IWA press release about LFP Guidance Note

[thingumybob]

54 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.

Yes, it's intriguing that the IET Guide hasn't been picked up. BSS was part of the drafting team, but I've not been able to find out why they seem to decline to reference it. While the IET Guide leans towards being a practical guide (for example it explains about wiring design and various calculations), in Clause 12.9. 4 it includes guidance on "lithium technology battery" installation practices. To be more precise it refers the reader to what has been suggested to me was the only published guidance available to them at the time, being requirements from Lloyd's Register, and requirements from the Maritime and Coast guard Agency, the latter in the Guidance Note 'MGN 550 (M+F)'. That's ALL guidance related to a marine environment! It refers to installation in gas-tight enclosures, etc (it gets more complex, and definitely impractical, especially for retrofits on an EXISTING canal boat, impossible on a small  GRP cruiser). The thing is, while it's not a guide intended for use in certification or the like, it exists, is from a reputable body, so there's always a likelihood somebody somewhere will reference it as part of some condition or other. 

[jonathanA]

36 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

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!

A fair question Arthur. 

 

I would say the main advantages of Lithium (LFP) are 

1. faster charge time - you don't have the long 'tail' where getting the last 10/20% into LAs takes ages and people often skip, leading to sulphation (reduced capacity) and less generator running time in winter for CC/liveaboards

2. deeper discharge without degradation - typically we say only discharge to 50% with LAs you can go much lower with LFP (20% is often quoted) meaning there is significantly more usable capacity. 

3. don't have to be recharged immediately to avoid losing capacity

4. much greater cyclic life - they can be discharged/recharged typically 1000's of times compared to 100s for even the best LA.

5. Price LFPS are now much closer in price to LA. 100AH LFP between about £160 to 240 (ebay). if you think that is broadly equivalent to 2 x100Ah LA which would be say £80-120 each then its becoming a bit of a  no brainer. 

 

there are others like weight and flatter voltage curve but this needs to be balanced by the max output current that can be limited to only 100A depending on the inbuilt Battery management system and of course some other complications around impact on 'traditional' alternators and possibly the need to have different mains chargers/reconfigure solar charging systems for the different batteries. (so some extra costs over and above just the batteries that need to be factored in as one off costs)

 

i'm sure others will pile in with much more detail and other pros/cons - i'm just trying to give you the high level view and what seem to me, the main ones so very much my opinion and others will have different views i'm sure.  

 

As always there is no right or wrong it depends on peoples situations and for some it may make sense to stick with simple/understood LA batteries. But, i would say for anyone thinking about replacing a set of LA's then they should at least investigate LFP and make a decision based on their circumstances and have at least researched the LFP options. 

 

for me  (leisure use) i regarded my LA batts as a consumable with a 3 year life, so replacing with LFP with a 10 or 20 year life makes perfect sense.  

[Tonka]

2 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

A fair question Arthur. 

 

I would say the main advantages of Lithium (LFP) are 

1. faster charge time - you don't have the long 'tail' where getting the last 10/20% into LAs takes ages and people often skip, leading to sulphation (reduced capacity) and less generator running time in winter for CC/liveaboards

2. deeper discharge without degradation - typically we say only discharge to 50% with LAs you can go much lower with LFP (20% is often quoted) meaning there is significantly more usable capacity. 

3. don't have to be recharged immediately to avoid losing capacity

4. much greater cyclic life - they can be discharged/recharged typically 1000's of times compared to 100s for even the best LA.

5. Price LFPS are now much closer in price to LA. 100AH LFP between about £160 to 240 (ebay). if you think that is broadly equivalent to 2 x100Ah LA which would be say £80-120 each then its becoming a bit of a  no brainer. 

 

there are others like weight and flatter voltage curve but this needs to be balanced by the max output current that can be limited to only 100A depending on the inbuilt Battery management system and of course some other complications around impact on 'traditional' alternators and possibly the need to have different mains chargers/reconfigure solar charging systems for the different batteries. (so some extra costs over and above just the batteries that need to be factored in as one off costs)

 

i'm sure others will pile in with much more detail and other pros/cons - i'm just trying to give you the high level view and what seem to me, the main ones so very much my opinion and others will have different views i'm sure.  

 

As always there is no right or wrong it depends on peoples situations and for some it may make sense to stick with simple/understood LA batteries. But, i would say for anyone thinking about replacing a set of LA's then they should at least investigate LFP and make a decision based on their circumstances and have at least researched the LFP options. 

 

for me  (leisure use) i regarded my LA batts as a consumable with a 3 year life, so replacing with LFP with a 10 or 20 year life makes perfect sense.  

