IWA press release about LFP Guidance Note

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

As these spontaneously burst into flames on a regular basis, as any fule kno.

 

You mean, like I said they don't, just like most LFP setups don't?

 

The point is that their insurance would not be valid, since they don't meet the T&C in the email. If they only have 3rd party like you and don't care then no problem, but I guess that isn't the case since most Craftinsure/Ripe policies are fully comp -- otherwise they wouldn't be worried about charging portable appliances... 😉 

Edited Wednesday at 14:32 by IanD

[nicknorman]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Oh come on Nick, stop making childish and misleading comparisons.

 

The bit in bold is exactly what all this is about -- not helped by the reluctance of ABC to reveal any details of what happened.

 

All the stuff that is being put forward by you and others as "this will prevent such an event happening again, so we don't need venting" -- quality electrics, backup overvoltage protection, proper design, professional/expert installation -- was (or should have been) already there in the ABC boat, and is all in the Guidance Note recommendations because they're jolly good ideas... 🙂 

 

But in spite of all this something went badly wrong, the batteries gassed, the (unvented) gases built up, and the boat exploded.

 

So it's illogical to say that taking all those precautions will stop this ever happening again -- because they *didn't* stop it the first time, did they?

 

Nobody is saying "we must make all boaters with Li have battery boxes vented to outside with enormous fanned vents" -- you can do whatever you want to stop gases getting into the interior of the boat where people are and building up, there are various ways to do this -- just like with LA batteries, and as the BSS/RCR rules already imply with the comments about battery gases.

 

But what is unlikely to be allowed (regulators? insurers?) in future (when?) is what the ABC boat did, just putting LFP batteries openly inside the boat, because that's why it blew up in spite of the design features that should have stopped it happening but didn't... 😞 

 

I don't like all this any more than you do (I might have to modify my boat to prevent gas buildup under the stern) -- but at least I understand why this is needed, perhaps because I read the ISO standard all the way to the end, including the sections describing venting and battery thermal runaway/outgassing... 😉 

 

You still don’t get it. Let me explain further…

 

In the case of the wings falling off, well the aircraft had been designed and maintained by highly qualified professionals. So did the investigators say, as you are saying, “well the aircraft was designed and built by highly qualified professionals and so there is nothing more we can do to prevent a recurrence, let’s buy shares in parachute manufacturing companies!”

 

No, they will have look closely at the processes involved to try to identify what went wrong, and address it. Maybe someone lost their licence, I don’t know. But those shares in the parachute companies never went volcanic.

 

In the case of the ABC, we are starting from an extremely low base. The system designers and installers almost certainly had no relevant qualification and certainly no licence to practice. They were self-professed “professional experts” who set up a business to earn money without having to have any knowledge, experience or competence. So a good starting point to prevent a recurrence would be a qualification that ensures people understand how to professionally install Li boating systems safely, such that the probability of a venting event is similar to the probability of the wings falling off a plane. 
 

A good starting point is NOT to say “well they were professionals, it happened, and so the only recourse is to take steps to reduce the impact when it happens again.”

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

This just popped up on my FB feed

 

Update on Werchtay lifepo4 install.

My insurance came back with this response after I emailed them.

Many thanks for your email.

We can confirm that lithium batteries would be covered within the policy, and we don't have any requirements regarding the installation as such or the brand of battery.

We just ask that any lithium batteries on board (main vessel or toys) must be stored and used in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations (portable toys/devices must not be left unattended whilst charging) In addition, there must be a fully operational lithium specific handheld fire extinguisher on board.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

So it doesn’t look like the insurance companies are having the knee jerk reaction, as the IWA JWG has had with Lithium battery installations on narrowboats. 
 It’s been a year since the ABC incident. So I thought that would have been enough time for the insurance companies to put more stringent measures in place, regarding Lithium installs. If they thought they’re a major risk.

Edited Wednesday at 15:36 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[IanD]

49 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

You still don’t get it. Let me explain further…

 

In the case of the wings falling off, well the aircraft had been designed and maintained by highly qualified professionals. So did the investigators say, as you are saying, “well the aircraft was designed and built by highly qualified professionals and so there is nothing more we can do to prevent a recurrence, let’s buy shares in parachute manufacturing companies!”

