IWA press release about LFP Guidance Note

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

This needs answering.

 

I think the very occasional boat fire might happen and very, VERY rarely, someone might die. Same as happens with solid fuel stoves but one fatality due to stupidity every few years is tolerated so why not the same with LFP?

 

The other consequence is awkward conditions or higher premia for fully comp insurance. Given fully comp is optional then it strikes me as a non-problem. People who insist on it can easily comply with insurance co requirements or choose TPI instead. 

 

You might be happy with the first case (as might many other boaters, who believe it's all up to people to keep themselves safe) but in the modern world of risk analysis and elf'n'safety this is not how regulatory authorities and insurers work, especially with new technology where standards are still developing. Sorry but that's the way it is, I don't like it either but (unfortunately?) I don't write the regulations or run an insurance company... 😞 

 

Just because you don't want/need fully comp insurance doesn't mean that applies to everyone on the canals though, does it?

 

Here's a genuine question for you -- if insurers decide that LFP do pose a safety risk (leading to either higher premiums, cover restrictions, or both for comprehensive insurance) why do you think they wouldn't so the same for TPI? The risk to third parties outside the boat is also increased if it goes boom, so why would their approach be any different?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Here's a genuine question for you -- if insurers decide that LFP do pose a safety risk (leading to either higher premiums, cover restrictions, or both for comprehensive insurance) why do you think they wouldn't so the same for TPI? The risk to third parties outside the boat is also increased if it goes boom, so why would their approach be any different?

 

Because the real life risk is so vanishingly and statistically small as to be dismissed.

 

 

 

[IanD]

49 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's the "we" bit that people are worried about. We know some of the authors are already involved in BSS committees in one way or another, same as my previously quoted electrician was - who was quite open about the fact they saw their role as, at least partly, to look for ways to expand the scheme in order to force more work (by failing previously accepted systems) for electricians like them.

The guidance itself looks, at least to an ignoramus like me, to be reasonable, logical and sensible. But if it's being produced by people from a legislative committee such as the BSS, they will have an assumption that it will accepted as is, a vested interest in its adoption and a defensive attitude to any criticism. As that appears to be at least partly the case, it's no wonder they want to stay anonymous, and equally no wonder people are going to be a bit suspicious.

The last thing the JWG want to do is encourage needless rules or measures which will increase costs for boaters unnecessarily -- as I've said several times most (maybe all? -- not 100% sure) are boaters, several already have LFP on board (DIY and professional), one has LFP under the bed. Why on earth do you think we'd want to do things to make money for the BSS and electricians at the expense of boaters, any more than any other boater would? That would be crazy... 😉 

 

And why should this "secrecy" be any different to those who write the ISO standards, and BSS regulations, and RCR/RCD, and decide on insurance conditions, all of which have a far bigger and more direct impact on boaters -- do you see a list of who they are and what their qualifications are attached to these documents?

 

(actually I can see far more justification for knowing who *those* people are, since they are far more likely to have a financial interest in the results...)

 

41 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Because the real life risk is so vanishingly and statistically small as to be dismissed.

 

Sorry but that just shows that you don't understand risk, like many other people... 😞 

 

Risk is the product of the chance of something happening (probability) multiplied by the consequences if it does happen (cost) -- or looked at from the POV of insurers or safety authorities, the total likely cost per year in either money or lives -- which are equivalent to insurers/risk assessors, 1 life is worth about £2M.

 

Something that has a very small chance of happening but horrible consequences if it does (Chernobyl? TMI?) can easily pose a bigger risk than something which happens far more often but with much less severe consequences. Neither society or regulators or insurers tend to look very kindly on assurances like "Don't worry about it blowing up and killing millions of you, it's very unlikely to happen"... 😞 

 

For example let's compare LA and LFP batteries. LA batteries have a nasty habit of going bang with some regularity, this has happened to several posters on CWDF so it can't be that rare. The usual consequence will be that it causes localised damage and sprays acid around, probable cost to fix it might be a few hundred quid, maybe a thousand. Any idea how many of these there are per year? Maybe 10? Maybe 30? That's maybe £10k a year cost to the insurers, almost certainly no deaths, so they're OK with this -- but in spite of this there are rules about where you can install LA batteries and how they have to be ventilated.

