The Use of Lithium-ion Batteries

[straitman]

There has been some discussion in other threads about why the airlines are switching to use Lithium-ion batteries in place of what has been used up until now. This being the case I have found a few articles and put them together in the one thread for future discussion.

Boeing Affirms Commitment To 787 Lithium-Ion Battery Technology


By Guy Norris
Source: Aviation Daily

January 31, 2013
Credit: Boeing

Boeing CEO James McNerney says the company remains confident in its choice of lithium-ion technology for the 787 battery, and adds that there are no thoughts of slowing down the production line despite the grounding of the aircraft.

Speaking in bullish tones on a fourth-quarter earnings call, McNerney says, “Nothing we’ve learned yet has told us that we have made the wrong choice on the battery technology. We feel good about the battery technology and it’s fit for the airplane.” McNerney’s comments come as investigators continue to probe the cause of the two battery failures that struck the 787 within days of each other earlier this month, prompting a worldwide grounding of the operational and test fleet in mid-January.

Despite intensive evaluations by Boeing, the electric system suppliers, the FAA and U.S. and Japan transportation safety boards, no firm answers have emerged on what triggered either the battery fire on a Japan Airlines 787 Jan. 7 at Boston Logan International Airport or a second failure on an All Nippon Airways aircraft that made an emergency landing in western Japan the following week. “Even though we are making good progress, we don’t have a root cause yet,” says McNerney, adding that returning the aircraft to service is the company’s “priority No. 1” for the year.

 

[straitman]

Airbus Studying Battery Alternatives



By Jens Flottau [email protected]
Source: AWIN First

February 01, 2013
Credit: Airbus

Airbus CEO Fabrice Bregier says the company has been studying alternatives to the lithium-ion batteries it plans to use on board the new Airbus A350, should the need arise. “Nothing prevents us from going back to a classical plan that we have been studying in parallel,” Bregier says.

Like Boeing with its 787, Airbus plans to use lithium-ion batteries for the A350. But Airbus is cooperating with a different supplier, French battery specialist Saft, and the batteries are used for fewer functions than on the 787. Consequently, they are less powerful. Boeing’s 787 batteries are delivered by Thales, with the cells subcontracted to GS Yuasa Corp., a Japanese company.

So far, Bregier sees no need to change the aircraft’s design and technology. But he says it would be possible to adjust the current system’s design while continuing to use lithium-ion batteries. Airbus would also be prepared to switch to an alternative solution without delaying the A350’s planned entry into service, Bregier says. In case of a full replacement, Airbus would “have all the time we need to do this on the A350 before first delivery,” he says.

 

[straitman]

Japanese Airlines Had 787 Battery Issues Before Recent Incidents


By Reuters

January 30, 2013


Japan’s two biggest airlines replaced lithium-ion batteries on their Boeing Co 787 Dreamliners in the months before separate incidents led to the technologically advanced aircraft being grounded worldwide due to battery problems.

Comments from both All Nippon Airways, the new Boeing jetliner’s biggest customer to date, and Japan Airlines Co Ltd point to reliability issues with the batteries long before a battery caught fire on a JAL 787 at Boston’s airport and a second battery was badly charred and melted on an ANA domestic flight that was forced into an emergency landing.
ANA said it changed 10 batteries on its 787s last year, but did not inform accident investigators in the United States because the incidents, including five batteries that had unusually low charges, did not compromise the plane’s safety, spokesman Ryosei Nomura said on Wednesday.

 

[markis10]

A good blog looking at the bigger picture regarding Lithium batteries:

AIN Blog: Battery Incidents Abound, But Not All Involve Lithium-ion | Aviation International News

 

[moa999]

And Tesla says LiIon OK but Boeing going the wrong way using large cells.
Tesla uses lots of smaller cells which is better for heat management

Tesla CEO extends help to Boeing on battery issue | Fox Business
Roadster Technology - Battery | Tesla Motors

 

[Deleted member 29185]

And just to confuse the issue, Lithium batteries come with different compound structure. Saft have a long (well relative of course) history with Li-ion batteries of many compound types so are any of us really sure comparing Airbus research with Boeings is of any use at all (both companies may be looking at or using, different products. I think Boeing was using the (supposedly safer and more environmentally friendly) LiFePO4. They're not a battery with a long history so perhaps they still have "bugs" to work out but like all all Li-ion battery types, individual cell monitoring is vital to the health of all the cells and to extrapolate that one step further, large individual cells may also display inherent charging difficulties.