 

No, they will have look closely at the processes involved to try to identify what went wrong, and address it. Maybe someone lost their licence, I don’t know. But those shares in the parachute companies never went volcanic.

 

In the case of the ABC, we are starting from an extremely low base. The system designers and installers almost certainly had no relevant qualification and certainly no licence to practice. They were self-professed “professional experts” who set up a business to earn money without having to have any knowledge, experience or competence. So a good starting point to prevent a recurrence would be a qualification that ensures people understand how to professionally install Li boating systems safely, such that the probability of a venting event is similar to the probability of the wings falling off a plane. 
 

A good starting point is NOT to say “well they were professionals, it happened, and so the only recourse is to take steps to reduce the impact when it happens again.”

 

I couldn't agree more... 🙂 

 

The problem is that there is no such certification/training for LFP batteries on boats, and right now no plan that the JWG can find to bring one into being. We are investigating whether any of the training/certification authorities could/would  put such a scheme together, possibly based on the ones that already exist for domestic EESS systems which are in many ways similar to boat LFP installations (solar, batteries, inverter/charger...) -- do a Google search for EESS training.

There are a few costs and requirements though:

Course Overview

• Duration: Typically 2 to 3 days for standalone EESS, or 5 days when combined with Solar PV.

• Cost: Generally ranges from £600 to £750 + VAT depending on the provider and accreditation body.

• Key Content: Covers the IET Code of Practice for Electrical Energy Storage Systems, MCS standards (MIS 3012), battery principles, system design, initial verification, and DNO (Distribution Network Operator) notifications.

• Assessment: Includes a multiple-choice theory exam (often open-book or online) and a practical assessment. [1, 2, 3, 4]

 

Entry Requirements

• Must be a practicing, competent electrician aged 18 or over.

• Must hold a Level 3 Electrotechnical qualification (such as an NVQ Level 3 or equivalent historical qualification).

• Must hold a valid BS 7671 Requirements for Electrical Installations (18th Edition) qualification. [1, 2]

 

I should also point out that apart from the cost the entry requirements would make it impossible for most DIY installers to qualify, including you... 😞 

Another problem is that there are 35M houses in the UK which could/might have such systems fitted, so there's a huge market with a big demand for installers who can make a good living out of it, and a high demand for training courses which are widely available:

Major UK Providers and Options

• Logic4Training: Offers LCL Awards Level 3 Battery Storage training locally at centers including Northolt and Sittingbourne.

• NICEIC Shop: Provides an EAL-assessed Level 3 Award spanning 2 days plus a half-day assessment across multiple UK locations.

• Trade Skills 4U: Runs the City & Guilds 2923-34 Level 3 Award over 3 days.

• Windsor Forest Colleges Group: Delivers BPEC Level 3 EESS training over 2 days with practical and theory testing.

• Explore a combined course option via NAPIT Training.

• Review certification details at BPEC.

• Check full qualification criteria with City & Guilds. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

 

Given that the number of boats is *far* smaller it's not going to be easy to persuade institute(s) to invest the time and effort to devise a boat-specific -- or better still, inland-waterway-specific -- training course. But that's exactly what the JWG is looking into doing, along with other things like trying to avoid full MCC/RCA re-certification for LFP installs.

Your last paragraph is twisting the truth again, nobody is saying what you claim. The simple fact is that no safety regimen in any field takes the attitude of "we're so certain a problem will never happen (again?) because we've taken lots of precautions, we don't have to worry about the consequences or do anything to mitigate them *if* it happens (because it won't)". That's what you're trying to do here, and I'm afraid that your idea is shot down in flames (literally...) by what actually happened last year... 😞 

I understand *why* you're objecting to any LFP battery venting requirement, but your logic simply doesn't stand up. Trying to persuade anyone professional (e.g. regulators, insurers, risk assessors) that you don't need to take precautions against the consequences of an LFP battery fire/explosion because it's never going to happen might have worked before the ABC fire, but not after it.

Apart from anything else, anyone who has been through the kind of training course above (which includes fire safety precautions) would never install a system on that basis, because their professional liability insurance wouldn't cover them and they would probably be disbarred for incompetence.

If you don't agree, you're welcome to try and change their minds on this -- why don't you form an "LFP are really safe" working group (backed by facts, obviously...) and go for it?