 

LFP batteries are mostly much safer, they don't go bang regularly like LA, in fact they hardly ever do it. Well, except for one case which wrote off a boat, I guess this cost £150k or so. But nobody knows why this happened, it could just have well happened in the middle of the night in a marina, written off a pontoon and several boats and killed people. Yes this didn't happen, so you'd have to look at the probability of different outcomes not just the worst case (probably a £5M payout if it killed 2 people). Either way, this is *not* a small risk because boats exploding -- even very occasionally -- is a big consequence... 😞 

 

As I keep pointing out this has only happened once, but all that means is nobody knows when the next time it might happen might be -- again, you have to make some assumptions about this, because there is no data. But I can pretty much guarantee that when you plug all the numbers in the end conclusion will be that LFP are *not* "much safer than LA batteries", either from the POV of insurers or safety regulators -- which for sure is *not* what everyone (including me!) thought before the ABC explosion, in fact I went on record several times to say this. And the number of LFP installs is going up continuously, which means so is the risk.

 

Unless of course you can exclude the ABC explosion as a freak one-off occurrence which is unlikely to ever happen again (if only!!!). Which unfortunately is impossible, because we don't know what caused it, and it was built with the same components (inverter/charger, LFP battery/BMS, MPPT/solar) as pretty much every other boat which has LFP onboard, so there's no way to prove that these are any safer... 😞 

 

Do you still think the risk (not probability!) is "so vanishingly and statistically small as to be dismissed"? Genuine question...

Edited August 20 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

The last thing the JWG want to do is encourage needless rules or measures which will increase costs for boaters unnecessarily -- as I've said several times most (maybe all? -- not 100% sure) are boaters, several already have LFP on board (DIY and professional), one has LFP under the bed. Why on earth do you think we'd want to do things to make money for the BSS and electricians, any ore than any other boater would?

 

And why should this be any different to those who write the ISO standards, and BSS regulations, and RCR/RCD, and decide on insurance conditions, all of which have a far bigger and more direct impact on boaters -- do you see a list of who they are and what their qualifications are attached to these documents?

 

(actually I can see far more justification for knowing who those people are, since they are more likely to be financially involved in the results...)

That, of course, is one of the big complaints about the BSS. Since its inception, it has come up with rules insisting on major changes to a boat, and then scrapped them a year or two later when discovering they were either impractical or simply unnecessary. Which is why few of us have any confidence or trust in those who set and impose the rules, and even less in the largely unregulated way they are applied.

As I said, my BSS advising electrician was quite open about their personal self interest in expanding the scheme. I understand that the BSS committees, members of which have contributed to this report, are made up of members of various boating industries as well as ordinary boaters. I don't know if the insurance bods have any input. But some will probably gain financially if all of a sudden there's a large number of boats needing modification, and while I am sure safety is their prime consideration, there will be an element of interest also.

We all know the dangers of accepting advice from well meaning people, especially in this social media age. Same as on here, it always comes with the caveat that you have to either use your own judgement and experience, or, if you haven't got the latter, check the experience of the person advising you. Which is why I would, for example, accept engine advice from Tony but not GybeHo. The BSS is rightly resented because it continually exceeds its brief, raises its prices and there's no accountability. It would be interesting to know what proportion of the contributors to this document have an involvement with BSS, but obviously that isn't information that's ever going to be available.

I'm not going to get involved in this any more. I'm more a believer in the cock-up theory of history than the conspiracy one, but the latter is fed by secrecy, and I think it's usually a mistake.

G'night.

 

[Jon57]

7 hours ago, IanD said:

Look, I understand there are people who wish this whole can of worms hadn't been opened, and everyone carried on as they were in blissful ignorance of any LFP safety issues.

 

Unfortunately that was simply not going to happen after the ABC explosion, which showed they weren't as safe as everyone -- including me! -- thought.

 

What do you think would have happened if we'd done nothing? Do you really think BSS and insurers would have carried on going "Yeah, everyone knows LFP are perfectly safe, nothing to see here, move on."?

 

Especially given the requirements being written into the ISO standards about this very problem, when it's these standards that will drive both BSS and insurers to put restrictions on LFP installations?

 

Sorry but I can't see how doing nothing could have done anything other than make things worse -- maybe much worse! -- in the longer term, even if it might have avoided facing up to the problem in the short term. And that's not just my opinion, it's also the opinion of a lot of other people who actually understand the issues because they've spent considerable time looking into them, not just a quick think (if you can call it that...) and some nasty posts on the internet.

