PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
More useless and pointless sarcasm, they are not "beloved" i'm with them because they off a policy that suits my needs, at a sensible price point.
They are brokers and no doubt use different insurance companies.
Lithium Positive and Negative Insurers
- Thread starter aqua_sax
- Start date
They are brokers and no doubt use different insurance companies.
jakew009
Well-Known Member
The interesting thing about “unattended” charging with a lfp battery, is wtf are you supposed to do if the main battery does catch on fire whilst you are onboard?
Like say you are sat in a marina when you smell smoke. You start digging around trying to see where it’s coming from.
You realise it’s coming from the batteries. You empty your fire extinguisher on them which does nothing.
You hopefully now don’t get disorientated and die on your way off the boat.
To be honest I think if I found lithium batteries on fire whilst on the boat I’d be exiting pdq, the boat can burn.
Sea Change
Well-Known Member
Like every other person on the planet, I've not experienced a LFP thermal runaway.
But I assume it would be sensible to at least attempt to disconnect the charging source- pull the shore power lead, yank the MC4s off the panels, turn off the engine.
Getting in the life raft might seem like a higher priority though.
geem
Well-Known Member
Such as? Are you looking at the Lithium specific ABYC standard? What don't you like?
lustyd
Well-Known Member
Personally I’d film it. The first ever video of LFP catching fire and somehow sustaining itself despite chemistry saying it can’t woulld easily fund my new boat.
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
No one reading this thread has a LFP system that would comply with the ISO.
jakew009
Well-Known Member
Is that ISO standard even aimed at leisure boats?
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
As far as i am aware the ISO 23625 is not officially adopted, yet. It is entitled "Small craft — Lithium-ion batteries"
For those wishing the insurance company would refer to this ISO, how helpful is this ;
Annex A (informative) Battery thermal runaway
Lithium-ion batteries are unlike lead-acid batteries in two important respects:the electrolyte within most lithium-ion batteries is flammable, and
under certain fault conditions, lithium-ion batteries can enter a condition known as thermal runaway, which results in rapid internal heating that, once initiated, is a self-perpetuating exothermic reaction. Once started, thermal runaway can be difficult to halt. The rate of temperature rise during thermal runaway, and the peak temperature reached, vary widely depending on the particular chemistry used in the battery (e.g. LFP, NMC, or some other chemistry) and numerous construction features (e.g. cylindrical cells versus flat plate; different separator materials; chemical doping; etc.).
During a thermal runaway, some batteries can reach high enough temperatures to ignite the battery's electrolyte, whereas others do not. In all cases, internal cell pressures rise, which can result in venting of gases and electrolyte from the cell(s) experiencing thermal runaway. The flammability of the vented materials varies widely depending on chemistry, cell doping, and other features.
jakew009
Well-Known Member
Well for a start the prewarning before disconnect “suggestion” is pretty controversial.
If there is an overcurrent situation, I sure as hell do not want a delay while I am warned of it. An overcurrent situation is an immediate critical event that should have no delay. If the BMS doesn’t trip the fuse will anyway…
Secondly when the standard was written drop in batteries with built in fet based BMSs weren’t common. It’s written around a set of 4 400Ah Windston cells with separate charge and discharge contactors, not a bank of 4 100Ah drop in batteries in parallel with redundancy. A lot of what’s in the standard simply doesn’t apply to the majority of systems installed today.
jbweston
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that there are distinct points here. One, do insurers understand the different types of 'new technology' batteries; and two on what terms are they willing to do business.
The discussion about point one is all very well - it's about science and understanding different technologies, etc.
Point two is different: do they want the business? If insurers had a policy of not wanting to insure sailing boats, or boats on swing moorings, or anything under 35 feet, we might think that weird, or shortsighted, or based on a misunderstanding of the technology or risks. But actually it's up to them what they choose to insure or not.
Clearly some prefer not to insure anything with 'Lithium' batteries.They might not understand what they mean, or the different technologies, but just from their point of view 'to be on the safe side' we don't want to insure any of them whatever the differences. Like we might choose to insure only motorboats, or only boats based in marinas. You might think it's weird or unscientific but we can choose what risk we're prepared to underwrite thanks very much. And lithium is on our 'no thanks' list.
The discussion about point one is all very well - it's about science and understanding different technologies, etc.
Point two is different: do they want the business? If insurers had a policy of not wanting to insure sailing boats, or boats on swing moorings, or anything under 35 feet, we might think that weird, or shortsighted, or based on a misunderstanding of the technology or risks. But actually it's up to them what they choose to insure or not.
Clearly some prefer not to insure anything with 'Lithium' batteries.They might not understand what they mean, or the different technologies, but just from their point of view 'to be on the safe side' we don't want to insure any of them whatever the differences. Like we might choose to insure only motorboats, or only boats based in marinas. You might think it's weird or unscientific but we can choose what risk we're prepared to underwrite thanks very much. And lithium is on our 'no thanks' list.
st599
Well-Known Member
A LiFePO4 battery can certainly enter thermal runaway, but it's much harder to initiate than other Li-ion chemistries.
Once in runaway a higher percentage of Hydrogen and a higher percentage of toxic gases are released than other chemistries.
All of the main initiation processes can be mitigated with careful design and placement.
The Underwriters' Laboratory have a decent video series on the causes of Li-ion (including LiFePO4) fires and shows different extinguishers being tested.
geem
Well-Known Member
I agree. That why ABYC makes more sense. It's is written by people that actually sail and have lithium onboard.
geem
Well-Known Member
Wrong. You are talking as if Rod Collins wrote it. He is on the committee, not the author.
In the USA, there are far more installations using alternator charging of the lithium so the standard takes this into account, with alternatives other than FET based BMS. My installation meets ABYC.
aqua_sax
Well-Known Member
It's more a sort of quasi-thermal runaway, but it isn't that hard to initiate, see again the academic paper I linked to previously. But the real question is not what might they do, but what do they actually do, in the real world, in typical real world installations? The point is we are already running a mass observational study on the safety of LiFePO4 batteries on boats, and so far the results suggest they are very safe, despite no doubt some installations being not quite a good as they might be.
aqua_sax
Well-Known Member
Which tells us nothing until the standard is made available. With the standard being unavailable, it is a bit like me saying my installation meets UVXYZ.
geem
Well-Known Member
If you want ABYC standards then buy one off their website. ISO can also be purchased. Professional installers would have a copy. Competent DIY installers should obtain a copy.
I wouldn't bother with the ISO as you will discover its almost impossible to comply. This is why ABYC makes more sense
Last edited by a moderator:
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
You and others have asked for the name of companies that provide a policy that doesn't impose ridiculous conditions on the fitting of LFP batteries, i gave the name of the company i'm insured with. If you want to be sarcastic to those who provide such information i would suggest that people ignore your requests.
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
The standards are both available. You have to pay, just the same as you would have to pay for a book detailing how to carry out any technical installation.
You claim that you will carry out a "competent DIY installation" yet you don't know what any of the standards are. A little knowledge is dangerous and i suspect that some of the insurance conditions are in place to protect the insurance companies from DIY installers who think they know best.
geem
Well-Known Member
This is the really scary thing. The guy that thinks he is competent but is unaware of standards and complains when he has to pay for them, so probably won't bother and carries on oblivious to the risks.
jakew009
Well-Known Member
Which bit in my post exactly is “wrong”?