 

Edited Wednesday at 15:57 by IanD

[Anonathy]

24 minutes ago, IanD said:

Trying to persuade anyone professional (e.g. regulators, insurers, risk assessors) that you don't need to take precautions against the consequences of an LFP battery fire/explosion because it's never going to happen might have worked before the ABC fire, but not after it.

No, it's still working, insurers just want them installed to the manufacturers instructions, like most things. Countless people have contacted their insurers after reading the scaremongering and been told the above, even as recently as today. I don't think your crusade is having the effect you seem to desire, you should try harder? 😂

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Anonathy said:

No, it's still working, insurers just want them installed to the manufacturers instructions, like most things. Countless people have contacted their insurers after reading the scaremongering and been told the above, even as recently as today. I don't think your crusade is having the effect you seem to desire, you should try harder? 😂

It's not a crusade; the Guidance Note is advice, so if you don't like it you don't need to take any notice of it.

 

The insurers are not LFP experts or up to speed with either the regulations or recommendations from the Fire Brigade or training courses or advice from people who understand the issues, as shown by what they're currently telling people (e.g. about fire extinguishers)... 😞 

 

-- there is no extinguisher fire class (e.g. A/B/C/D/F/electrical) defined for lithium batteries

-- there is no such thing legally speaking as a "lithium-capable fire extinguisher" -- it's basically a marketing label (snake oil)

-- handheld "lithium-capable extinguishers" are completely useless against a large lithium/LFP battery fire like a domestic boat battery

-- having such an extinguisher is likely to encourage boaters to try and fight such a fire instead of getting out

-- fire brigade advice is to get out, not to try and fight such a fire

-- such an extinguisher therefore decreases boater safety instead of increasing it

 

The JWG is going to point this out to insurers (it's hinted at in the Guidance Note), because all the above are facts not opinions.

 

But at the moment they are indeed telling boaters that they need to have such an extinguisher onboard... 😞 

[Phoenix_V]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

It's not a crusade; the Guidance Note is advice, so if you don't like it you don't need to take any notice of it.

 

The insurers are not LFP experts or up to speed with either the regulations or recommendations from the Fire Brigade or training courses or advice from people who understand the issues, as shown by what they're currently telling people (e.g. about fire extinguishers)... 😞 

 

-- there is no extinguisher fire class (e.g. A/B/C/D/F/electrical) defined for lithium batteries

-- there is no such thing legally speaking as a "lithium-capable fire extinguisher" -- it's basically a marketing label (snake oil)

-- handheld "lithium-capable extinguishers" are completely useless against a large lithium/LFP battery fire like a domestic boat battery

-- having such an extinguisher is likely to encourage boaters to try and fight such a fire instead of getting out

-- fire brigade advice is to get out, not to try and fight such a fire

-- such an extinguisher therefore decreases boater safety instead of increasing it

 

The JWG is going to point this out to insurers (it's hinted at in the Guidance Note), because all the above are facts not opinions.

 

But at the moment they are indeed telling boaters that they need to have such an extinguisher onboard... 😞 

I keep repeating this. If buying a £40 fire extinguisher makes my insurer happy then I am happy.

 

I dont have to use it, (wouldnt on lithium) even if there is a fire, though it apparently works oK on ordinary fires so is not a complete waste.

 

The alternative is for them to be persuaded by you to adopt all sorts of things that I may or may not want to do but will certainly be more expensive.

 

Stop poking the sleeping bear.

[nicknorman]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I couldn't agree more... 🙂 

 

The problem is that there is no such certification/training for LFP batteries on boats, and right now no plan that the JWG can find to bring one into being. We are investigating whether any of the training/certification authorities could/would  put such a scheme together, possibly based on the ones that already exist for domestic EESS systems which are in many ways similar to boat LFP installations (solar, batteries, inverter/charger...) -- do a Google search for EESS training.

There are a few costs and requirements though:

Course Overview

• Duration: Typically 2 to 3 days for standalone EESS, or 5 days when combined with Solar PV.

• Cost: Generally ranges from £600 to £750 + VAT depending on the provider and accreditation body.

• Key Content: Covers the IET Code of Practice for Electrical Energy Storage Systems, MCS standards (MIS 3012), battery principles, system design, initial verification, and DNO (Distribution Network Operator) notifications.

• Assessment: Includes a multiple-choice theory exam (often open-book or online) and a practical assessment. [1, 2, 3, 4]

 

Entry Requirements

• Must be a practicing, competent electrician aged 18 or over.