Why on earth do your LA batteries only last 3 years?

[thingumybob]

13 hours ago, b00ke23 said:

 

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

I agree 110% that there should have been consultation. Even before that there should have been some deeper thinking about why another guide would be helpful. It's added to a pool of such guides, but it's not clear what it's added. It may appear that I am anti this guide (OK, I sort of am as it doesn't identify its references) but what it is more is that I'm anti- the proliferation of such guides, with their differences, occasional conflicts, sometimes - I humbly suggest - irrelevance to inland waterways. And none of them endorsed by anyone important line BSS or insurance companies. Why? Speaking as a boater (and one who DID DIY install his own LiFePO4 system, three successful years ago) it feels like I'm walking on eggshells, not knowing where the next requirement on use of 'lithium' will pop out from. 

[jonathanA]

Just now, Tonka said:

Why on earth do your LA batteries only last 3 years?

because i abused them ! - my choice  - usually, but sometimes as we know all too well its easy to knacker them without trying 🙂 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, thingumybob said:

I agree 110% that there should have been consultation. Even before that there should have been some deeper thinking about why another guide would be helpful. It's added to a pool of such guides, but it's not clear what it's added. It may appear that I am anti this guide (OK, I sort of am as it doesn't identify its references) but what it is more is that I'm anti- the proliferation of such guides, with their differences, occasional conflicts, sometimes - I humbly suggest - irrelevance to inland waterways. And none of them endorsed by anyone important line BSS or insurance companies. Why? Speaking as a boater (and one who DID DIY install his own LiFePO4 system, three successful years ago) it feels like I'm walking on eggshells, not knowing where the next requirement on use of 'lithium' will pop out from. 

The reasons for not doing wider consultation have been posted several times in this thread, so I'm not going to repeat them.

 

The last point is exactly the problem that the Guidance Note is trying to solve, as well as the previous point about insurance and BSS. It's impossible to have any sensible discussion about the subject with BSS and insurers without having a document to form a basis for discussions, which is what this is intended to be -- and why it is *advice* not regulatory, that will come later from the relevant authorities.

 

The note has now been sent to BSS and insurers with the aim of starting discussions to come up with consistent and sensible regulations (and insurance conditions) which don't unduly penalise boaters with expensive and possibly pointless conditions, because as I've said the writers include boaters who very much do not want this to happen -- but could see the writing on the wall unless something was done to help this process along, with insurers already starting to put (largely unfounded) "lithium" conditions on policies, and suggestions about fire precautions floating around which might be appropriate for a commercial 100-passenger seagoing electric ferry (also see MGN550...) but certainly aren't for an LFP battery on a narrowboat... 😞 

 

If you're one of the tiny number of boaters with enough knowledge to install your own LFP system safely -- congratulations, well done. Out of curiosity, did you read the section in the ISO standard about gas venting, or did you ignore this and install LFP inside your living area? Either way, don't forget you're not an "ordinary boater", you're one of the "few percent" -- which is why the note advises against DIY installations "for the vast majority of our members", while carefully *not* saying it should be banned -- to allow for boaters like you... 🙂 

 

Anyone who thinks that ISO23625 is of any help whatsover to either the ordinary canal boater or even narrowboat installers (see below) either hasn't read it or is a regulation writer who thinks that this is the "gold standard" -- which it might be legally, but is absolutely *not* helpful in real canal life because it has to cover such a wide range of applications, not just domestic installations on inland waterways, and in many cases offers no practical advice or even detailed rules. To quote from an earlier thread:

 

"There's no way to predict what will be *required* by regulations in the future, but AFAIK everything in the document is "sensible" advice, and deliberately does not specify things like exact build requirements or required fire precautions because what is necessary in a given case is the decision of the installer.

 

The ISO regulations say exactly the same, that there cannot be any "one-size-fits-all" rules because of the wide variation in systems and circumstances, and that it's the responsibility of the installer to make sure the system is safe."

 

We talked to LFP installers who have read the ISO standard -- as we did, obviously, along with lots of other material including MGN550, and the BM Lithium Battery training course, and... -- who told us it was pretty much useless as far as telling them what *they* needed to do for a safe LFP installation on a canal boat, which is what they really want to know. If they say this then it must be even less use for the "ordinary boater" who the Guidance Note is targeted at -- even assuming they'd be willing to cough up the large sum needed to get a copy so they can read it and find this out, which they won't do.

