Lithium battery if you paid me. Most owners pay people to install solar because they don't even understand how to do that (nor do I, for that matter, though I'm pretty sure I could if I could be bothered!).. Certainly, there's only one person on my mooring who might have a clue what to do, and I'm not sure about him. Think of the vast number of boats in marinas whose owners maybe visit a couple of weeks a year, if that. They're the majority the report is talking about.

Thank you Arthur, that is precisely the point... 🙂 

Edited August 18 by IanD

[Stroudwater1]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Thank you Arthur, that is precisely the point... 🙂 

But sadly it isn’t. The point is, without putting feelers out (ie consultation of boat owners for their views) you don’t know. It’s a shame as it’s a lost opportunity to celebrate and appreciate great work that’s been going on. 
 

Can you not see that BSS may well seize on this and ban self fits, when there is no evidence of their danger ( and when the only explosion was on a professional fit it seems) ? 
 

As I say, no skin in the game and I’m like Arthur for any such fits but there’s plenty of people that do know exactly what they are doing, and doing it better than many a “professional “ where the technology is all quite new relatively, and importantly there’s no qualification to fit them. 

 

 

[EventualBoater]

Im very interested in how all this plays out, im thinking (hoping) most of this should be done or close to done by the time im looking to get a boat. 

I know im going to want a decent battery set up and lithium is the way i will want to go. 

[IanD]

4 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

But sadly it isn’t. The point is, without putting feelers out (ie consultation of boat owners for their views) you don’t know. It’s a shame as it’s a lost opportunity to celebrate and appreciate great work that’s been going on. 
 

Can you not see that BSS may well seize on this and ban self fits, when there is no evidence of their danger ( and when the only explosion was on a professional fit it seems) ? 
 

As I say, no skin in the game and I’m like Arthur for any such fits but there’s plenty of people that do know exactly what they are doing, and doing it better than many a “professional “ where the technology is all quite new relatively, and importantly there’s no qualification to fit them. 
 

In case you're not aware of it (though I did mention it) the people who drafted the note included boaters with and without LFP installed, and both DIY and professional LFP installs, all of who are well aware of the issues -- positive and negative -- with DIY installs, and have had many discussions about how to best address this from the point of view of boaters not regulation-writers.

 

Yes of course we can see that one of the concerns is what the BSS might do, which is why the advice was phrased as it was. How else would you have put it?

 

The writers are also represented on the BSS committee dealing with this, and AFAIK there is absolutely no push to either make a knee-jerk decision or to ban DIY installs -- because this would anyway be impossible to justify given the facts of the ABC dayboat event, wouldn't it?

 

I have to strongly disagree with your last point -- I expect there are literally thousands of boaters (or more) contemplating installing LFP on their boats, and if even 1 in 10 of them has a clue about what they're doing I'd be astounded -- and I suspect the actual number is much lower than this.

 

You can't judge this by the people who you know or who post on CWDF, there is a *way* higher knowledge level on here on most things boaty -- including electrics and LFP -- than boaters as a whole, simply going by the huge number of frankly dumb posts on social media. Go out and read some, there are *thousands* of them out there... 😞 

 

From a legal point of view if nothing else, there is absolutely no way -- given the current standards/training/knowledge/expertise among boaters in general -- that the Guidance Note could recommend DIY installations or advise that these are a good idea, because they simply aren't for most boaters.

 

The best that could be done was advise against DIY installs for the vast majority, because that's the reality of it -- there's an unstated implication that it is OK for a small minority who know what they're doing, but if this had been said up front then the Dunning-Kruegers would assume it applied to them... 😞 

 

Like the other thread I'm now going to stop replying to posts on this one on that subject, for the same reason -- I've tried to explain repeatedly why the note says what it does, and it's falling on deaf ears... 😞 

Edited August 18 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

37 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

But sadly it isn’t. The point is, without putting feelers out (ie consultation of boat owners for their views) you don’t know.

Er, I think you do. I don't need to consult the other fifteen owners on my mooring to be absolutely certain that they couldn't fit a Lithium system. Most of them (the ones I've seen) have a hard time changing a battery. Half the owners don't go near the boat from one year to the next. You really don't need yet another expensive consultation to know that.

If you don't believe me, run a survey on here asking how many of our members feel competent to do it. And we are the relatively knowledgeable owners who have some interest in our boats apart from sitting on the back with a bottle of wine.

Bear in mind that a fair proportion of boats fail the safety test. You'd trust them to fit Lithium? How many boaters are members of RCR because they don't understand the first thing about their boats apart from how to push the starter?

It's just common sense. Most boaters wouldn't have a clue. We, on here, are a minority because we are interested in boats and boating. Most owners aren't, any more than someone with a holiday cottage is interesting in its plumbing system.