• Must hold a Level 3 Electrotechnical qualification (such as an NVQ Level 3 or equivalent historical qualification).

• Must hold a valid BS 7671 Requirements for Electrical Installations (18th Edition) qualification. [1, 2]

 

I should also point out that apart from the cost the entry requirements would make it impossible for most DIY installers to qualify, including you... 😞 

Another problem is that there are 35M houses in the UK which could/might have such systems fitted, so there's a huge market with a big demand for installers who can make a good living out of it, and a high demand for training courses which are widely available:

Major UK Providers and Options

• Logic4Training: Offers LCL Awards Level 3 Battery Storage training locally at centers including Northolt and Sittingbourne.

• NICEIC Shop: Provides an EAL-assessed Level 3 Award spanning 2 days plus a half-day assessment across multiple UK locations.

• Trade Skills 4U: Runs the City & Guilds 2923-34 Level 3 Award over 3 days.

• Windsor Forest Colleges Group: Delivers BPEC Level 3 EESS training over 2 days with practical and theory testing.

• Explore a combined course option via NAPIT Training.

• Review certification details at BPEC.

• Check full qualification criteria with City & Guilds. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

 

Given that the number of boats is *far* smaller it's not going to be easy to persuade institute(s) to invest the time and effort to devise a boat-specific -- or better still, inland-waterway-specific -- training course. But that's exactly what the JWG is looking into doing, along with other things like trying to avoid full MCC/RCA re-certification for LFP installs.

Your last paragraph is twisting the truth again, nobody is saying what you claim. The simple fact is that no safety regimen in any field takes the attitude of "we're so certain a problem will never happen (again?) because we've taken lots of precautions, we don't have to worry about the consequences or do anything to mitigate them *if* it happens (because it won't)". That's what you're trying to do here, and I'm afraid that your idea is shot down in flames (literally...) by what actually happened last year... 😞 

I understand *why* you're objecting to any LFP battery venting requirement, but your logic simply doesn't stand up. Trying to persuade anyone professional (e.g. regulators, insurers, risk assessors) that you don't need to take precautions against the consequences of an LFP battery fire/explosion because it's never going to happen might have worked before the ABC fire, but not after it.

Apart from anything else, anyone who has been through the kind of training course above (which includes fire safety precautions) would never install a system on that basis, because their professional liability insurance wouldn't cover them and they would probably be disbarred for incompetence.

If you don't agree, you're welcome to try and change their minds on this -- why don't you form an "LFP are really safe" working group (backed by facts, obviously...) and go for it?

 

 

 

Isn't AI wonderful! But anyway, and taking up your habit of emboldening things, as I said despite the wings falling off the plane there is still no requirement to wear a parachute when flying. You don't seem to understand this crucial point that once you reduce the probability of a disaster happening sufficiently (even though not to zero), you no longer need to cater for it. If you try to do so, you tie yourself up into knots (of parachute cord!)

 

Currently, starting from such a low base, there is massive opportunity to address the installation process rather than worrying about what might happen when it is done badly - and lets face it, a Li cell gassing is not really in the same league as the wings of a plane falling off.

 

Yes I get that there is currently not qualification or courses, that is the problem that should be addressed. As you say, linking in with domestic battery installations would be a good start, with a little add-on course to add "boats", exactly the same as gas safe people need add-ons to work on lpg and boats. The costs you quote are small beer for a professional.

 

This is what you should be pushing. It is outrageous that anyone can set themselves up as a "marine electrician" and install Li batteries for money, without necessarily having the slightest idea what they are doing. You can't do it in houses, so why is it OK on residential boats?

 

I see that as being particularly offensive. DIY people doing their own thing, either well or badly, is less of an issue because generally it will be them suffering the consequences of incompetence. It is exactly the same with lpg on boats - I can install a complete lpg system on my boat if I like. It will of course be checked at the next BSS but that might be 3 years away. By law I can do gas work on our house if I like, provided I am competent to do so. That will never be checked. Or if the house blows up I will rightly be imprisoned because clearly I was not competent.

 

But if you are paying a professional to do a job that has potential safety issues, there should be an expectation that they are competent. At the moment there can be no such expectation.