 

What this is really all about is that some people don't want to hear all this, they want to either stick their fingers in their ears and go "La la, I'm not listening", or blame those behind the Guidance Note by either casting doubt on their motives or sincerity or knowledge -- or the fact they don't want to be outed in public so they can be subjected to online abuse... 😞 

 

P.S. This isn't a dig at you, you're being quite reasonable in comparison to some... 😉 

I think this is more of a risk of a boat catching fire. Apparently passed it's BSS 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

15 minutes ago, Jon57 said:

I think this is more of a risk of a boat catching fire. Apparently passed it's BSS 

They probably moved the Hovis loaf onto the bank during the inspection. So many boaters seem happy to ignore the Hovis spontaneous combustion risk. 😛

 

Oh yes, and the stove should be moved away from the lining.

[jonathanA]

2 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

They probably moved the Hovis loaf onto the bank during the inspection. So many boaters seem happy to ignore the Hovis spontaneous combustion risk. 😛

It's a soft white, so the danger is the release of noxious gas especially after ingestion.

[Tonka]

10 hours ago, IanD said:

The last thing the JWG want to do is encourage needless rules or measures which will increase costs for boaters unnecessarily -- as I've said several times most (maybe all? -- not 100% sure) are boaters, several already have LFP on board (DIY and professional), one has LFP under the bed. Why on earth do you think we'd want to do things to make money for the BSS and electricians at the expense of boaters, any more than any other boater would? That would be crazy... 😉 

 

And why should this "secrecy" be any different to those who write the ISO standards, and BSS regulations, and RCR/RCD, and decide on insurance conditions, all of which have a far bigger and more direct impact on boaters -- do you see a list of who they are and what their qualifications are attached to these documents?

 

(actually I can see far more justification for knowing who *those* people are, since they are far more likely to have a financial interest in the results...)

 

Sorry but that just shows that you don't understand risk, like many other people... 😞 

 

Risk is the product of the chance of something happening (probability) multiplied by the consequences if it does happen (cost) -- or looked at from the POV of insurers or safety authorities, the total likely cost per year in either money or lives -- which are equivalent to insurers/risk assessors, 1 life is worth about £2M.

 

Something that has a very small chance of happening but horrible consequences if it does (Chernobyl? TMI?) can easily pose a bigger risk than something which happens far more often but with much less severe consequences. Neither society or regulators or insurers tend to look very kindly on assurances like "Don't worry about it blowing up and killing millions of you, it's very unlikely to happen"... 😞 

 

For example let's compare LA and LFP batteries. LA batteries have a nasty habit of going bang with some regularity, this has happened to several posters on CWDF so it can't be that rare. The usual consequence will be that it causes localised damage and sprays acid around, probable cost to fix it might be a few hundred quid, maybe a thousand. Any idea how many of these there are per year? Maybe 10? Maybe 30? That's maybe £10k a year cost to the insurers, almost certainly no deaths, so they're OK with this -- but in spite of this there are rules about where you can install LA batteries and how they have to be ventilated.

 

LFP batteries are mostly much safer, they don't go bang regularly like LA, in fact they hardly ever do it. Well, except for one case which wrote off a boat, I guess this cost £150k or so. But nobody knows why this happened, it could just have well happened in the middle of the night in a marina, written off a pontoon and several boats and killed people. Yes this didn't happen, so you'd have to look at the probability of different outcomes not just the worst case (probably a £5M payout if it killed 2 people). Either way, this is *not* a small risk because boats exploding -- even very occasionally -- is a big consequence... 😞 

 

As I keep pointing out this has only happened once, but all that means is nobody knows when the next time it might happen might be -- again, you have to make some assumptions about this, because there is no data. But I can pretty much guarantee that when you plug all the numbers in the end conclusion will be that LFP are *not* "much safer than LA batteries", either from the POV of insurers or safety regulators -- which for sure is *not* what everyone (including me!) thought before the ABC explosion, in fact I went on record several times to say this. And the number of LFP installs is going up continuously, which means so is the risk.

 

Unless of course you can exclude the ABC explosion as a freak one-off occurrence which is unlikely to ever happen again (if only!!!). Which unfortunately is impossible, because we don't know what caused it, and it was built with the same components (inverter/charger, LFP battery/BMS, MPPT/solar) as pretty much every other boat which has LFP onboard, so there's no way to prove that these are any safer... 😞 

 

Do you still think the risk (not probability!) is "so vanishingly and statistically small as to be dismissed"? Genuine question...

