Gensets redundant ?

[RobbieW]

Heres a new product I saw on Panbo the other day, anyone thinking of installing a genset this winter should at least take a look at the video then see what pricing etc is announced. From the respected sailor / electrical engineer Nigel Calder...

https://www.integrelmarine.com/#whatisit

and if you click the 'How does it work' button and scroll down a bit you get to this video...

https://youtu.be/wfX96IWA6m8

 

[kof]

I suspect this will have some drawbacks. Two I can think of are reduced poweroutput to the shaft - anything that draws mechanical power off the engine will have an impact somewhere else.

The other one is more hours on your main engine. Without the genset you'll end up running the main one a lot more.

Would like to see a good review of this to know for sure.

 

[[3889]]

"When the engine is not running, all of the boat’s electrical systems automatically continue to be supported by the energy stored in the batteries; the more batteries, the greater the boat’s electrical autonomy."

Sounds pretty revolutionary!

 

[RobbieW]

I suspect this will have some drawbacks. Two I can think of are reduced poweroutput to the shaft - anything that draws mechanical power off the engine will have an impact somewhere else.

The other one is more hours on your main engine. Without the genset you'll end up running the main one a lot more.

Would like to see a good review of this to know for sure.

Watch the vid, it covers the power curve question. Yes, you would put more hours on the engine but it should be extracting power more efficiently and you've only the one item to maintain

 

[Tranona]

Watch the vid, it covers the power curve question. Yes, you would put more hours on the engine but it should be extracting power more efficiently and you've only the one item to maintain

Most yacht engines are underutilised both in the power extracted as explained in the video and in terms of hours run. so there is ample capacity available over the lifetime of the engine.

The concerns will be about the hidden bits in the black box far more than the oily bits. Can a small scale producer reach the levels of reliability that are achieved in the mass automotive market for example?

 

[GHA]

Heres a new product I saw on Panbo the other day, anyone thinking of installing a genset this winter should at least take a look at the video then see what pricing etc is announced. From the respected sailor / electrical engineer Nigel Calder...

Looks interesting , clever. Though batteries capable of accepting that amount of current ain't going to be cheap, quick google had the northstar ones on the video at 750 quid a pop, so 3K straight away just to get some batteries which would make sense. LiFePo would really make sense though, no worries about not getting back to full charge and suck up loads of power.
For probably nearly all of our batteries this system wouldn't make a lot of sense, loads of power isn't much use without something which can suck up all that power.

Data in this link on how charging from 50% to full took 12 minutes longer charging at 20% amps of full capacity in Ah compared to 40% .
https://marinehowto.com/how-fast-can-an-agm-battery-be-charged/

Would be nice though, cruising never plugged in without the constant battle to get up to 100% SOC as many days a week as you can. Then just pay for the diesel....

 

[Mistroma]

I guess that it would be able to provide more Ah/day than most would need, pricing will be interesting. Running the engine to charge batteries is something I've always tried to avoid under normal circumstances with a pretty standard setup.

N.B.
Solar can also make gensets redundant in some circumstances, all depends on balance between generation and usage. Winter is the big problem area for solar but summer is often OK. I rarely need to run a generator during summer these days and that's with only 345W panels.

 

[geem]

I like my genset. We live happily off solar for most of the time but we make water with the genset. We can also run the immersion heater whilst making water to do the laundry. If we need to top the batteries up when the sun is not so good for a few days then we also run the battery charger. It may not be such an issue running the main engine for a boat with a small engine but as engines get bigger it makes more sense to run a small genset for ancillary uses rather than a large engine on tick over. The genset is set up to be an efficient generator of electricity with an engine matched to the AC generator. The main engine is not

 

[Tranona]

I like my genset. We live happily off solar for most of the time but we make water with the genset. We can also run the immersion heater whilst making water to do the laundry. If we need to top the batteries up when the sun is not so good for a few days then we also run the battery charger. It may not be such an issue running the main engine for a boat with a small engine but as engines get bigger it makes more sense to run a small genset for ancillary uses rather than a large engine on tick over. The genset is set up to be an efficient generator of electricity with an engine matched to the AC generator. The main engine is not

Suggest you watch the whole video as those issues are dealt with - the whole idea of the device is that it loads the engine at the full range of revs. That is what he claims differentiates it from a conventional generator.

Apart from the reliability of the electronics my concern is that it is only suitable for larger boats with high electricity demands - or rather a way of running the boat on electricity (cooking, domestic appliances, AC etc) more efficiently.

He does suggest cost will be comparable with a generator installation of the same capacity

 

[charles_reed]

Two major problems:-

1. Cooling - any who've run for a long time in Med temperatures will know that problem.
2. Batteries - ordinary lead-acid batteries are way overstretched.