 

I don't have a dog in that fight because I have already installed my system and any legislation regarding who can install is highly unlikely to be retrospective.

 

In summary, just like the GSIUR, you should need to be qualified and a member of a trade body (with insurance) to install Li systems for money. If you are DIY, you should be competent. By law.

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 18:14 by nicknorman

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

I keep repeating this. If buying a £40 fire extinguisher makes my insurer happy then I am happy.

 

I dont have to use it, (wouldnt on lithium) even if there is a fire, though it apparently works oK on ordinary fires so is not a complete waste.

 

The alternative is for them to be persuaded by you to adopt all sorts of things that I may or may not want to do but will certainly be more expensive.

 

Stop poking the sleeping bear.

Please stop referring to me personally as if this is all my doing. I'm one of a group of boaters drawn from two organisations who represent the interests of boaters not legislators, and who are trying to make things better for them in future not worse -- I just happen to be the only one mad enough to stick my neck out on CWDF.

 

If you don't understand that there's no point carrying on this discussion -- so I won't. 

[Tacet]

6 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

This just popped up on my FB feed

 

Update on Werchtay lifepo4 install.

My insurance came back with this response after I emailed them.

Many thanks for your email.

We can confirm that lithium batteries would be covered within the policy, and we don't have any requirements regarding the installation as such or the brand of battery.

We just ask that any lithium batteries on board (main vessel or toys) must be stored and used in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations (portable toys/devices must not be left unattended whilst charging) In addition, there must be a fully operational lithium specific handheld fire extinguisher on board.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

 

6 hours ago, IanD said:

That's what I'd expect, given what insurers seem to be saying at the moment.

 

Including the requirement to have a fully operational chocolate fireguard on board... 😉 

 

Incidentally I renewed my insurance yesterday (Craftinsure/Ripe), no mention anywhere in the policy or T&C about lithium batteries or fire extinguishers -- but then they know it has electric propulsion since they've insured it from new... 🙂 

 

 

 

But this is at odds with the JWG Guidance Note says that most insurers apply conditions:

 

"Most insurers apply conditions on the type of battery, requirement for professional installation, charging arrangements, storage, fire protection, unattended charging and the carriage of specific extinguishers."

 

Made up of a team of electrical wizards, I think the JWG was unwise to give guidance on matters outside its collective expertise.  It seems doubtful it knows what 'most insurers" require with adequate degree of confidence unless it has enquired of a substantial number of insurers.  Did it?

 

If it was thought necessary to make some remarks on the subject, maybe something along the lines of saying it is a matter to be considered and advice should be sought elsewhere.

 

[IanD]

44 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 

 

Isn't AI wonderful! But anyway, and taking up your habit of emboldening things, as I said despite the wings falling off the plane there is still no requirement to wear a parachute when flying. You don't seem to understand this crucial point that once you reduce the probability of a disaster happening sufficiently (even though not to zero), you no longer need to cater for it. If you try to do so, you tie yourself up into knots (of parachute cord!)

 

Currently, starting from such a low base, there is massive opportunity to address the installation process rather than worrying about what might happen when it is done badly - and lets face it, a Li cell gassing is not really in the same league as the wings of a plane falling off.

 

Yes I get that there is currently not qualification or courses, that is the problem that should be addressed. As you say, linking in with domestic battery installations would be a good start, with a little add-on course to add "boats", exactly the same as gas safe people need add-ons to work on lpg and boats. The costs you quote are small beer for a professional.

 

This is what you should be pushing. It is outrageous that anyone can set themselves up as a "marine electrician" and install Li batteries for money, without necessarily having the slightest idea what they are doing. You can't do it in houses, so why is it OK on residential boats?

 

I see that as being particularly offensive. DIY people doing their own thing, either well or badly, is less of an issue because generally it will be them suffering the consequences of incompetence. It is exactly the same with lpg on boats - I can install a complete lpg system on my boat if I like. It will of course be checked at the next BSS but that might be 3 years away. By law I can do gas work on our house if I like, provided I am competent to do so. That will never be checked. Or if the house blows up I will rightly be imprisoned because clearly I was not competent.

 

But if you are paying a professional to do a job that has potential safety issues, there should be an expectation that they are competent. At the moment there can be no such expectation.

 

I don't have a dog in that fight because I have already installed my system and any legislation regarding who can install is highly unlikely to be retrospective.