 

So if you're anti this guide, please feel free to ignore any or all of it, because it's *advice* which is not targeted at you (the "competent DIY installer"?) but the ordinary boater... 🙂 

Edited August 19 by IanD

[thingumybob]

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

The reasons for not doing wider consultation have been posted several times in this thread, so I'm not going to repeat them.

 

The last point is exactly the problem that the Guidance Note is trying to solve, as well as the previous point about insurance and BSS. It's impossible to have any sensible discussion about the subject with BSS and insurers without having a document to form a basis for discussions, which is what this is intended to be -- and why it is *advice* not regulatory, that will come later from the relevant authorities.

 

The note has now been sent to BSS and insurers with the aim of starting discussions to come up with consistent and sensible regulations (and insurance conditions) which don't unduly penalise boaters with expensive and possibly pointless conditions, because as I've said the writers include boaters who very much do not want this to happen -- but could see the writing on the wall unless something was done to help this process along, with insurers already starting to put (largely unfounded) "lithium" conditions on policies, and suggestions about fire precautions floating around which might be appropriate for a commercial 100-passenger seagoing electric ferry but certainly aren't for an LFP battery on a narrowboat... 😞 

 

If you're one of the tiny number of boaters with enough knowledge to install your own LFP system safely -- congratulations, well done. Out of curiosity, did you read the section in the ISO standard about gas venting, or did you ignore this and install LFP inside your living area? Either way, don't forget you're not an "ordinary boater", you're one of the "few percent" -- which is why the note advises against DIY installations "for the vast majority of our members", while carefully *not* saying it should be banned -- to allow for boaters like you... 🙂 

 

Anyone who thinks that ISO23625 is of any help whatsover to either the ordinary canal boater or even narrowboat installers (see below) either hasn't read it or is a regulation writer who thinks that this is the "gold standard" -- which it might be legally, but is absolutely *not* helpful in real canal life because it has to cover such a wide range of applications, not just domestic installations on inland waterways, and in many cases offers no practical advice or even detailed rules. To quote from an earlier thread:

 

"There's no way to predict what will be *required* by regulations in the future, but AFAIK everything in the document is "sensible" advice, and deliberately does not specify things like exact build requirements or required fire precautions because what is necessary in a given case is the decision of the installer.

 

The ISO regulations say exactly the same, that there cannot be any "one-size-fits-all" rules because of the wide variation in systems and circumstances, and that it's the responsibility of the installer to make sure the system is safe."

 

We talked to LFP installers who have read the ISO standard -- as we did, obviously, along with lots of other material! -- who told us it was pretty much useless as far as telling them what *they* needed to do for a safe LFP installation on a canal boat, which is what they really want to know. If they say this then it must be even less use for the "ordinary boater" who the Guidance Note is targeted at -- even assuming they'd be willing to cough up the large sum needed to get a copy so they can read it and find this out, which they won't do.

 

So if you're anti this guide, please feel free to ignore any or all of it, because it's *advice* which is not targeted at you (the "competent DIY installer"?) but the ordinary boater... 🙂 

The writing has been on the wall for several years, for those able to read. It was there before the advice of guides like the IET one. Or the ISO standard. Or the BSS statements of various kinds. That's precisely why this should have been subject to better consultation. Somehow boater organisations missed out on effective representation in the three forums I mentioned. And I'm afraid that comments like "Anyone who thinks that ISO 23625 is of any help whatsoever" confirm that. I just identified a very important detail in the ISO that has (maybe conveniently) been ignored by BSS and others, about 'mixing'. Call the IWA/CA guide 'sensible advice' if you want, but it's a guide with ZERO mention of any source, none. Regardless of who might have been involved in providing opinion (and I clearly missed any earlier announcement when this initiative was first mooted) that makes it a document without provenance and without traceability back to the origins of the content. Why should I trust this publication rather than trust, say, the (incorrect) BSS guide I referred to? And what about that sensitive issue of 'mixing chemistries'? It's not even hinted at in this new guide. And now you indicate that this Guide "has now been sent to BSS and insurers with the aim of starting discussions to come up with consistent and sensible regulations (and insurance conditions)". I absolutely agree that it is necessary, vital, to speak with insurers (who have become the controlling force in this context) and other boaters would too, going by the  concerns expressed about clauses appearing in policies with nonsense like not leaving 'lithium' batteries on charge when away from a boat. What, disconnect solar panels? But I digress.

 

By all means let some group from somewhere offer a 'Discussion Document' to kick off discussions, with a representative collection of stakeholders (so including other boater-focused associations). But as a boater I submit that we don't need any more 'guides', let alone unsubstantiated ones; we need one reliable, practical, trustworthy one, with reputable endorsement and informed implementation. And provenance.