Clearly you have never done a Health & Safety Risk Assesement because in there is no mention of insurance. 

Also have you not given insurance companies a nods upto the fact that some of these LFP installations are in the living spaces of boats. Something the insurance company may never of thought of but now you via your JWG have highlighted thus making boat owners spend more money

[EventualBoater]

2 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Clearly you have never done a Health & Safety Risk Assesement because in there is no mention of insurance. 

Also have you not given insurance companies a nods upto the fact that some of these LFP installations are in the living spaces of boats. Something the insurance company may never of thought of but now you via your JWG have highlighted thus making boat owners spend more money

You think insurance companies own risk assessors wont have looked into that themselves? (Not being arsey, genuine question)

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, EventualBoater said:

You think insurance companies own risk assessors wont have looked into that themselves? (Not being arsey, genuine question)

If a BSS examiner can't distinguish between living space and engine room on a traditional narrowboat as happened during one of my examinations, how would an insurance assessor do it

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

17 minutes ago, EventualBoater said:

You think insurance companies own risk assessors wont have looked into that themselves? (Not being arsey, genuine question)

Were the insurance companies looking into the situation with Lithium installations in boats that much, in regards to the ABC incident?

 One incident over the last 4 years, one incident in say 3000 boats, the safety record is very good compared to solid fuel fires. Not to mention deaths caused by Carbon Monoxide poisoning on boats. Surely these are more dangerous to life than a Lithium installation, but no changes to insurance or BSS over these in the last few years.

 It would be great to hear from an authority in boat insurance to see what the insurance company actually think of the ABC incident and the future of Lithium installations on boats. But unfortunately that information is not out there.

 

Edited August 21 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[Tonka]

1 minute ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

Were the insurance companies looking into the situation with Lithium installations in boats that much?

 One incident over the last 4 years, one incident in say 3000 boats, the safety record has been very good compared to solid fuel fires. Not to mention deaths caused by Carbon Monoxide poisoning on boats. Surely these are more dangerous to life than a Lithium installation, but no changes to insurance or BSS over these in the last few years.

 

When did carbon monoxide detectors become mandatory for the BSS

[Tim Lewis]

14 minutes ago, Tonka said:

When did carbon monoxide detectors become mandatory for the BSS

 

2019

 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) | Boat Safety Scheme

[EventualBoater]

25 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

Were the insurance companies looking into the situation with Lithium installations in boats that much, in regards to the ABC incident?

 One incident over the last 4 years, one incident in say 3000 boats, the safety record is very good compared to solid fuel fires. Not to mention deaths caused by Carbon Monoxide poisoning on boats. Surely these are more dangerous to life than a Lithium installation, but no changes to insurance or BSS over these in the last few years.

 It would be great to hear from an authority in boat insurance to see what the insurance company actually think of the ABC incident and the future of Lithium installations on boats. But unfortunately that information is not out there.

 

Sorry. I really should say more before I send 🤣

I meant the inside piece. 

The insurers are looking into their LFP rules (lets ignore the whole 'but they might not have' argument), would they not have looked into the inside storage as part of their assessment?

Edited August 21 by EventualBoater

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

35 minutes ago, Tonka said:

When did carbon monoxide detectors become mandatory for the BSS

Why, do you think they’re not?

13 minutes ago, EventualBoater said:

The insurers are looking into their LFP rules (let’s ignore the whole 'but they might not have' argument), would they not have looked into the inside storage as part of their assessment?

Is there any up to date information out there that the insurance companies are looking into Lithium installations more stringently? Just done a quick Google and there is no current up to date information on there, to indicate a current major review on installs and future requirements.

Edited August 21 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[Tonka]

15 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

Why, do you think they’re not?

You implied that the BSS had not taken into consideration Carbon Monoxide deaths which I provided evidence that they did in 2019

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

Just now, Tonka said:

You implied that the BSS had not taken into consideration Carbon Monoxide deaths which I provided evidence that they did in 2019

But there’s e still deaths happening and boats burning down due to solid fuel fires. But the insurance companies and BSS don’t bring in major changes every time it happens.

 As I said there’s far more of these incidents including deaths caused by them, than one ABC incident.