 

In summary, just like the GSIUR, you should need to be qualified and a member of a trade body (with insurance) to install Li systems for money. If you are DIY, you should be competent. By law.

 

I agree with everything you wrote, except the first paragraph -- amd I've explained why I disagree several times, I'm not going to do it again.

 

The last bit sounds fine in theory -- so how do you define whether a DIYer is "competent" or not? Genuine question... 🙂

 

And following on from that, how do insurers know? (that you haven't built a ticking timebomb) What happens when you sell the boat?

 

The answer to both would be if BSS inspectors were competent to inspect/pass a system as safe, but they clearly don't have the knowledge (or tick-box set of rules) to do that -- so this would need fixing too, both with BSS rules and training. Be careful what you wish for... 😉

 

The whole thing is a hot mess, regarding both installation standards and competence -- both professional and DIY -- and insurance and inspections and battery quality and lots of other things... 😞

 

So what do you propose should be done that's different to what the JWG has done and is trying to do?

 

Oh yes, I forgot -- don't tell me on CWDF, I've had enough hassle about this, so please write to the IWA with your detailed suggestions/comments... 🙂

15 minutes ago, Tacet said:

 

 

But this is at odds with the JWG Guidance Note says that most insurers apply conditions:

 

"Most insurers apply conditions on the type of battery, requirement for professional installation, charging arrangements, storage, fire protection, unattended charging and the carriage of specific extinguishers."

 

Made up of a team of electrical wizards, I think the JWG was unwise to give guidance on matters outside its collective expertise.  It seems doubtful it knows what 'most insurers" require with adequate degree of confidence unless it has enquired of a substantial number of insurers.  Did it?

 

If it was thought necessary to make some remarks on the subject, maybe something along the lines of saying it is a matter to be considered and advice should be sought elsewhere.

 

The Guidance Note accurately describes the current position of insurers -- it's not meant to be read as them all doing all of those things, it's a list of all the things that are sometimes done individually. It also advises boaters that if they think any of the conditions are unreasonable they should discuss this with their insurer.

 

My comments about the correctness or not of what the insurers are doing with fire extinguishers are easily justified factually. Hopefully insurers will change their position in view of this, after discussions with the JWG -- but there are no guarantees of this... 😉

Edited Wednesday at 18:54 by IanD

[Peanut]

As many if not all boaters have; phones, tablets, laptops, battery operated power tools, or other “toys” on board, which most likely have lithium-ion batteries, then the requirement to have a lithium specific fire extinguisher on board is not unreasonable, if you have them.

 

Also, not leaving them unattended when charging, is a reasonable precaution,

 

There are lithium fire extinguishers available, which might help, even if only in evacuating the boat should you need to. You are already required to have extinguishers for different classes of fire.

 

This has nothing to do with any installed Lithium battery bank.

 

Insurance companies, working in the marine and transportation market, are very aware of the risk associated with lithium batteries of all kinds, as they currently insure the risk.

 

In time, they will come to their own decision about what if any conditions needed, to apply to pleasure boats with lithium batteries installed

 

 

[Phoenix_V]

Just now, Peanut said:

 

 

In time, they will come to their own decision about what if any conditions needed, to apply to pleasure boats with lithium batteries installed

 

 

Indeed and anyone pushing them to act more swiftly is not helping. If the cap fits............

 

[Peanut]

24 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

Indeed and anyone pushing them to act more swiftly is not helping. If the cap fits............

 

 I don't believe anyone is pushing them to act more swiftly, it would make little difference. They know what they are doing, and will make their own mind up, based on their assessment of the insurance risk.

 

The requirement for a lithium specific fire extinguisher is there due to the risk from lithium-ion batteries, as is not leaving them unattended when charging. They seem to have made no recommendation relating to installed battery banks, yet. The will if they feel a need to, whatever you or I think.

 

Edited Wednesday at 20:50 by Peanut
hit post by mistake.

[IanD]

44 minutes ago, Peanut said:

As many if not all boaters have; phones, tablets, laptops, battery operated power tools, or other “toys” on board, which most likely have lithium-ion batteries, then the requirement to have a lithium specific fire extinguisher on board is not unreasonable, if you have them.

 

Also, not leaving them unattended when charging, is a reasonable precaution,

 

There are lithium fire extinguishers available, which might help, even if only in evacuating the boat should you need to. You are already required to have extinguishers for different classes of fire.

