The Dangers of Lipo Batteries

[Jdege]

I'll go back to my original decision:

If it's too big to throw overboard, it's LiFePO4. These I use for propulsion and house bank. And I permanently mount them in a way to make impossible for them to be accidentally shorted, unless my boat has flooded to the point that I'll be loading the life raft.

Portable batteries I will allow to be Li-Ion. These fall into three groups:

1. Portable electronics - cell phones, tablets, laptops, cameras. These devices are kept where they are easily accessible, and can be easily grabbed and tossed overboard.

2. Power tools - drills, saws, etc. These I store with the batteries removed and kept in a duffle that can be easily grabbed and tossed overboard. I have plastic covers over the connections to prevent them from being shorted.

3. Ebikes. When I store the bike onboard I remove the battery and keep it in a duffle, like the tool batteries. The bikes are kept deep in a locker, and pulling them out in a hurry isn't possible.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by ColinIOM

.....

I used (wrongly it seems) the term “LIPO” which is generic for Lithium Polymer”
which as one of the more observant of you found a response I did previously which included a small lipo battery going on fire in my garage, (a side issue and not in the same league as what I’m referring to here)
Some of you state “you've got no argument here” the thing is, Im not arguing anything with anyone, Im just showing you the evidence in a university article.

So let get down to business, the batteries in this University presentation (which most of you clearly never bothered to watch) is related to the types of batteries used in cars, busses and big power storage cells, so no, not LIPO or your phone but did included Lithium-iron.
Of which, as stated there are a number of chemical make ups. Now someone said on here that the ones used on board yachts are “lithium Iron Phosphate” LFP. This is one of the chemical compositions referenced to in this presentation! Plus, if you care to look on https://www.sciencedirect.com you will find a lot of research being done on thermal runway which includes LPF which I will admit, is a lot better than others but its still being researched as we speak. So it is NOT a done deal. (Scientists words, not mine)

Now if you have these on your boat, your choice but I suggest you go back to the original post and watch it, and FFS do your own research.

Yours Amused
Colin

LFP was on patent until last year which created a significant cost penalty that precluded their use by any major car manufacturer that I am aware of until last year, 2022. Tesla is switching battery types to LFP in some of their models. The results of the change should be batteries that last as long as the rest of the vehicle.

I watched the video. While LFP is mentioned and listed among battery types it's not clear whether it was used in any of their tests. I believe most or all used 2nd life vehicle batteries which means none would be LFP.

The point of the discussion in the the video was discussion of the need for regulation of 2nd use batteries, specifically, batteries removed from vehicles that have reduced capacity which can be reused in power walls or other uses where the added weight and volume is not a functional problem.

This 2nd life regulation would not apply to first life use where the cells installed on your vessel are new.

Regarding the banning of EVs on the Norwegian cruise lines, it's only on their passenger vessels and not on their cargo vessels. As LFP comes to dominate the Lithium battery market they may reconsider. Or they may not.

The info in the video conflates the dangers of different types of lithium batteries in that manner as conflating the risks of gasoline and diesel fuels on vessels because they are both liquid fossil fuels.

[CaptainRivet]

Originally Posted by Adelie

LFP was on patent until last year which created a significant cost penalty that precluded their use by any major car manufacturer that I am aware of until last year, 2022. Tesla is switching battery types to LFP in some of their models. The results of the change should be batteries that last as long as the rest of the vehicle.

I watched the video. While LFP is mentioned and listed among battery types it's not clear whether it was used in any of their tests. I believe most or all used 2nd life vehicle batteries which means none would be LFP.

The point of the discussion in the the video was discussion of the need for regulation of 2nd use batteries, specifically, batteries removed from vehicles that have reduced capacity which can be reused in power walls or other uses where the added weight and volume is not a functional problem.

This 2nd life regulation would not apply to first life use where the cells installed on your vessel are new.

Regarding the banning of EVs on the Norwegian cruise lines, it's only on their passenger vessels and not on their cargo vessels. As LFP comes to dominate the Lithium battery market they may reconsider. Or they may not.

The info in the video conflates the dangers of different types of lithium batteries in that manner as conflating the risks of gasoline and diesel fuels on vessels because they are both liquid fossil fuels.

That myth never dies

LFP means lifepo4 don‘t get thermal runaway, LTO too.
All other lithium chemistry can, LI-ion does very easily. Simple rule with lithium chemistries is the higher the energy density the higher the thermal runaway risk.
Tesla has in no car pure lifepo4, simply because their energy density is to low for their applications, same for other EV manufacturer. They use variants of Lithium close to Lifepo4 but with higher density which can have thermal runaways. That’s the reason LFP won‘t dominate EV market Overall…for low requirement city EVs that’s the case already.