[David Mack]

2 hours 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!

 

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

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.

So spending £326 on the ISO is not really going to help me install a safe system!

[nicknorman]

Just now, David Mack said:

 

So spending £326 on the ISO is not really going to help me install a safe system!

 

Well, it will tell you to take appropriate measures to deal with a fault overcurrent condition. If you are a competent installer you will know how to achieve that, and then (for that aspect at least) you will have a safe system.

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

So spending £326 on the ISO is not really going to help me install a safe system!

Not really, see my post above... 😉 

 

2 hours ago, thingumybob said:

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? 

Effectively, all the LFP cell/battery manufacturers whose instructions say "do not connect in parallel with cells/batteries of different chemistries" -- because the first rule in standards and regulations (including ISO26325) is "install equipment according to manufacturer's instructions".

 

Often (but not always) they go further and say "parallel connection is only permitted with batteries of the same size and model".

 

Insurance companies also (sometimes? often? usually? always?) use the same "manufacturer's instructions" rule, because they can't be expected to know every last little detail of what is or isn't safe for every item of equipment.

 

For example the instructions for some LFP batteries say they can be mounted any way up except terminals down, some rackmount ones say they can only be mounted horizontally in a rack as normal, some also allow face-up mounting. That's an example of why the standards (and insurers) can't always give one-size-fits-all rules, and fall back to "manufacturer's instructions" -- and if these are not followed then the installation doesn't meet the standard (and probably BSS? -- anyone know?) and may not be insured.

Edited August 19 by IanD

[GRLMK38]

20 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

So spending £326 on the ISO is not really going to help me install a safe system!

 

Try https://www.evs.ee/en/evs-en-iso-23625-2025 - browse for 2 Euro or buy for 16.

 

 

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, GRLMK38 said:

 

Try https://www.evs.ee/en/evs-en-iso-23625-2025 - browse for 2 Euro or buy for 16.

 

 

The cost doesn't matter if it's of little use to boaters... 😉 

 

I've been through it in detail along with the rest of the JWG, and though some of it is fine large parts are too generic to be useful, it often boils down to "safety is the responsibility of the installer" -- which is all fine and dandy, but not exactly helpful if *you're* the installer, when there are no definitions about exactly what is or isn't needed (or good or bad) in a given case, more specifically a boat on the UK inland waterways -- which is what the Guidance Note is intended to address... 😞 

 

Unlike EESS installations on land (energy storage systems including batteries, solar, inverter etc) which are similar in many ways to LFP on boats, there are no certification standards or training courses either, so no way to define what constitutes a "competent person" (the usual phrase) for installation. This is the position with EESS training (no "LFP on boats" equivalent):

 

(and another area that we're going to try and address, to see who could offer equivalent training for installers but customised for boats -- the issue may be that there are 1000x more houses so it's likely to be difficult to drum up much interest):

 

 

Several approved providers and training centers across the UK offer Level 3 qualifications in Electrical Energy Storage Systems (EESS) / battery storage installation. Providers include Logic4training (with centers in Northolt and Sittingbourne), NAPIT Training, TradeSkills4U, HSS Training, and GTEC, alongside various regional colleges. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Training Providers & Organizations

• Logic4training: Offers LCL Awards Level 3 EESS courses at locations including Northolt (Greater London/Middlesex) and Sittingbourne.

• NAPIT Training: Provides the Level 3 Award in the Design, Installation, and Commissioning of EESS aligned with MCS standards.

• TradeSkills4U: Delivers City & Guilds-assured battery storage and EESS courses across multiple national hubs.

• HSS Training & GTEC: Offer BPEC and EAL accredited EESS courses covering design, installation, and testing.

• Local & Regional Colleges: Many regional further-education campuses (such as Windsor Forest College Group and South Staffordshire College) run certified BPEC/City & Guilds EESS modules. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Entry Requirements

• Must be a practising, competent electrician.

• Hold a Level 3 NVQ/SVQ in Electrical Installations (or equivalent JIB/ECS Gold Card).

• Hold a current BS 7671 18th Edition Wiring Regulations qualification. [1, 3, 4, 5]

Edited August 19 by IanD

[thingumybob]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

Not really, see my post above... 😉 

 

Effectively, all the LFP cell/battery manufacturers whose instructions say "do not connect in parallel with cells/batteries of different chemistries" -- because the first rule in standards and regulations (including ISO26325) is "install equipment according to manufacturer's instructions".

 

Often (but not always) they go further and say "parallel connection is only permitted with batteries of the same size and model".