EDIT: I just read in the Tesla article linked to in the previous post that Boeing are using the LiCoO2 (Lithium Cobalt Oxide) which is widely used in small electronic devices. The issue with these batteries is that O2 is released upon charging, effectively an atomic level deintercalation, which results in the oxidation of the electrolyte and an enhanced potential of fire and possible explosion. The LiFePO4 on the other hand, has a more stable P-O covalent bond which resists the oxidation of the cathode as opposed to the O2 release in the LiCoO2. I thought this was well known however, so I'm quite sure Boeing engineers would have taken these issues into account during their design phase.

 

[lovestotravel]

2 crashes in 3 years - There are many more but these are the big two
Crash: Asiana B744 near Jeju on Jul 28th 2011, fire in cargo hold
Crash: UPS B744 at Dubai on Sep 3rd 2010, cargo fire

 

[Ansett]

Airbus Foregoes Lithium

Airbus decides against lithium batteries

Wondered how long it would take

 

[samh004]

Re: Airbus Foregoes Lithium

No specifics, so I wonder what the difference in power output/weight will be going from lithium to cadmium? Anyone know?

 

[straitman]

Re: Airbus Foregoes Lithium

Airbus Drops Lithium-Ion Batteries For A350


By Jens Flottau [email protected]
Source: AWIN First

February 15, 2013

Airbus has decided to drop lithium-ion batteries on the A350 program. The company told its customers about the decision explaining that it wanted to protect the A350 entry into service schedule.

Airbus sources say the concerns did not necessarily center around the technology as such, but were caused mainly by the regulatory uncertainty following the two Boeing 787 incidents. Airbus was worried about late additional compliance criteria that could have been introduced by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The company plans to mature the technology further nonetheless.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Re: Airbus Foregoes Lithium

No specifics, so I wonder what the difference in power output/weight will be going from lithium to cadmium? Anyone know?

I'd be thinking that's not really an issue for Airbus, nor are the environmental issues of Cadmium disposable and the reason why I say that is because I can only see this decision as being a knee-jerk, public relations decision designed to distant themselves from the Boeing issues as quickly as possible.

Ni-cad certainly has it's inherent problems, which in my mind, would rule them out as a long term solution. The cadmium crystalisation of the cells on shallow discharge would mean regular and expensive replacement and even the difficulties of monitoring cadmium state of charge means Airbus must be over-engineering to remove guesswork. I'm not overly familiar with what they're using these batteries for, but I would say they must have on-board charging. Perhaps they're just using them as supply filtering for sensitive circuits, but in any case, it's hard to imagine them being able to fully discharge the banks repeatedly, especially given they'd never be quite sure when complete discharge will occur.

 

[oz_mark]

Re: Airbus Foregoes Lithium

I'd be thinking that's not really an issue for Airbus, nor are the environmental issues of Cadmium disposable and the reason why I say that is because I can only see this decision as being a knee-jerk, public relations decision designed to distant themselves from the Boeing issues as quickly as possible.

Airbus were quite clear that the decision was taken due to regulatory uncertainty around the certification process. Given that there is still no root cause identified for the 787 issues, the fact that the A350 is in a state where such changes can be made, and no-one knows what additional requirements may be imposed on the design, it seems to me to be a reasonable decision to protect their schedule.

Ni-cad certainly has it's inherent problems, which in my mind, would rule them out as a long term solution.

Ni-cad is widely used in this application now, so it seems to me they would have a very good understanding of the problems. Also, note that the A350 has less power demands than a 787.

I would not rule out a retrofit of Lithium-ion batteries down the track though....

