Is the statement that a Battery Energy Storage System that utilizes LiFePO4 type batteries (manufactured by SunWoda) immune from a fire potential defendable based on actual performance data? Most opponents want to point to the numerous cases of Thermal Runaway type fires but most of these seem to be different chemistry battery types. Is this statement by the operator of a proposed facility defendable?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations JAE on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Risk of Thermal Runaway "Fire" by LFP batteries?
- Thread starter TexasPE
- Start date
How safe are lithium iron phosphate batteries?
Researchers in the United Kingdom have analyzed lithium-ion battery thermal runaway off-gas and have found that nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) batteries generate larger specific off-gas volumes, while lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries are a greater flammability hazard and show greater...
www.pv-magazine.com
- Thread starter
- #4
After reading the articles I am still wondering if the SunWoda batteries are the same as was evaluated. The developer has stated that the electrolyte in these batteries is non-combustible. A combustible electrolyte appears to be the source of generation of combustible gases on decomposition in TR of the LiFePO4 batteries that were being evaluated. This seems to be a rapidly evolving area and is it possible that SunWoda has modified their batteries to eliminate the combustible electrolyte based on lessons learned. I am looking for recent data, not a rehash of older articles.
- Thread starter
- #5
What NFPA 855 2023 Ed.??? Here in the State of Texas the State Fire Marshall's office has Adopted NFPA 1 (2021) not (2024). Not sure it references NFPA 855 (2023). Could you be a bit more specific? I am trying to answer a question posed to me by a county commissioner (who is also a close friend) as to whether he can accept the assurances being made by the owner of the proposed BESS that it will not have an explosion and if it should have a fire it will not require intervention by local responders as it will be contained within the module. (Just let it burn). The owner is not stupid and is a chemical engineer. I see similar claims from SunWoda. From my investigations I do not see this 10 MW Grid level Battery Energy Storage as being a high risk to the community, but am trying to get better documentation to satisfy my friend who is taking a lot of heat from some local community activists who are opposed to any such development.
You can ask the developer to put their money where their mouth is, i.e., will they indemnify you from any fire arising from the battery installation?
see also https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...sks, especially for high energy density cells.
Of interest to me, personally, is the potential generation of HF, which is a seriously nasty acid; we were warned about getting HF on skin, since it will quickly migrate to bony structures and eat them. Even without a major fire, any resultant HF from short term combustion potentially results in a hazardous material situation for cleanup
see also https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...sks, especially for high energy density cells.
Of interest to me, personally, is the potential generation of HF, which is a seriously nasty acid; we were warned about getting HF on skin, since it will quickly migrate to bony structures and eat them. Even without a major fire, any resultant HF from short term combustion potentially results in a hazardous material situation for cleanup
The company should have access to a report from Nationally Registered Testing Laboratory like UL or Intertek that tested their product and supports their claim. If he has the leverage to do so, he should get them to provide him with that data. If they are a legitimate company that has been around for any length of time, they should have that testing. Without that testing, they might as well be a knockoff with an unpronounceable name you purchased from Amazon. Without that data, I would not take the developers word for it - even being perfectly honest, he has no idea what those batteries will actually do without testing having been done.
It would behoove them even make it available on their website, unless they want to go through this in every jurisdiction they want to have their products installed in.
It could be that the technology is new enough that there is not a test standard that really applies. In which case, I think you will be out of luck looking for good documentation.
It would behoove them even make it available on their website, unless they want to go through this in every jurisdiction they want to have their products installed in.
It could be that the technology is new enough that there is not a test standard that really applies. In which case, I think you will be out of luck looking for good documentation.
- Thread starter
- #8
Problem is they really do not have the jurisdiction to stop it. County is holding up a Stormwater drainage permit.
County only has jurisdiction to issue a stormwater drainage permit that the county engineer says they have met the conditions to receive. So, the county cannot make that request. While HF generation is a possibility there are some CFD studies out on dispersion of HF from really show the worst case (for almost all lithium batteries). I have read your article. It may not be germane to this facility due to the LiFeSO4 (LFP) batteries not having a different electrolyte. May be a graphite, not sure at this point, but that is what is used for some of the SunWoda car batteries that are layered and not rolled. They are claiming a much more robust battery with almost no risk of fire or explosion. it really depends on the chemistry which we are not privy to at this moment.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