[David Mack]

20 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

Is there any up to date information out there that the insurance companies are looking into Lithium installations more stringently? Just done a quick Google and there is no current up to date information on there, to indicate a current major review on installs and future requirements.

Anecdotally, several people have reported on the forum that in the last couple of years insurers are adding clauses about lithium batteries. So they are clearly aware of the risk, even if that is prompted more by the likes of e-bike fires in houses than LFP boat installations.

Since insurers operate in a competitive world they need to keep abreast of changing risk profiles to ensure they are not over exposed to new risks, and can set premiums appropriately. I would be very surprised if they are not monitoring the situation. 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, EventualBoater said:

You think insurance companies own risk assessors wont have looked into that themselves? (Not being arsey, genuine question)

 

I would have thought not, unless they are experiencing claims caused by LFPs. Or rather, more and/or bigger claims caused by LFPs that by LA batteries.

 

Is there any evidence of LFPs causing insurance claims which would not have arisen with LA batteries? 

 

 

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

3 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Anecdotally, several people have reported on the forum that in the last couple of years insurers are adding clauses about lithium batteries. So they are clearly aware of the risk, even if that is prompted more by the likes of e-bike fires in houses than LFP boat installations.

Since insurers operate in a competitive world they need to keep abreast of changing risk profiles to ensure they are not over exposed to new risks, and can set premiums appropriately. I would be very surprised if they are not monitoring the situation. 

I’ve asked the question before, at what stage in regards to major incidents do insurance underwriters implement major changes to policies?

 Work out the risk percentage of the ABC incident with the possible number of Lithium installs on boats.

One incident in say 3000 current installs, that’s 1 in 3000 so 0.0333%.

 Is that ratio/percentage too low to act upon in regards to new major policy requirements?

 I don’t know and until an insurance underwriter or a specialist in insurance comes on here and tells us, we have only one person telling us it probably going to happen.

[IanD]

I'm going to try and reset the discussion back to something sensible...

 

As has been said many times, the target audience for the Guidance Note is "ordinary boaters" who want to make sure they have a safe and reliable LFP installation, whether DIY or professionally installed. To that end it advises what are "good" features (and in some cases, what are "bad" ones), based on electrical knowledge especially of LFP batteries/systems (which many boaters do not have, to be frank...) and existing documentation including standards and training courses (much of which is not freely available to the general public) and (some) manufacturer's data sheets/recommendations.

 

It's not an exhaustive list where everything "good" is essential for safety/quality, just because an LFP system doesn't include everything in it doesn't mean it's not safe -- for example not having a detailed manual describing the system and what to do if something goes wrong isn't suddenly going to make the boat burst into flames -- but I can't see how anyone can deny that it's better to have such a document than *not* have it.

 

The reason it doesn't include a long list of standards and references (e.g. ISO, BSS, RCR) is simple, I'll include a section from a recent email to explain this:

 

"When preparing the Guide, the Group involved made a conscious choice not to include references to standards.  The guide is intended to help users navigate some of the complexities surrounding a Lithium battery installation, but not to provide information only relevant to installers. They believed it was the responsibility of others to decide which Standards were applicable and in what circumstances and to interpret governing legislation."

 

In other words knowing what all the multitudinous up-to-date standards and regulations are and which individual rules are applicable and exactly how to meet them is the job of the installer (DIY or professional) not the boater/customer.

 

I published the document on here in the hope of getting useful feedback about the content of the document, because this is what matters to the target audience -- is the information correct, is it understandable, are there things missing? The level of knowledge on CWDF is certainly a lot higher than the general public (the "ordinary boater"), so it should have been possible to improve the document based on this feedback. And in fact most of the feedback about the document contents has been positive -- there have been a couple of useful suggestions which will be taken into account at the next revision.

 

Unfortunately the vast majority of the posts have completely ignored the document content, and focused on things like the integrity and intentions and qualifications (and personal identities) of the writers, bias and links they might have with money-making organisations, why there wasn't a full list of regulations and standards, how stupid it was to ever release such a document without consulting every single boater, how safe LFPs are because only one boat has exploded and nobody was killed -- none of which has any relevance to the content of the document, and all of which inevitably led to vituperative flame wars and more accusations... 😞 

 

If everyone agrees that what is in the document is correct then -- like all other documents which don't list authors, including every single one of the standards and regulations that some people seem to hold in such high (or low!) regard -- why does it matter so much to some people who wrote it? (mostly well-intentioned boaters, as I keep on saying)