 

Insurance companies also often use the same "manufacturer's instructions" rule, because they can't be expected to know every last little detail of what is or isn't safe for every item of equipment.

As we all realise there are a range of reasons manufacturers make certain statements. Plus, that doesn't explain why the BSS guidance document is out there on its own stating categorically that chemistries shall not be mixed. That's overriding the reference ISO standard, the option for manufacturers to say mixing is OK "providing", and the documented situation of there being hundreds, possibly thousands, of 'mixed' systems out there. The BSS situation may be that they've not kept up with developments rather than anything sinister, but then that highlights another aspect, maintenance of publications, to keep them relevant. The more documents there are out there with overlapping, conflicting, extended, edited, out-of-date information in them the more confused it will become if their maintenance isn't meticulous. But I'm going to leave my observations on this publication there. More important to me is that somehow consistent and reliable and trustworthy 'guidance' on 'lithium' battery use and installation is available, and reflected in the implementation of such guidance by all parties concerned. Hopefully the consultation you indicate that the 'Joint Cruising Association and Inland Waterways Association Working Group on Lithium Battery Safety' has set off will get us there, and do so by including ALL the stakeholders, boater's associations included, not only IWA, CA, and insurers. If it doesn't get us there and - heaven forbid - it just adds another set of instructions and guidance it will have failed the end-users, boaters. 

[MoominPapa]

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

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!

For leisure boaters, the advantages may be marginal. For CC boaters, I can tell you from experience they are life-changing. A LA battery bank starts with 50% of the nameplate capacity usable, and that drops every charge cycle. Or, more likely, the boater continues to discharge to 50% of the nameplate capacity each cycle, and that's actually deeper and deeper discharges of the actual remaining capacity, and battery degradation is accelerating. Eventually, (it took about two years for us when full time liveaboards) the actual capacity hits 50% of nameplate capacity and the lights go off mid-evening. You're now on the treadmill of buying and fitting a new bank, and disposing of the old one.   That's expensive, and very difficult if you don't have a car and don't want to pay canalside prices.

 

LiFePO4 on the other hand: our 500Ah bank can run the boat for normal living for 3 and half days without risking a BMS low voltage cutout.  A days cruising then fully charges it again for another three days and a night. The ability to move every fourth day without stationary engine or generator usage, (or leave the boat with the fridge on for a fortnight) a worth a lot for a CCer, as is the elimination of engine wear and fuel use trying to get LA batteries to 100% charge oh-so-slowly to try and ward off sulphation.  Ours has been in place  for eight years now and has no detectable loss of capacity.

 

A leisure boater who boats for week or a fortnight and moves every day doesn't need this. Someone who lives an a boat but has a life to live apart from boating sure does.

 

MP. 

[nicknorman]

5 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

For leisure boaters, the advantages may be marginal. For CC boaters, I can tell you from experience they are life-changing. A LA battery bank starts with 50% of the nameplate capacity usable, and that drops every charge cycle. Or, more likely, the boater continues to discharge to 50% of the nameplate capacity each cycle, and that's actually deeper and deeper discharges of the actual remaining capacity, and battery degradation is accelerating. Eventually, (it took about two years for us when full time liveaboards) the actual capacity hits 50% of nameplate capacity and the lights go off mid-evening. You're now on the treadmill of buying and fitting a new bank, and disposing of the old one.   That's expensive, and very difficult if you don't have a car and don't want to pay canalside prices.

 

LiFePO4 on the other hand: our 500Ah bank can run the boat for normal living for 3 and half days without risking a BMS low voltage cutout.  A days cruising then fully charges it again for another three days and a night. The ability to move every fourth day without stationary engine or generator usage, (or leave the boat with the fridge on for a fortnight) a worth a lot for a CCer, as is the elimination of engine wear and fuel use trying to get LA batteries to 100% charge oh-so-slowly to try and ward off sulphation.  Ours has been in place  for eight years now and has no detectable loss of capacity.

 

A leisure boater who boats for week or a fortnight and moves every day doesn't need this. Someone who lives an a boat but has a life to live apart from boating sure does.

 

MP. 

 

Or even if they don't live full time on the boat, spend several months on it "out on the cut". When I was going to put Li on our boat, I couldn't really justify it because we tend to cruise most days when we were on the boat. But I did it anyway and it makes a huge difference, as you say no need to recharge when not moving for a day or two, and we run lots of elec-hungry devices like air fryer etc. Electricity can be put back in at approaching 200A (pretty much regardless of the SoC) by running the engine, so it doesn't take long to replenish a day of electrical extravagance!