Edited August 18 by Arthur Marshall

[StevieN]

I think Ian deserves considerable credit for his involvement in putting this together. As far as I’m aware, this is the first professionally produced guidance specifically addressing lithium battery installations on boats, and that has to be a positive step.

 

Of course, many boaters have already made the switch to lithium. The interesting question now is how the industry deals with the difference between professionally installed systems and very good amateur installations.

 

There’s already been some debate about whether a knowledgeable amateur can sometimes produce a better installation than a less knowledgeable professional. I suspect the answer is that the quality of the installation matters far more than the label attached to the person who did it.

 

Perhaps the real value of this guidance is that it gives everyone — professionals and amateurs alike — something objective to work towards.

 

The only area I'd question is the insurance aspect. When I went through our own GJW/Ripe policy after installing lithium, my reading was that the specific lithium-related requirement applied to portable equipment rather than the permanently installed domestic battery system.

 

Indeed, I had to clarify this with GJW/Ripe, who confirmed that the “not to be left unattended whilst charging” condition related to portable devices and not the vessel's installed lithium batteries with their own BMS.

 

That raises an interesting point for this guidance: insurers' policy wording and requirements may not all be the same, so perhaps this is an area where boaters need to check their individual policy rather than assume that a general lithium requirement applies to every installation.

 

 

[b00ke23]

2 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

I feel this should have gone out to consultation

 

I agree, it's best practice. Even if it didn't materially change the guidance, it stops any accusations of Groupthink.  

[Tonka]

49 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Er, I think you do. I don't need to consult the other fifteen owners on my mooring to be absolutely certain that they couldn't fit a Lithium system. Most of them (the ones I've seen) have a hard time changing a battery. Half the owners don't go near the boat from one year to the next. You really don't need yet another expensive consultation to know that.

If you don't believe me, run a survey on here asking how many of our members feel competent to do it. And we are the relatively knowledgeable owners who have some interest in our boats apart from sitting on the back with a bottle of wine.

Bear in mind that a fair proportion of boats fail the safety test. You'd trust them to fit Lithium? How many boaters are members of RCR because they don't understand the first thing about their boats apart from how to push the starter?

It's just common sense. Most boaters wouldn't have a clue. We, on here, are a minority because we are interested in boats and boating. Most owners aren't, any more than someone with a holiday cottage is interesting in its plumbing system.

But RCR membership will not cover lithium batteries as they don't cover the domestic side of the boat

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

I feel this should have gone out to consultation first before a pronouncement from influential bodies.

And what outcome would such a consultation have produced? No response from the vast majority of boaters, some who would never DIY anyway saying they are happy with a requirement for professional installs, and a small but vociferous minority demanding the right to DIY, all believing themselves to be competent to do so, but only some of whom actually are. I don't see how such an outcome would move things forward at all.

 

While I would support a DIY option for those who are capable, I don't see how any corporate organisation (such as IWA or CA) could really recommend anything other than what the note says.

 

29 minutes ago, StevieN said:

I think Ian deserves considerable credit for his involvement in putting this together. As far as I’m aware, this is the first professionally produced guidance specifically addressing lithium battery installations on boats, and that has to be a positive step.

Agreed. And I would add all the other members of the group that produced this guidance, but who don't post here and are probably mostly unknown to the forum menbership.

Given the increasing popularity of LFP in boats (as well as RVs, home battery storage and other applications) and following on from the ABC dayboat incident, increased standards and guidance and insurance requirements are bound to emerge. Better that boaters get in at the early stage to try and steer this the way we want, rather than have something imposed from outside.

How many of those on here complaining about the guidance and its development process have volunteered to be part of the IWA/CA team, or for that matter any other group looking to address the issue?

[MtB]

2 hours ago, EventualBoater said:

Im very interested in how all this plays out, im thinking (hoping) most of this should be done or close to done by the time im looking to get a boat. 

I know im going to want a decent battery set up and lithium is the way i will want to go. 

 

I doubt it. 

 

By the time all this plays out and/or you get your boat, LFP looks likely to be yesterday's news and superseded by sodium batteries, which have completely different characteristics. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Tonka said:

But RCR membership will not cover lithium batteries as they don't cover the domestic side of the boat

You miss the point. My point is that many boaters use RCR because they don't understand even the basics of how their boat works, or want to, so to expect them to understand the ramifications of a new and potentially lethal power system is just daft.

And as far as consultation goes, check out IanD's original thread on this. If you can spot the positive contributions you'd have extremely good eyesight.

Edited August 18 by Arthur Marshall

[EventualBoater]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

I doubt it. 