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Re: Airbus Foregoes Lithium

Ni-cad is widely used in this application now,

Yes I know. What I don't know is the application for these batteries. Isn't Boeing and presumably Airbus taking this whole electrification of services to a new advanced level (electro rather than hydraulic??)? My understanding is that the application has changed considerably and the demands on these batteries are considerably different. It's the specific applications that I'd be thinking had both companies looking at alternatives.

What are the "new" applications?

 

[Simo]

Re: Airbus Foregoes Lithium

You would think they would looking for Solar power with a good generator to keep it all powered during flight to reduce the need for a huge batch of battery power.

 

[samh004]

Re: Airbus Foregoes Lithium

You would think they would looking for Solar power with a good generator to keep it all powered during flight to reduce the need for a huge batch of battery power.

I was under the impression that over the next few years you would be able to get a solar film type product that you could apply to glass for a light tinting and power generation. While the amount of power generated is low, some of that across the top half of the fuselage mightn't be the worst idea, but I'm sure they've looked into it and found it to be too low for whatever purposes they have in mind.

 

[Simo]

Re: Airbus Foregoes Lithium

I was under the impression that over the next few years you would be able to get a solar film type product that you could apply to glass for a light tinting and power generation. While the amount of power generated is low, some of that across the top half of the fuselage mightn't be the worst idea, but I'm sure they've looked into it and found it to be too low for whatever purposes they have in mind.

Yep it was something i thought of that could reduce weight.

I would guess that all manufactures would be looking at Solar power but just can not get the technology to the point they want.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Re: Airbus Foregoes Lithium

I was under the impression that over the next few years you would be able to get a solar film type product that you could apply to glass for a light tinting and power generation.

Dyesol (an Aussie company) is the favourite to implement it, but to be honest, I'm sick of reading the prolific Dyesol media releases. I think it would be fair to speculate, the only assistance they may offer the aviation industry in the near future is if they offer to bottle all their hot air and sell it for baloon flights!

 

[AVC]

Re: Airbus Foregoes Lithium

You would think they would looking for Solar power with a good generator to keep it all powered during flight to reduce the need for a huge batch of battery power.

Makes an engine outage at night a bit tricky, although windmilling engines can still run generators. But what of a multiple generator failure?
I'm assuming the avionics would require a battery back up. And with the electric jets, once the electricity runs out, everyone's just a spectator.

 

[straitman]

Re: Airbus Foregoes Lithium

You would think they would looking for Solar power with a good generator to keep it all powered during flight to reduce the need for a huge batch of battery power.

Turbine engines can require a couple of thousand amps during the start cycle so it would need to be as pretty good solar system.

 

[straitman]

Pentagon Stands By Use Of Lithium-ion Batteries On F-35 Fighters


By Andrea Shalal-Esa/Reuters

• 

February 13, 2013
Credit: Credit: Lockheed Martin
The Pentagon said it plans to continue using lithium-ion batteries on the new F-35 fighter jet despite problems with similar batteries that have grounded Boeing Co’s new 787 airliner and are causing Airbus to rethink their use on its A350 jet.

Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon’s $396 billion F-35 program office, said on Tuesday that the lithium-ion batteries used on the new radar-evading fighter were made by different manufacturers than those used on the 787, and the jet’s battery systems had been rigorously tested.

“The bottom line is the lithium-ion batteries used on the F-35s have been through extensive tests and have redundant systems to protect the aircraft and battery compartments; they are considered safe,” DellaVedova said.

DellaVedova said there had been some irregularities with the lithium-ion batteries not starting properly in cold temperatures that were being addressed, but no issues affecting flight safety had come up during years of testing.

All 50 Boeing Dreamliners in commercial service were grounded worldwide on January 16 after a series of battery-related incidents, including a fire on board a parked 787 at Boston’s Logan International Airport and an in-flight problem on another airplane in Japan.

The groundings have cost airlines tens of millions of dollars, with no solution yet in sight, and have sparked growing concerns among aerospace industry executives about whether the powerful but delicate backup energy systems are technically “mature”, or predictable.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, which is examining the 787 fire in Boston, said it was looking at the total design of the Boeing 787 battery, built by Japan’s GS Yuasa Corp on behalf of France’s Thales SA, including the charging system, electrical interconnections, and their thermal isolation of different battery cells from each other.