[Arthur Marshall]

35 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

For leisure boaters, the advantages may be marginal. For CC boaters, I can tell you from experience they are life-changing. A LA battery bank starts with 50% of the nameplate capacity usable, and that drops every charge cycle. Or, more likely, the boater continues to discharge to 50% of the nameplate capacity each cycle, and that's actually deeper and deeper discharges of the actual remaining capacity, and battery degradation is accelerating. Eventually, (it took about two years for us when full time liveaboards) the actual capacity hits 50% of nameplate capacity and the lights go off mid-evening. You're now on the treadmill of buying and fitting a new bank, and disposing of the old one.   That's expensive, and very difficult if you don't have a car and don't want to pay canalside prices.

 

LiFePO4 on the other hand: our 500Ah bank can run the boat for normal living for 3 and half days without risking a BMS low voltage cutout.  A days cruising then fully charges it again for another three days and a night. The ability to move every fourth day without stationary engine or generator usage, (or leave the boat with the fridge on for a fortnight) a worth a lot for a CCer, as is the elimination of engine wear and fuel use trying to get LA batteries to 100% charge oh-so-slowly to try and ward off sulphation.  Ours has been in place  for eight years now and has no detectable loss of capacity.

 

A leisure boater who boats for week or a fortnight and moves every day doesn't need this. Someone who lives an a boat but has a life to live apart from boating sure does.

 

MP. 

Thanks to the people who have answered my question. It's good to know stuff.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, thingumybob said:

As we all realise there are a range of reasons manufacturers make certain statements. Plus, that doesn't explain why the BSS guidance document is out there on its own stating categorically that chemistries shall not be mixed. That's overriding the reference ISO standard, the option for manufacturers to say mixing is OK "providing", and the documented situation of there being hundreds, possibly thousands, of 'mixed' systems out there. The BSS situation may be that they've not kept up with developments rather than anything sinister, but then that highlights another aspect, maintenance of publications, to keep them relevant. The more documents there are out there with overlapping, conflicting, extended, edited, out-of-date information in them the more confused it will become if their maintenance isn't meticulous. But I'm going to leave my observations on this publication there. More important to me is that somehow consistent and reliable and trustworthy 'guidance' on 'lithium' battery use and installation is available, and reflected in the implementation of such guidance by all parties concerned. Hopefully the consultation you indicate that the 'Joint Cruising Association and Inland Waterways Association Working Group on Lithium Battery Safety' has set off will get us there, and do so by including ALL the stakeholders, boater's associations included, not only IWA, CA, and insurers. If it doesn't get us there and - heaven forbid - it just adds another set of instructions and guidance it will have failed the end-users, boaters. 

The BSS advice note -- which we also provided some input to -- is a brief leaflet with some useful generic advice in it. The only possible option to put in this is "do not mix chemistries" -- what else do you think it could say?

 

(without spending longer then the entire leaflet going into the details and the whys and wherefores -- and *still* concluding that directly-paralleled "hybrid" LA/LFP systems are a bad idea, because even though they *can* work in practice they are specifically forbidden by many cell/battery suppliers for good reasons including safety and battery lifetime)

 

The section in bold is the point of the document, as well as acting as advice to boaters.

 

The last sentence is obvious, but given that the alternative is to do nothing and let things go off in different -- and sometimes wrong and/or conflicting, and possibly expensive -- directions, surely it's better to try?

 

Rather than do nothing and ignore the issue, and then blame somebody else when it all goes pear-shaped?

 

(which seems to be the position of some posters...)

Edited August 19 by IanD

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

 

Well, it will tell you to take appropriate measures to deal with a fault overcurrent condition. If you are a competent installer you will know how to achieve that, and then (for that aspect at least) you will have a safe system.

So the standards are too generic to provide specific advice or guidance to installers (professional and amateur). In such circumstances it is difficult for anyone to prove their installation is safe, but if an incident occurs and a team of professional investigators descends, it is almost impossible to counter their conclusion that it wasn't.

So how are boatyard installers trained? I doubt that many of the jobbing electricians who do narrow boat installations have Level 3 qualifications in Electrical Energy Storage Systems (EESS) / battery storage installation.  Or are they, like the DIYers, reliant on guidance from sources such as equipment manufacturers, trade organisations, specialinterest groups and social media (including this forum)?

[Arthur Marshall]

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

surely it's better to try?

 

Rather than do nothing and ignore the issue, and then blame somebody else when it all goes pear-shaped?

 

(which seems to be the position of some posters...)