So as has already been said, you've got to go for a LiFe battery bank (remember how the 787 kept on having on-board fires), and no attention seems to have been given to the temperature rises that will take place. Yes 200C wires, but what about cooling the generator? batteries?controller?
I guess the waterjackets would be a plumbers nightmare.

 

[Mistroma]

Good point about cooling. We always open the engine compartment as early as possible after motoring mid-summer. The interior would never cool down if we didn't and sleeping would be difficult. Last thing I need in 40C is to be running the engine for battery charging. Of course I'd have plenty of power for air-con .

 

[crisjones]

Two major problems:-

1. Cooling - any who've run for a long time in Med temperatures will know that problem.
2. Batteries - ordinary lead-acid batteries are way overstretched.

So as has already been said, you've got to go for a LiFe battery bank (remember how the 787 kept on having on-board fires), and no attention seems to have been given to the temperature rises that will take place. Yes 200C wires, but what about cooling the generator? batteries?controller?
I guess the waterjackets would be a plumbers nightmare.

I wish people would stop referring to the Boeing 787 battery fires when talking about Lithium batteries for boats or at least do some research on the subject.
The Boeing 787 batteries are (or were) Lithium Cobalt oxide chemistry, this chemistry is designed to give maximum energy density - most power for least weight and space. It is totally different to the Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePo) chemistry used for Lithium batteries normally installed on boats.

LiFePo batteries are designed somewhat more conservatively so they do not have the same energy density as Lithium Cobalt, they are still miles better than Lead Acid in this respect though. LiFePo batteries have now been in service for many years in many applications, electric vehicles being a major application sector.

I will not go as far as to say LiFePo batteries will not catch fire, however it is very difficult to get them to catch fire and it is very rare in ordinary, well engineered, applications. I would certainly go as far as saying that LiFePo batteries are safer than Lead Acid, especially wet Lead Acid, when properly installed in a correctly designed electrical system.

LiFePo batteries are an excellent choice for domestic battery banks on boats. They are much lighter and smaller than LA, you require about half of the bank capacity when compared to LA so you can install a 400AH LiFePo bank to replace a 800AH LA bank. Charge acceptance rates for Li are much higher and they will accept full charge current right up to 100% SOC. Initial cost may be higher but not significantly so when compared to true deep cycle LA (eg Rolls and Trojan), however lifetime costs are likely to be much less for Li than LA.

LiFePo do require more careful managing and control but that is easily achieved with well proven Battery Management Systems, also some changes are likely to be needed to alternators and other charging sources. However a well designed and carefully installed LiFePo system is lighter, more efficient, easier to live with and probably safer than a normal LA installation

 

[charles_reed]

I wish people would stop referring to the Boeing 787 battery fires when talking about Lithium batteries for boats or at least do some research on the subject.
The Boeing 787 batteries are (or were) Lithium Cobalt oxide chemistry, this chemistry is designed to give maximum energy density - most power for least weight and space. It is totally different to the Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePo) chemistry used for Lithium batteries normally installed on boats.

LiFePo batteries are designed somewhat more conservatively so they do not have the same energy density as Lithium Cobalt, they are still miles better than Lead Acid in this respect though. LiFePo batteries have now been in service for many years in many applications, electric vehicles being a major application sector.

I will not go as far as to say LiFePo batteries will not catch fire, however it is very difficult to get them to catch fire and it is very rare in ordinary, well engineered, applications. I would certainly go as far as saying that LiFePo batteries are safer than Lead Acid, especially wet Lead Acid, when properly installed in a correctly designed electrical system.

LiFePo batteries are an excellent choice for domestic battery banks on boats. They are much lighter and smaller than LA, you require about half of the bank capacity when compared to LA so you can install a 400AH LiFePo bank to replace a 800AH LA bank. Charge acceptance rates for Li are much higher and they will accept full charge current right up to 100% SOC. Initial cost may be higher but not significantly so when compared to true deep cycle LA (eg Rolls and Trojan), however lifetime costs are likely to be much less for Li than LA.

LiFePo do require more careful managing and control but that is easily achieved with well proven Battery Management Systems, also some changes are likely to be needed to alternators and other charging sources. However a well designed and carefully installed LiFePo system is lighter, more efficient, easier to live with and probably safer than a normal LA installation

I'm sorry to see I appear to have misled crisjones into thinking I was slating LiFePO batteries, I was merely trying to point out that high currents = high temperatures = possible fires.
In that the 787 fires were very clearly due to a lack of cooling capacity. Perhaps reading some of the reports will aid his understanding.
I fully support his obvious enthusiasm for LiFePO, (with appropriate charging regimes) for marine use.
However merely replacing Pb/H2SO4 batteries without concomitant changes to alternator and charger controllers is dangerously simplistic.
My charger is set up for LiFePO batteries - unfortunately the standard alternator charger is too dumb to put out the ideal modulated output. My suspicion that the proposed generator will be even more untuned to the charging requirements of conventional lithium batteries.

