The way I read this, batteries with BMSs that do not communicate are now obsolete:
If a shutdown condition is approaching a battery system should notify the operator with a visual and/or audible alarm before disconnecting the battery from the DC system.ABYC E13-7
I think ABYC should have required all BMS to be able to communicate with charging sources. This could be as simple as a set of contacts, but CANBus is better. More here on why. And here on ways to do that.
I’ve long thought that the majority of “drop-in” batteries should rather be named drop-out batteries. 🙂 As I see it, any lithium BMS, inside the battery or outside of it, that cannot communicate with the charging units is useless, just junk. Batteries or systems with such a BMS are proof that a swindle has happened.
I have to say I agree. It’s really sad that companies went for short term gain at the expense of their customers, and doubly sad because it’s put a taint on what is fundamentally a good technology: lithium batteries.
Are you sure? It says battery system not “the battery”. Doesn’t this mean a battery monitor installed that warns of temp, voltage, or current approaching an out of spec condition would meet this requirement?
Personally, I feel ABYC caved to drop-in manufacturers and really developed a weak and potentially dangerous standard.
I’m sure the companies that make drop in batteries that don’t communicate will claim that, but, I don’t agree.
The fact is that there is no way for an external monitor to predict the intentions of an internal BMS that does not communicate because there is no way for said monitor to know the state of charge of the battery unless the BMS tells it.
As to caving to the drop-in manufactures, take a look at who is on the committee that wrote the standard!
Let’s just say that my guess is the ambiguity in the sentence I quote was required to get any sort of standard approved.