 

If all the advice in it to boaters is good then it has done its job. If some of the advice needs correcting then feel free to suggest corrections/additions -- but please, not by adding a massive list of irrelevant standards, or restarting the flame war... 😉 

 

======================================================================================

 

If you want an example of possible regulatory over-reach linked to money-making for boaters to get justifiably annoyed about, I have a suggestion. I think most people are aware of all the discussions about brokers refusing to sell boats without full documentation (RCR? -- I'm sure @Alan de Enfield will clarify...), and this is driven by the fact that BM (British Marine) has placed such a condition on their members, including brokers. They can do this as a condition of membership because -- well, they can -- even though it seems there is strictly speaking no legal requirement to do this, at least not one tested in law. The result is that presumably surveyors (also BM members?) needed to do the recertification make money out of it, and I believe so do BM. If that's not a conflict of interest which is bad for boaters, I don't know what is... 😞 

 

Oh yes, I forgot, I do. The opinion of BM (as expressed on their training courses) is that installing LFP counts as a MCC (Major Craft Conversion), which means an expensive PCA examination/recertification of the boat is required -- kerching! (several thousand quid -- again, I'm sure Alan can comment). Here are a couple of extracts from recent emails on the subject:

 

"The Recreational Craft Sectoral Group (RSG) is an official advisory body that ensures the uniform application and interpretation of the European Union's Recreational Craft Directive (RCD) across member states and related markets. The UK equivalent of the RSG is the Recreational Craft Regulations (RCR) Stakeholders' Group, convened and chaired by the British Marine Technical Department."

"It is my understanding though that on any vessel in scope of the Recreational Craft Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/737) i.e. put into service after 16 June 1998 an upgrade to a lithium battery system is likely to be considered a Major Craft Conversion (MCC). As such it will require a Post Construction Assessment (PCA) from an Approved Body’s appointed surveyor before placing on the market, which is relevant to anyone considering selling the vessel."

 

I think you can all see where this is going, even though it was let slip on the training course that this is currently an opinion that has not been brought into regulations or tested in law... 😞 

 

And yes, before you ask -- the JWG is going to push back against this, because otherwise lots of boat owners who have spent a few hundred quid installing LFP will be faced with a much larger bill for a PCA (as will some of the JWG). Guess who else is doing this pushback?

 

AFAIK, nobody... 😞 

Edited August 21 by IanD

[EventualBoater]

32 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

Why, do you think they’re not?

Is there any up to date information out there that the insurance companies are looking into Lithium installations more stringently? Just done a quick Google and there is no current up to date information on there, to indicate a current major review on installs and future requirements.

Completely ignore my own question

33 minutes ago, EventualBoater said:

 

The insurers are looking into their LFP rules (lets ignore the whole 'but they might not have' argument), would they not have looked into the inside storage as part of their assessment?

It's a hypothetical question. Im wondering the opinion on if the insurers WOULD look into the storage inside. 

 

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I would have thought not, unless they are experiencing claims caused by LFPs. Or rather, more and/or bigger claims caused by LFPs that by LA batteries.

 

Is there any evidence of LFPs causing insurance claims which would not have arisen with LA batteries? 

Myself, i think they probably would. If they use the other issue as a basis. They'll look into the set up that was in place (that they can get information for) and work all that in. As a risk assessment for them, they'd look into all the possibilities. 

Im still new to all this (not being on a boat), so I dont actually understand how these batteries vent, what they vent etc. So I dont know what's dangerous and what's not. 

That's why the questions and not an 'im right they would'.

[IanD]

32 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I would have thought not, unless they are experiencing claims caused by LFPs. Or rather, more and/or bigger claims caused by LFPs that by LA batteries.

 

Is there any evidence of LFPs causing insurance claims which would not have arisen with LA batteries? 

 

ABC dayboat. That's it, but it was a *big* claim (which could have been a *lot* bigger -- risk analysis, again).

 

And it was "professionally" installed... 😉 

Edited August 21 by IanD

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

ABC dayboat. That's it, but it was a *big* claim. And "professionally" installed... 😉 

 

There is an insurance claim?!

 

 

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

There is an insurance claim?!

 

Obviously, because ABC were insured -- and we know that during the investigation there were discussions between ABC, battery manufacturers/suppliers, and insurers, because they told us so. While refusing to disclose the results of the investigation... 😞 

Edited August 21 by IanD