 

[geem]

Suggest you watch the whole video as those issues are dealt with - the whole idea of the device is that it loads the engine at the full range of revs. That is what he claims differentiates it from a conventional generator.

Apart from the reliability of the electronics my concern is that it is only suitable for larger boats with high electricity demands - or rather a way of running the boat on electricity (cooking, domestic appliances, AC etc) more efficiently.

He does suggest cost will be comparable with a generator installation of the same capacity

This technology could be incorporated into a new boat but I can't see it being retrofitted. It is a complete change to how we generally operate boats at the moment. You need a complete new battery system that currently isn't economic when compared to the tried and tested alternatives already in use. What about redundancy? Currently we can make power from either the engine alternator, generator, solar, wind and water. Since most of us manage nicely off solar in warm climes I guess you would still use solar. So for me the utilisation would be similar to my generator. You could move over to electric cooking but we can do this already through the generator and we choose not to as we would have to make noise when gas is quiet and efficient. It's a back up for us if we were to run out of gas but not our number one choice. Retro fitting the alternator would be a head ache unless space was allowed when the boat was first designed. Many engine compartments are tight for space. The only boat I have ever been on that we couldn't hear the engine on was a Farr 56. It was under the cabin sole and super insulated. I could imagine an installation on a boat such as this where push of a button gave you electric cooking but on smaller boats? Acoustic insulation and engine installations would have to improve dramatically for this to be a viable choice I think.

 

[Tranona]

This technology could be incorporated into a new boat but I can't see it being retrofitted. It is a complete change to how we generally operate boats at the moment. You need a complete new battery system that currently isn't economic when compared to the tried and tested alternatives already in use. What about redundancy? Currently we can make power from either the engine alternator, generator, solar, wind and water. Since most of us manage nicely off solar in warm climes I guess you would still use solar. So for me the utilisation would be similar to my generator. You could move over to electric cooking but we can do this already through the generator and we choose not to as we would have to make noise when gas is quiet and efficient. It's a back up for us if we were to run out of gas but not our number one choice. Retro fitting the alternator would be a head ache unless space was allowed when the boat was first designed. Many engine compartments are tight for space. The only boat I have ever been on that we couldn't hear the engine on was a Farr 56. It was under the cabin sole and super insulated. I could imagine an installation on a boat such as this where push of a button gave you electric cooking but on smaller boats? Acoustic insulation and engine installations would have to improve dramatically for this to be a viable choice I think.

he is not claiming it is a replacement product - it is only you raising the subject!

Perhaps you don't know the background to his work, but this system is one of the outcomes of a series of projects he has been running (mostly with external funding from the EU) into new power systems for cruising boats such as hybrids and canbus distribution systems. He had a Malo 45 built specially to test various ideas.

The whole idea was around new boats as it is clear that few of the systems are suitable for retro fitting - the boat has to be designed around them - for exactly the reasons you stated.

Not trying to "promote" his ideas, but best to look at them for what they are rather than for what they are not.

 

[crisjones]

I'm sorry to see I appear to have misled crisjones into thinking I was slating LiFePO batteries, I was merely trying to point out that high currents = high temperatures = possible fires.
In that the 787 fires were very clearly due to a lack of cooling capacity. Perhaps reading some of the reports will aid his understanding.
I fully support his obvious enthusiasm for LiFePO, (with appropriate charging regimes) for marine use.
However merely replacing Pb/H2SO4 batteries without concomitant changes to alternator and charger controllers is dangerously simplistic.
My charger is set up for LiFePO batteries - unfortunately the standard alternator charger is too dumb to put out the ideal modulated output. My suspicion that the proposed generator will be even more untuned to the charging requirements of conventional lithium batteries.

Charles,

I have read the reports on the Boeing battery fires and the root cause of the failure has not been accurately identified. The lack of cooling capacity has not been clearly stated as directly contributing to the failure, extra cooling may well have prevented the batteries catastrophically catching fire but it would not have prevented the failure in the first place. The conclusion (in the case of Japan Airlines) was that the failure resulted from an internal short circuit in cell 6 that caused thermal runaway resulting in failure of the other cells and ultimately a fire. The actual cause of the internal short circuit has not been positively identified, as far as I am aware, but it was not due to a lack of cooling - in fact one report suggests that operation of the battery at very low temperatures may have been a contributory factor. Here is a link to the US NTSB report on the failure https://www.isasi.org/Documents/library/technical-papers/2013/ISASI NTSB Kolly.pdf The conclusion makes no mention of cooling systems or the lack of.

The Boeing Lithium Cobalt Oxide battery fires are irrelevant to the safety or otherwise of LiFePo batteries and should not be used as an example to make a point about the risks associated with LiFePo.