I think the one criticism which is valid is that it's anonymous. The writers of the report should have been named together with their qualifications and/or experience. Without that, it loses credibility if anything in it appears other than common sense or backed by named sources, and can't be regarded as the professional document which it purports to be. And, unfortunately, the IWA is not held in very high regard by a lot of boaters and I, at least, have never heard of the Cruising Association, which, again, detracts from the report's claim to relevance.

[IanD]

57 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the one criticism which is valid is that it's anonymous. The writers of the report should have been named together with their qualifications and/or experience. Without that, it loses credibility if anything in it appears other than common sense or backed by named sources, and can't be regarded as the professional document which it purports to be. And, unfortunately, the IWA is not held in very high regard by a lot of boaters and I, at least, have never heard of the Cruising Association, which, again, detracts from the report's claim to relevance.

So are there published authors and accreditation for the BSS advice notes, or BSS regulations in general, or ISO standards? Why is this any different?

 

Given the amount of abuse and vitriol that this has attracted towards anyone who has stuck their head above the parapet (i.e. me), I'm not the least bit surprised that the other authors have not been publicly named (with their qualifications listed) as you suggested -- these are people with relevant knowledge/experience doing it voluntarily and on their own time, they're not paid to be pilloried... 😞

 

(though I can assure you that this information was sent to the IWA and CA when the document was submitted for approval -- and which means it's not "professional", according to the definition of the word, and doesn't "purport to be" either)

 

A list of references could be added in the next revision, but given that nothing in the document is lifted/quoted directly from any of them I'm not sure how helpful this would be -- it did include all the relevant ISO standards as well as parts of MCA550 and other publications and training about lithium batteries, several of which have been mentioned here. And the problem with a lot of those references is that they're not easily understood or designed for the casual reader, and would undoubtedly be misinterpreted -- MCA550 in particular has some horrendous requirements which are completely inappropriate for canal boats (but are appropriate for flagged vessels like seagoing commercial electric passenger ferries). Also it has no UK standing on the inland waterways, so zero direct relevance to boaters... 😉 

 

The concern about credibility has been noted by the JWG, they can read posts on CWDF too -- we'll have to decide what can be done (if anything) to convince people of this next time we meet. But I get the impression that whatever is said some people will never be satisfied, and just pivot to something else to complain about... 😞 

 

The people who wrote it are not bureaucrats determined to impose loads of pointless rules on boaters, they are mainly boaters themselves who want to help stop problems with LFP installations coming back to bite boaters (including them) in the future. It's not a conspiracy, unless you're wearing a tin hat... 😉 

 

I'll say this one last time -- AFAIK there is nothing in the Guidance Note advice that doesn't have a solid grounding in electrical installation knowledge or LFP properties or the standards and other documents or normal safety precautions as applied to other things on boats, and shouldn't even conflict with "common sense" (except where that's wrong, which it often is). It was reviewed (and had a couple of modifications suggested) by three independent "industry experts" outside the JWG, who were happy with it. And it's *advice*, so if you're a DIY/hybrid LA/LFP installer who wants to ignore it, go ahead, that's your decision... 🙂 

 

For anyone who thinks that "wider consultation" with boaters would have done anything other than massively delaying it due to endless (and often ill-informed or misunderstood and repetitive) arguments, I suggest you re-read the CWDF threads on the subject... 😉 

Edited August 19 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

33 minutes ago, IanD said:

Given the amount of abuse and vitriol that this has attracted towards anyone who has stuck their head above the parapet (i.e. me), I'm not the least bit surprised that the other authors have not been publicly named (with their qualifications listed) as you suggested -- these are people with relevant knowledge/experience doing it voluntarily and on their own time, they're not paid to be pilloried.

I can understand it too, as I've said before. But unfortunately it doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

 In effect the publishers are adding the proviso "this document has been produced with the best of intentions but the writers accept no responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise of their recommendations or statements or for any problems arising from their implementation" with a final and very unstated "so we're not going to tell you who we are, or any interest, financial or professional, we may have in the subject" .

It leaves it up the the reader to decide if it makes sense or not, so really leaves us exactly where we were before - without attribution, it can have no more authority than any of the opinions posted on here.

Which, I think, is probably a shame.

Anyway, as I've said, I've no dog in this fight so I'll not say any more. I've learnt some stuff though.

 

[IanD]

37 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I can understand it too, as I've said before. But unfortunately it doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

 In effect the publishers are adding the proviso "this document has been produced with the best of intentions but the writers accept no responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise of their recommendations or statements or for any problems arising from their implementation" with a final and very unstated "so we're not going to tell you who we are, or any interest, financial or professional, we may have in the subject" .