[Adelie]

I believe the LiFePo and LTO can have thermal runaway, but it's much harder to initiate which makes it pretty rare.

Actually, most chemistries have a very low risk of thermal runaway when they are at 40% SOC or lower. Once of the papers I just read about this.

Tesla is transitioning or has transitioned all standard range vehicles to LiFePo.
https://electrek.co/2022/04/22/tesla...cars-produced/

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by CaptainRivet

That myth never dies


Tesla has in no car pure lifepo4, simply because their energy density is to low for their applications, same for other EV manufacturer. They use variants of Lithium close to Lifepo4 but with higher density which can have thermal runaways. That’s the reason LFP won‘t dominate EV market Overall…for low requirement city EVs that’s the case already.

Please don't spread misinformation.

https://www.recurrentauto.com/resear...d%20Model%20Ys.

[sjm823]

Ref the attached report from ABYC, I'm troubled by the end about "drop-in" lithium ion batteries doing "more damage than good, especially without a BMS". Is that the only issue? So if with a BMS, are they safe?? He says those with the same case size as the old flooded batteries are the problem, why would it matter the case size? How different from the old case size should they be, and why?? Very troubling statement near the end, with no explanation. Did he say "especially if" when he meant "only if" no BMS?

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by sjm823

Ref the attached report from ABYC, I'm troubled by the end about "drop-in" lithium ion batteries doing "more damage than good, especially without a BMS". Is that the only issue? So if with a BMS, are they safe?? He says those with the same case size as the old flooded batteries are the problem, why would it matter the case size? How different from the old case size should they be, and why?? Very troubling statement near the end, with no explanation. Did he say "especially if" when he meant "only if" no BMS?

What attached document? Hard to comment on troubling statements if we can't see them. But, there are MANY documents that mix up battery types, discussing Lithium Cobalt Oxide or Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide and assuming they are the same as Lithium Iron Phosphate.

The latest report (letter) from the ABYC discuss them doing everything they could to create a dangerous situation with a Lithium Iron Phosphate battery. Over charging, puncturing, even setting the boat on fire and watching it sink. They were unable to create a dangerous situation, thermal runaway or any of that. There was nothing dangerous about the LFP battery.

This is in contrast to other Lithium chemistries that are not used in boats.

The BMS protects the BATTERY from damage and a shortened life. It doesn't (in the case of LFP) make it any safer.

[SY Harmony]

Originally Posted by wholybee

What attached document? Hard to comment on troubling statements if we can't see them. But, there are MANY documents that mix up battery types, discussing Lithium Cobalt Oxide or Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide and assuming they are the same as Lithium Iron Phosphate.

The latest report (letter) from the ABYC discuss them doing everything they could to create a dangerous situation with a Lithium Iron Phosphate battery. Over charging, puncturing, even setting the boat on fire and watching it sink. They were unable to create a dangerous situation, thermal runaway or any of that. There was nothing dangerous about the LFP battery.

This is in contrast to other Lithium chemistries that are not used in boats.

The BMS protects the BATTERY from damage and a shortened life. It doesn't (in the case of LFP) make it any safer.

What were the results of a direct short?

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by SY Harmony

What were the results of a direct short?

Here is that letter. It's probably earlier in this thread as well:

ABYC newsletter:

September 2022 Newsletter

ABYC President's Message

Common Sense

ABYC is built on a tradition of common sense and real world experiences. Early in my technical days, I was told ABYC designed the Standards so the backyard boatbuilder could achieve desired results. Testing and methodology were crafted in plain language for a “common sense” approach to a safe product.

We did not set aside best engineering practices for simplicity; the technical committee is packed with engineers and data-crunchers overseeing the process of drafting and updating the Standards. This balance has helped ABYC create useable, reliable, and relevant documents that help to achieve an unmatched level of safety in our industry. This is why, when the US Coast Guard asked us to look into potential problems with Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO 4) batteries on boats, we jumped at the chance.

The ABYC Technical Department, with input from the industry, recreated a number of scenarios based on accident narratives that claimed LiFePO 4 batteries to be the cause of a fire. In our on-site test lab, our team subjected batteries to conditions ranging from “normal” operations to extreme use and abuse. We purchased units built for the marine environment with robust battery management systems. We also included recycled batteries available from mass retailers, with an “optional” battery management system and no clear instructions from the battery or cell manufacturer. We tried to replicate sketchy behavior which is the fear of insurance companies and regulators alike.

Do you know what we found? We couldn’t start the fire (Sorry Billy Joel). We witnessed swollen cells, completely dead batteries, and multiple safety cutoffs (when not bypassed). We had a very hot summer here in MD. Even the high heat didn’t come close to a spontaneous combustion scenario.