Your quote in your post - "So as has already been said, you've got to go for a LiFe battery bank (remember how the 787 kept on having on-board fires)" - makes no mention of the different battery chemistries and almost anyone reading it would think that the 787 battery was a LiFe type unless they already knew differently. If you want to raise concerns about high currents, high temps, and fire risks then at least use examples concerning the same battery chemistry so there is no misunderstanding.

This is worth a look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQs7L5LmEss it shows some serious abuse being directed at LiFePo battery cells including a dead short circuit, gun shots and high temeperatures. It should demonstrate the relative safety of the LiFePo technology.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that Lead Acid batteries can be simply changed for LiFePo batteries without making changes to the rest of the charging systems, in fact I stated "some changes are likely to be needed to alternators and other charging sources".

Obviously we do not yet have real world experience of the Integrel generator but it is pretty clear that it is very different to a standard alternator. The regulation and rectification of the generator is done in an external "black box" and the videos and specifications would tend to indicate that the design criteria has always included LiFePo batteries from the outset. The system can be supplied with Lead Acid or LiFePo batteries so I would be fairly confident that it will be way better than a normal alternator - only time will tell if it is perfect. Nigel Calder has been a long time proponent of LiFePo batteries on boats so I am sure they are as well supported as LA in the design of the Integrel system. The promotional video clearly shows a Lithium bank under test.

The major downside to LiFePo batteries is that they do not like being held at 100% charge for long periods of time - this will cause loss of capacity and ultimately failure over time. I am ignoring the problems of overcharging and over discharge since these two risks should be entirely mitigated by a proper BMS. Most testing and investigations into LiFePo show that they perform best if cycled between about 30 and 90%, although they can be safely operated between 10 and 100% charge. It is only long periods of time at 100% that is detrimental so LiFePo batteries should be stored at around 50% charge never 100%.
This factor may well cause issues with the Integrel system since the generator will very quickly get the bank to 100% and it will probably hold it there for longer than is ideal, obviously when the engine is not running the bank will be discharged and overall the system may be OK for running with Li batteries. I am not sure about the time scales involved with holding Li batteries at 100% but it is probably many days before it becomes a noticeable issue so the Integrel system will probably be very well suited to Li. Certainly Li batteries are much better for powering inverters since they can supply high currents without detriment and the Peukert effect is minimal.

 

[geem]

he is not claiming it is a replacement product - it is only you raising the subject!

Perhaps you don't know the background to his work, but this system is one of the outcomes of a series of projects he has been running (mostly with external funding from the EU) into new power systems for cruising boats such as hybrids and canbus distribution systems. He had a Malo 45 built specially to test various ideas.

The whole idea was around new boats as it is clear that few of the systems are suitable for retro fitting - the boat has to be designed around them - for exactly the reasons you stated.

Not trying to "promote" his ideas, but best to look at them for what they are rather than for what they are not.

If you care to read the OPS post, he says 'anyone thinking of installing a genset this winter
Read more at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?507798-Gensets-redundant#07YrKQKEg8zjluMI.99'

The OP is suggesting a retrofit. I commented that it doesn't look like a retrofit product and only suitable for new build.

 

[RobbieW]

If you care to read the OPS post, he says 'anyone thinking of installing a genset this winter
Read more at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?507798-Gensets-redundant#07YrKQKEg8zjluMI.99'

The OP is suggesting a retrofit. I commented that it doesn't look like a retrofit product and only suitable for new build.

The OP was thinking about retrofit when he posted, however - having thought about it a bit and read others comments - the way this solution works is fundamental to the way that electrical power is used on a boat. So new build is certainly appropriate, retrofit IF you're at a point where everything is up in the air. From my perspective; I dont have a watermaker but am considering that, I use 6x6v AGMs that are now 7 years old (so wouldnt make up 48v), I took out a genset a few years ago but increased the capacity of the alternator and added solar to compensate. Depending on pricing I would certainly consider this solution, partly because it seems elegant and partly because it makes efficient use of some existing resources. My current solution predicates running the engine for an hour or so every few days then letting the solar stay on top of usage until the batteries have depleted to my limits, c. 20% depletion.

I dont remember if solar was discussed in the vid. It seems there is either the choice of keeping the existing solar setup to charge the 12/24v battery or changing the solar charger to output for a 48v bank. Having considered whether LiFe was viable to replace my AGMs, this is another slant on that equation

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

Am I missing something? This is just a huge alternator charging a huge battery bank, plus some fancy electronics to manage it isn't it? I would need a lot of convincing that this is an improvement over a generator plus solar. Far too much to go wrong with no back up system.

 

[geem]

Am I missing something? This is just a huge alternator charging a huge battery bank, plus some fancy electronics to manage it isn't it? I would need a lot of convincing that this is an improvement over a generator plus solar. Far too much to go wrong with no back up system.

Agreed. It seems to have multiple single points of failure.