It leaves it up the the reader to decide if it makes sense or not, so really leaves us exactly where we were before - without attribution, it can have no more authority than any of the opinions posted on here.

Which, I think, is probably a shame.

Anyway, as I've said, I've no dog in this fight so I'll not say any more. I've learnt some stuff though.

 

The bold bit is literally in the disclaimer in the document, which was inserted by the IWA/CA legal team.

 

The next bit is frankly insulting -- none of the group have any axe to grind either financially or professionally, other than having exactly the same interests as other boaters i.e. wanting safe LFP installations, not wanting to have to rip up or refit existing installations, or waste a lot of money on pointless rule-following for new ones, or have arguments with insurers or regulators or examiners about such rules.

 

If you and others don't believe that, then I find that disappointing -- I guess it's a symptom of the fact that nobody seems to trust anybody any more, or believe that they might actually be doing something voluntarily for "the greater good" not their personal advantage -- in spite of the fact that selfless volunteer restoration work was a big reason we have the canals we do today.

 

The unfortunate result of that attitude -- and the almost uniformly negative feedback and motive-doubting on forums like CWDF, though others are worse -- is that it makes it less likely that like-minded people will spend considerable time and effort to do the same in future, after all why would you do all that in return for a shower of sh*t?

 

Which I think would be a shame, having cynicism and distrust win out over altruism... 😞 

Edited August 19 by IanD

[Tony Brooks]

7 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

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!

1 they charge far,far faster because they take the maximum charge until they are fully charged and don't limit the chargeong current like leadacldsfo.

 

Once fitted thy will almost certainly outlive you.

 

They now cost pretty much the same as leadacids.

 

They don't sulhate if left partially chargetjriir cyclic life is huge, so see 1.

 

The fast charging makes much better use of solar, ttpduch and extent they are often fully charged by mid morning.

 

Because you can use more of their capacity you can use smaller batteries.

[Arthur Marshall]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

The next bit is frankly insulting -- none of the group have any axe to grind either financially or professionally, other than having exactly the same interests as other boaters i.e. not wanting to have to rip up or refit existing installations, or waste a lot of money on pointless rule-following for new ones, or have arguments with insurers or regulators or examiners about such rules.

 

If you and others don't believe that, then I find that disappointing -- I guess it's a symptom of the fact that nobody seems to trust anybody any more, o

Well, I don't trust people very much. Ever since I got a quote from a BSS recommended electrician after my wiring got condemned by the BSS bloke (after just having been rewired by a different BSS bloke), and she told me she was one of the people paid by BSS to look for ways to expand the BSS by adding in more work as they needed to keep electricians like her in work.

I am quite willing to accept your word that none of the contributors had an axe to grind, because I sort of know you. But hundreds of people don't have that kind of insight, and anybody's experience of any form of consultancy indicates that the first purpose of such consultancy is to make money for consultants. That's what professional bodies are for. 

It's not cynicism, it's realism, and it's a mistake not to disarm such criticism by pre-empting it with disclosure. Easy enough to say "the authors will not accept any correspondence on these issues".

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Well, I don't trust people very much. Ever since I got a quote from a BSS recommended electrician after my wiring got condemned by the BSS bloke (after just having been rewired by a different BSS bloke), and she told me she was one of the people paid by BSS to look for ways to expand the BSS by adding in more work as they needed to keep electricians like her in work.

I am quite willing to accept your word that none of the contributors had an axe to grind, because I sort of know you. But hundreds of people don't have that kind of insight, and anybody's experience of any form of consultancy indicates that the first purpose of such consultancy is to make money for consultants. That's what professional bodies are for. 

It's not cynicism, it's realism, and it's a mistake not to disarm such criticism by pre-empting it with disclosure. Easy enough to say "the authors will not accept any correspondence on these issues".

Anyone who has skin in the game (i.e. money or pay) will always be at risk of making decisions that benefit them, not the customer.

 

But there are no paid consultants involved here, nobody (including external advisers) has been paid a single penny.

 

If there were -- or employees -- then there would certainly be far more justification for revealing who they are and what their status is, for obvious reasons. But this is not the case here.

 

And it's easy for you to say "no correspondence" -- except that publishing full names and attributions nowadays exposes people to online abuse and possibly-libelous trolling via social media and elsewhere from people who don't like what they're saying/doing.

 

That's OK if you're paid and your employer/lawyer can fight back; it's not OK for unpaid volunteers who can't... 😞 

Edited August 19 by IanD