 

This has nothing to do with any installed Lithium battery bank.

 

Insurance companies, working in the marine and transportation market, are very aware of the risk associated with lithium batteries of all kinds, as they currently insure the risk.

 

In time, they will come to their own decision about what if any conditions needed, to apply to pleasure boats with lithium batteries installed

 

All of which is true, but as you say nothing to do with whether the boat has lithium domestic (or propulsion) batteries installed. There certainly is a fire risk from "lithium-ion" (not usually LFP) batteries in portable appliance, as shown in many SCARY videos... 😞 

 

So if insurance companies are going to say that "lithium fire extinguishers" are needed for a boat with LFP, surely they should also require this for diesel powered boats? And, come to that, houses, which burn down *far* more often due to lithium-ion battery fires?

 

Or more sensibly, since they don't require this for diesel powered boats (or houses), they shouldn't require it as a condition for boats with LFP installed.

 

Obvious, yes? 🙂 

Edited Wednesday at 21:07 by IanD

[Twopints]

3 minutes ago, Peanut said:

 I don't believe anyone is pushing them to act more swiftly, it would make little difference. They know what they are doing, and will make their own mind up, based on their assessment of the insurance risk.

 

The requirement for a lithium specific fire extinguisher is there due to the risk from lithium-ion batteries, as is not leaving them unattended when charging. They seem to have made no recommendation relating to installed battery banks, yet. The will if they feel a need to, whatever you or I think.

 

I gave this a Greenie despite not owning a boat. Hope that is acceptable to the usual suspect.

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, Peanut said:

 I don't believe anyone is pushing them to act more swiftly, it would make little difference. They know what they are doing, and will make their own mind up, based on their assessment of the insurance risk.

 

The requirement for a lithium specific fire extinguisher is there due to the risk from lithium-ion batteries, as is not leaving them unattended when charging. They seem to have made no recommendation relating to installed battery banks, yet. The will if they feel a need to, whatever you or I think.

 

Except when people have told them "I have an LFP domestic battery installed, what do I need to do?" they have said "that's fine, so long as you have a "lithium-capable" fire extinguisher installed".

 

But AFAIK they have never specified this for diesel-powered boats, which have exactly the same risk regarding lithium-ion batteries in portable appliances, the only kind of lithium battery that such an extinguisher has any chance of being effective against.

 

[no I'm certainly not suggesting they should specify this -- unless they also do it for houses...]

 

All of which rather implies they *don't* know what they're doing, doesn't it? 😉 

 

13 minutes ago, Twopints said:

I gave this a Greenie despite not owning a boat. Hope that is acceptable to the usual suspect.

The usual suspect gave it a greenie too... 🙂 

Edited Wednesday at 21:08 by IanD

[Twopints]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

The usual suspect gave it a greenie too... 🙂 

Erm, no, it was another prolific poster on this thread that seems to have an issue ( or indeed, more than one) with people putting Greenies on threads that do not reflect his views....

[Phoenix_V]

The point is that by saying that you must have a fire extinguisher if you have lithium with no other qualification at all they remove any possibility they might otherwise have to decline a claim on the grounds that they weren't told about the lithium.

[Peanut]

50 minutes ago, IanD said:

But AFAIK they have never specified this for diesel-powered boats,

 

All of which rather implies they *don't* know what they're doing, doesn't it? 😉 

 

Maybe, but:

 

 The BSS 6.1 gives the requirements for Portable Fire Extinguishers.

 

The 'B' Rating - Relates to flammable liquid fires (fuel, oil, solvents).

 

So no there is no need for a separate diesel fire extinguisher, it is covered.

 

Lithium batteries are not covered under the present BSS, but might be sometime.

 

As my insurance renewal is coming up, I will email GJW (Ripe) what the situation is, vis-à-vis my phone and laptop, and were I to install LFP batteries, would they need to be professionally installed. (I'm not going to)

Nothing like poking a tiger.🙃

 

50 minutes ago, IanD said:

The usual suspect gave it a greenie too... 🙂 

I only see one greenie.

 

[Phoenix_V]

10 hours ago, IanD said:

Please stop referring to me personally as if this is all my doing. I'm one of a group of boaters drawn from two organisations who represent the interests of boaters not legislators, and who are trying to make things better for them in future not worse -- I just happen to be the only one mad enough to stick my neck out on CWDF.