 

By the time all this plays out and/or you get your boat, LFP looks likely to be yesterday's news and superseded by sodium batteries, which have completely different characteristics. 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah i can see that BUT currently sodium is still new. So my head is thinking on what is currently available. 

I know sodium is going to be much safer (from what ive seen). Wouldn't shock me though if some idiot decides that something needs to be worked out for them as well and we're where the lithium thing is now 🤣

[IanD]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

I doubt it. 

 

By the time all this plays out and/or you get your boat, LFP looks likely to be yesterday's news and superseded by sodium batteries, which have completely different characteristics. 

 

I will make one comment on that -- sodium batteries are going to take several years to hit the mass market and price parity with LFP, according to various analyses of the industry.

 

But when they do I'm sure they'll need mostly similar advice to LFP, because they have a lot of things in common -- any battery that stores a lot of energy can be dangerous if things go badly wrong. They may be safer in some ways than LFP or just have different risks -- remember that until about a year ago nobody was at all  concerned about fire/explosion risk with LFP, until it happened.

 

The details (and requirements for charging) will be different, and I'm sure systems will become available to cope with that -- but I wouldn’t sit around waiting, otherwise you end up like people who don't buy a new computer because there will always be a better one  coming soon... 😉

 

Oh yes, I nearly forgot -- my thanks to those posters who have understood and appreciated what we were trying to do and why, and see this as a positive thing for boaters... 🙂

Edited August 18 by IanD

[EventualBoater]

38 minutes ago, IanD said:

I will make one comment on that -- sodium batteries are going to take several years to hit the mass market and price parity with LFP, according to various analyses of the industry.

 

But when they do I'm sure they'll need mostly similar advice to LFP, because they have a lot of things in common -- any battery that stores a lot of energy can be dangerous if things go badly wrong. They may be safer in some ways than LFP or just have different risks -- remember that until about a year ago nobody was at all  concerned about fire/explosion risk with LFP, until it happened.

 

The details (and requirements for charging) will be different, and I'm sure systems will become available to cope with that -- but I wouldn’t sit around waiting, otherwise you end up like people who don't buy a new computer because there will always be a better one  coming soon... 😉

 

Oh yes, I nearly forgot -- my thanks to those posters who have understood and appreciated what we were trying to do and why, and see this as a positive thing for boaters... 🙂

This sits in my expectations. 

Plus you'll probably get some moron hook up a battery wrong and we end up in a situation like has happened. 

 

All credit to you @IanD for your involvement and constant updates and knowledge on this. 

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Oh yes, I nearly forgot -- my thanks to those posters who have understood and appreciated what the we were trying to do and why, and see this as a positive thing for boaters... 🙂

Positive or Negative for boaters? 
Make your own mind up.

 Could end up being negative for a lot of boaters who have retro fitted Lithium batteries to their own boats or who’ve had professional installs done with the batteries in the living space, also professional boat builders who are still fitting lithium batteries in the living space of new builds and their customers who have spent hundreds of £1000’s on one. All fitted before these “guidelines” were written by a few people in response to one incident. An incident of 1 boat in say 3000 with Lithium batteries fitted(maybe more or less?) which equates to something like 0.0333% incident percentage.
 So the negatives could be, IF these guidelines get noticed by the insurance companies and the BSS and IF acted on. Is that a lot of boaters COULD end up with an uninsurable and non-licensable boat, which COULD potentially cost them £1000’s to “make good” to comply, all because of one incident with a 0.0333% chance rate of it happening.

 Please remember these guidelines may or may not be acted upon by the organisations mentioned(insurance, BSS) and as stated at present they are only guidelines for boaters with no standing legal requirement.

 Lets see what the future holds.🔮

 

 

 

Edited August 19 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[thingumybob]

So, there's now a fourth - or is it fifth or sixth - 'guide' for boaters that purports to represent the best of good advice about lithium batteries. Why? Why a need for another guide? There is already ISO 23625:2025, the international reference standard which specifies requirements and recommendations for the selection and installation of lithium-ion batteries for boats, the IET 'Electrical Safety for Small Craft' On-Board Guide, along with various BSS guides, including the 'BSS Essential Guide' (Chapter Three) and the most recent BSS publication 'Lithium-ion Battery Safety on Boats - Installed Lithium-ion Batteries'. The latter two guides don't appear to be synchronised with each other, and the latter contradicts the latest version of ISO 23625 because it (the BSS guide) states "Never mix and match lithium-ion with other battery types by connecting them in parallel or in series". The ISO standard says that practice is acceptable if the two types are in parallel, albeit subject to a condition. The IWA/CA is different again!

 

Unfortunately the value of the IWA/CA "guidance" is significantly diminished by virtue of the absence of ANY references to the sources of the "guidance". It has no provenance or traceability.