We arranged calls with industry experts, and we asked them what we might be missing in our testing. What can we throw at these batteries to replicate the accidents we were hearing about? No one had anything to add, short of putting these batteries directly in a fire (which we did). We were able to add LiFePO 4 batteries to a local International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI) boat burn--even there, no one detected any indication that the batteries themselves contributed to the fire. Many of us were fully expecting a report where we were able to replicate an unsafe situation and make some recommendations.

Our full report will be sent to the USCG in due course, and then ABYC will report on our findings. This being a mere President's letter please take it as what it is: My observations while watching our Technical Department do some great work. But, the research and testing may show us that we must take this discussion to the test labs for another round. Our common sense approach to testing has proven again to be the foundation for getting to the bottom of a scenario many of us (including myself) thought would reveal itself in short order. Stand by for formal reporting as we continue our work.

- John

jadey@abycinc.org

Note that this is far from authoritative, I mentioned it because sjm823 referenced it (or something else from ABYC) as if it concluded LFP are dangerous. I have not seen any documents of any test that reaches different conclusions from the ABYC, however.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by wholybee

Here is that letter. It's probably earlier in this thread as well:


Note that this is far from authoritative, I mentioned it because sjm823 referenced it (or something else from ABYC) as if it concluded LFP are dangerous. I have not seen any documents of any test that reaches different conclusions from the ABYC, however.

You realise that this will not stop the chant of the uninformed, " it's lithium, it's dangerous, use at your own risk" brigade.

[BlueH2Obound]

Originally Posted by wholybee

What attached document? Hard to comment on troubling statements if we can't see them. But, there are MANY documents that mix up battery types, discussing Lithium Cobalt Oxide or Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide and assuming they are the same as Lithium Iron Phosphate.

I attached the ABYC letter in post # 11. Comments make more sense if members would read the entire thread.

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by Painless

Totally different chemistry. Li Ion is used in automobiles because they need large power draws to accelerate from 0-60 mph in under 3 seconds if that’s what you want to do..on your boat you don’t have that need so LiFe P04 has a lower discharge rate but can be deep cycled many many times for your steady power draws on your boat or power wall in your house.

The last I knew, the Tesla Power wall was not LiFePo. Same combustible stuff they put in cars.

[CaptainRivet]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

You realise that this will not stop the chant of the uninformed, " it's lithium, it's dangerous, use at your own risk" brigade.

correct and everything that Elon Musks says or states is facts that need to be written in the bible...irony modus off. There is no other person in this world that is more manipulativ then Elon Musk and he goes over dead bodies and does everything needed to reach his goals. Read his Biography and you know what you are dealing with...
next posts facts

[CaptainRivet]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Please don't spread misinformation.

https://www.recurrentauto.com/resear...d%20Model%20Ys.

I don't spread misinformation, read the article carefully...its typical Elon Musk marketing...do you find the word LifePo4 in this article--> no you don't and in others you won't find it too. He is just pointing out its not Li-Ion and the chemical elements that gave him big negative headline are replaced with other that don't have that. As clearly stated its cell is nickel-cobalt-manganese and not LifePo4 and they all it NCA means its modifiied to have a higher engery density=more prone to thermal runaway the higher the energy density is.



The facts are:

The simple answer is it is not possible to replace LI-ION with an electric density of 266 with LifePo4 which has a density between 130 and 150 in a Model3, means your battery pack weights double in LifePo4 then Li-Ion 18650cells. And a Model3 doesn't even have even load capacity to carry double battery weight in smallest battery pack config(!!!)...and then add 5 people and lugguage ok make the pack smaller in AH, well then that Model 3 has a range of 150km max...no one would buy it...

2nd add to that that Lifepo4 can do max. 2C discharge/charge which is by far to slow to do speed charging like Tesla requesting and supercharger delivering. Means a lifepo4 you would need 4h instead of 30min to charge your model 3 which again no customer would accept. so you simply need a different lithium chemistry then LifePo4 too fullfill this specs which is nickel-cobalt-manganese modified to NCA for higher density.

Their new cell produced by CATL which they call NCA have an energy density of 244, slightly lower then 266 for LI-ION but an energy denstity that high means they are very prone to thermal runaway like the old Li-ION, just a little bit less but far far more combustible and dangerous then real LifePO4.

That new Tesla NCA cell have nothing to do with Lifepo4 in our marine vessels other then they belong to the Lihtium battery family as Li-Ion does too.

[Nicholson58]

Refer to my post 50 on this thread. Lots of real data there about the different types and densities.

Photos, my Lifpo batteries from Blue Heron.

Very good assistance regarding accommodation of our other charging systems. They were shipped to us in Trinidad