 

If you don't understand that there's no point carrying on this discussion -- so I won't. 

Did I. I don't think so. I was addressing the argument you made in your post. Agreed if you don't understand what I am saying best we agree to differ

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

21 hours ago, IanD said:

I don't like all this any more than you do (I might have to modify my boat to prevent gas buildup under the stern) -- but at least I understand why this is needed, perhaps because I read the ISO standard all the way to the end, including the sections describing venting and battery thermal runaway/outgassing... 😉 

So might your builder be at fault here and have you informed them they may need to rectify things?

 As you seem to be telling everyone else what is the best practices with these guidelines. So maybe tell your builder, so his customers might not be hit with issues/costs in future.

 

Edited yesterday at 08:52 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[IanD]

12 hours ago, Peanut said:

 

Maybe, but:

 

 The BSS 6.1 gives the requirements for Portable Fire Extinguishers.

 

The 'B' Rating - Relates to flammable liquid fires (fuel, oil, solvents).

 

So no there is no need for a separate diesel fire extinguisher, it is covered.

 

Lithium batteries are not covered under the present BSS, but might be sometime.

 

As my insurance renewal is coming up, I will email GJW (Ripe) what the situation is, vis-à-vis my phone and laptop, and were I to install LFP batteries, would they need to be professionally installed. (I'm not going to)

Nothing like poking a tiger.🙃

 

I only see one greenie.

 

If you do talk to your insurer (your choice!) who then says you need a lithium fire extinguisher, you might also ask them what their definition of a "lithium fire extinguisher" is, since there is neither any fire class for this or any UK/international standard which says what extinguishing materials they should use or how they should be tested (see post below).

 

AFAIK this is -- legally speaking, in the UK -- a marketing label made up by the manufacturers, who claim that it is suitable for extinguishing lithium battery fires. They might be right (well, small fires anyway -- but see below...), but AFAIK there's nothing to stop any unscrupulous manufacturer sticking a "lithium-capable" label on the outside of a bog-standard extinguisher and charging two or three times the price for it... 😉 

 

Also note the video from the US firefighter/battery guy (StacheD) who says they're totally useless in reality -- with a small appliance battery fire (not LFP) there's an super-fast self-fuelling high-temperature lithium/oxygen fire which is all over in a few seconds, long before you can get to and use an extinguisher (assuming you know how to use one, which most people don't).

 

After this you're just left with burning plastic/insulation (plus anything it has set on fire nearby like wood) which any standard fire extinguisher can deal with, like the cheap ones boaters already have.

 

And with a domestic LFP battery which has failed (for whatever reason, with whatever probability...) and is spewing out toxic/flammable gas, they will have zero effect since the real problem is *inside* the battery.

 

Smells like a scam to make money out of boaters to me... 😉 

Edited yesterday at 10:35 by IanD

[MtB]

And here is the first one! 

 

Lithium-ion fire extinguisher: 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Multimax-Lithium-Ion-Fire-Extinguisher-Business/dp/B0H639Z6B3/ref=sr_1_2_sspa?

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

And here is the first one! 

 

Lithium-ion fire extinguisher: 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Multimax-Lithium-Ion-Fire-Extinguisher-Business/dp/B0H639Z6B3/ref=sr_1_2_sspa?

Since this particular £90 one (not all!) makes much of testing against NTA 8133 A1:2025, here's what Google has to say about it:

 

"NTA 8133 A1:2025 is an updated Dutch Technical Agreement standard that defines testing methods for portable fire extinguishers used on lithium-ion battery fires. While widely referenced as a benchmark by testing bodies like Kiwa and recognized by the BSI, it remains a technical agreement rather than a fully global or formal real-world regulatory certification."

 

Here's what StacheD has to say about them:

 

"Is there such thing as a certified lithium-ion battery fire extinguisher? In this video, I break down the Netherlands NTA 8133 test standard — currently one of the only lithium-ion–specific extinguisher tests in the world — and explain how it works, what it actually evaluates, and where the limitations are. This isn’t about dismissing international efforts. It’s about understanding what “certified for lithium-ion battery fires” really means — and what it doesn’t."

 

 

Edited yesterday at 10:16 by IanD