 

Which guide is a boater supposed to believe and follow? What is in those guides - especially the official BSS ones - that is going to raise its head and catch out the unwary installer and user of lithium-ion on their boat? Is DIY installation now effectively banned? Are these guides all forward-looking or are they retrospective? So many questions, too many questions, so few answers, and too many variations. These 'guides' are inconsistent between themselves in what they present. The IET Guide presents guidance for Inland waterways based on marine sea states. The BSS ones have omissions and errors and some content of uncertain origin. The IWA/CA one has no provenance, at all. On top of all of that, and even if BSS is a critical part of safe boating, are any of these 'recognised/endorsed' by the real controlling bodies, the insurers (who now include in their policies installation and usage conditions relating only to lithium-ion batteries, not for lead acid - why?)? Instead of organisations doing their own thing, why not collaborate, involving all stakeholders, and offer something with demonstrable credibility, and clear origins? Right now the already existing mess has been made messier with this latest addition to the 'All You Need To Know About Lithium-ion Batteries' collection. 

 

Who's going to sort this unwelcome, nay ridiculous, situation? 

 

This is my personal opinion, based on experience (including decades working in BSI, ISO, IEC, and other similar bodie) and recognised engineering principles. I represent nobody and no body.

Edited August 19 by thingumybob
Typos

[David Mack]

7 hours ago, thingumybob said:

the IET 'Electrical Safety for Small Craft' On-Board Guide

Although this document was published in 2023, this is only the second reference to it on the forum I could find. Sounds like it might be a useful guide. There is a partial summary of its contents at https://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/years/2023/98-november-2023/boat-wiring-why-bs-7671-doesn-t-address-all-the-issues/

As to what it says about LFP batteries, you would have to spend £30 to find out.

https://shop.theiet.org/electrical-safety-for-small-craft

7 hours ago, thingumybob said:

and the latter contradicts the latest version of ISO 23625 because it (the BSS guide) states "Never mix and match lithium-ion with other battery types by connecting them in parallel or in series". The ISO standard says that practice is acceptable, albeit subject to a condition.

And for those of us without access to ISO 23625, please can you tell us what the condition relating to connection of Lithium-ion with other battery types is.

[Arthur Marshall]

This may sound a daft question, but please respect my ignorance.

What, precisely, is the advantage of a Lithium system over LA? I can see it for an all electric , including drive, boat, but is there any advantage for the average boat user, either leisure or CC? Is it simply that the batteries last longer, in which case it seems to me that the added expense and complexity makes it not worth the effort? If they hold the charge for longer I can see the point for a liveaboard over winter, but not for the summer leisure user whose bog standard batteries will get charged either from solar or the engine when cruising.

It does strike me as a bit of a fad, like the old windmills or solar - the latter being useful for the minority but, again, pointless for the average leisure user. Anyway, I welcome education as always!

[thingumybob]

52 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Although this document was published in 2023, this is only the second reference to it on the forum I could find. Sounds like it might be a useful guide. There is a partial summary of its contents at https://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/years/2023/98-november-2023/boat-wiring-why-bs-7671-doesn-t-address-all-the-issues/

As to what it says about LFP batteries, you would have to spend £30 to find out.

https://shop.theiet.org/electrical-safety-for-small-craft

And for those of us without access to ISO 23625, please can you tell us what the condition relating to connection of Lithium-ion with other battery types is.

Sure thing. Clause 4.10 specifies that "appropriate measures must be provided to prevent overcurrent conditions when different chemistries are connected in parallel". That's what the integral BMS in the LiFePO4 battery will be looking after, together with fusing arrangements, amongst other things. Otherwise put, the International Standard is not the one preventing mixing, or preventing 'hybrid' set-up, so who is? 

Edited August 19 by thingumybob
Added in clause reference

[David Mack]

4 minutes ago, thingumybob said:

Sure thing. It specifies that "appropriate measures must be provided to prevent overcurrent conditions when different chemistries are connected in parallel". That's what the integral BMS in the LiFePO4 battery will be looking after, together with fusing arrangements, amongst other things. Otherwise put, the International Standard is not the one preventing mixing, or preventing 'hybrid' set-up, so who is? 

Telling us to take "appropriate measures" but not then going on to say what such "appropriate measures" might be is not actually helping is it!

[nicknorman]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Telling us to take "appropriate measures" but not then going on to say what such "appropriate measures" might be is not actually helping is it!

The nature of such standards documents is often to set the aim, not necessarily the means of achieving it, since the latter can eg evolve with new technology etc. In this case “preventing overcurrent conditions” is usually achieved by fusing, but there are other possibilities. But if whatever you have done prevents overcurrent conditions, you have satisfied the standard.