I have just received a link to this Report on Health and Safety aspects of Commercial BESS (1MW and above).

I've read only the first 10% thus far, but it contains information which would be useful for this discussion.

The report is by Frazer Nash Consultants on behalf of DESNZ, and has a direct email to one of the authors at the start.
That's a refreshing change to the usual unattributed government reports!

Note that many aspects of Health and Safety are not 'material issues' for planning purposes.

For example a threat to people and wildlife from contamination outside of a BESS site would be considered 'material' due to environmental legislation.
However, a potential risk to staff who are tasked with maintenance of BESS equipment is not a planning issue.

Yes, I know it should be... and I would still raise it in a submission opposing a planning application.
But the legal advisor to the Planning Committee would intervene to point out that it can't be a reason for which consent should be withheld.

Planning legislation for energy-based sites is not competent, and needs Parliament to seek amendments.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

I have just received a link to this Report on Health and Safety aspects of Commercial BESS (1MW and above).

This is a pearl! The list of bibliographic references may be very useful as well.   

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Note that many aspects of Health and Safety are not 'material issues' for planning purposes.

For example a threat to people and wildlife from contamination outside of a BESS site would be considered 'material' due to environmental legislation.
However, a potential risk to staff who are tasked with maintenance of BESS equipment is not a planning issue.

Yes, I know it should be... and I would still raise it in a submission opposing a planning application.

Sorry but I disagree completely. 

Planning law is about the effect of a development on the population in general, the environment, or neighbours.  It is not about workplace safety or any other matter essentially private to the applicant, and nor should it be. 

Laws are compartmentalised for good reason.  In the case of planning law there are already many, many complaints that 'nothing happens in this country'.  If you conflate it with workplace health and safety and other things, that gives even more ways people can try to stop anything happening for reasons which, lets face it, have nothing to do with the reason they state.

So IMHO its entirely correct that a threat to people and wildlife from contamination outside of a BESS site is 'material' due to environmental legislation but a potential risk to staff who are tasked with maintenance is not.

@jamespa Indeed! As an ex-H&S co-ordinator, I would agree that the staff tasked with the duties of keeping any such equipment and the site ‘safe’ whilst ensuring that said staff and any ‘outsiders’ were not endangered whilst carrying out such duties or being present in the area is indeed a H&S matter entirely. (Steps down from his soap and in doing, so slips and trips over his own tongue.) 😉 Toodles.

There are some strange attitudes and requirements in H&S; whereas I was responsible for ensuring the safety of all staff working in or at the various premises over which I had jurisdiction, the students were not so ‘covered’ - I just owed them a ‘duty of care’. Toodles.

Posted by: @toodles

↑

There are some strange attitudes and requirements in H&S; whereas I was responsible for ensuring the safety of all staff working in or at the various premises over which I had jurisdiction, the students were not so ‘covered’ - I just owed them a ‘duty of care’. Toodles.

Interesting indeed!

Posted by: @cathoderay

↑

It does make one wonder why there is so much hand wringing and bed wetting in the regulatory, emergency service and insurance sectors about all lithium batteries. They need to sharpen up their act and focus on the real risks from particular types of lithium batteries, rather than on imaginary risks across the board.

All players would normally be expected to be transparent about why they are generally considering lithium batteries risky. 

But clearly these batteries came into the market without much safety related research being carried out. Alternatives using raw materials that are not as tightly concentrated (in terms of supply chain in a single country) are rightly exploiting this lack of peer reviewed research to carve space in what is still a fast growing market. 

From what I saw, sodium batteries are more stable, easier to recycle, etc. They seem to operate in a wider voltage range, so the inverters would need some adjustment. And I think this would make it difficult to mix use of lithium and sodium batteries and allow them to be managed by a single inverter? Anyway, this would be something to discuss in a thread about sodium batteries. 

@batpred — your latest post here has more than a bit of a whiff of AI about it, be that as it may, we might hope that regulators might be transparent, even if they often aren't, but the insurance industry? They are gaming us for a profit! Plus the principle of autonomy means that a business is free to do as it pleases within the law, and is not obliged to give a single word of explanation.

Posted by: @batpred

↑

But clearly these batteries came into the market without much safety related research being carried out.

This simply isn't true. Lithium ion batteries in general and LiFePO4 batteries in particular have be subject to very severe stress testing, and for the latter, no one, so far as I know, has ever got one to spontaneously ignite or explode. They have even been seen to survive, albeit badly scorched, at the epicentre of a fire/explosion.  

Edited to correct some typos

Posted by: @batpred

↑

From what I saw, sodium batteries are more stable, easier to recycle, etc. They seem to operate in a wider voltage range, so the inverters would need some adjustment.

That's somewhat of an understatement. 🤨 

The following table compares a 16-cell battery which must deliver 5kW to a load using the two cell chemistries you've chosen:

The much wider voltage range of the Na-ion chemistry means that it must handle greater current at the lower-end of its capacity.

The additional copper required for the inter-cell busbars and the cable to connect to a load or inverter quickly wipes out any possible cost savings.

Posted by: @batpred

↑

I think this would make it difficult to mix use of lithium and sodium batteries and allow them to be managed by a single inverter?

You wouldn't even attempt to mix different Li-ion cell chemistries on the same inverter.

Inverters and BMS units can only operate correctly and safely if they are handling one type of cell.

Have you yet looked into the specifications for a notional 5kW inverter which is designed for Sodium-ion cells?
If so, please post the URL here.

Posted by: @cathoderay

↑

@batpred — your latest post here has more than a bit of a whiff of AI about it, be that as it may, we might hope that regulators might be transparent, even if they often aren't, but the insurance industry?

It is not AI, it was my own thinking! I was just describing a possible explanation.

The fact that there is recent research about safety of lfp batteries (when, as far as I know, there have not been significant changes in them) made me think this was a gap.

Posted by: @cathoderay

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

But clearly these batteries came into the market without much safety related research being carried out.

This simply isn't true. Lithium ion batteries in general and LiFePO4 batteries in particular have be subject to very severe stress testing, and for the latter, no one, so far as I know, has ever got one to spontaneously ignite or explode. 

Ok, I should have said "without sufficient safety related research being published" ...

I assume that the research published before missed key safety tests including the ones covered in the recent paper? 

Additionally, very shorty after I wrote my post, I saw what seemed better safety related research on sodium batteries...

The hypothesis is them that china's dominance in lithium processing and batteries would naturally lead to statements creating conditions for sodium alternatives to be pursued... 

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

From what I saw, sodium batteries are more stable, easier to recycle, etc. They seem to operate in a wider voltage range, so the inverters would need some adjustment.

That's somewhat of an understatement. 🤨 

..

Have you yet looked into the specifications for a notional 5kW inverter which is designed for Sodium-ion cells?
If so, please post the URL here.

Yes, more than an adjustment...

This is the only combined inverter+ battery that I found (from Eleven) , but the specs look very high level: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pG90wpIrX0OzYN4iSgJrZViJMG958heh/view?usp=drivesdk

I too had spotted the Na-ion battery and matching inverters from Eleven in Cambridge.
it's good to see a British company designing something for the obvious gap in the market.

Note that their inverters can only be used with their own Na-ion battery.
It's not a generic approach. They need to be transferring data between their own BMS and the inverter across the CAN-bus to make the system work.

You must use their own supplied cables for the battery connection,
And the Emergency Power Supply socket is intended to switched manually to feed the home during an outage:

Their North Sea range is fairly new, and I expect they'll add more features in later models.