"Mongo say battery bad"

[mwalsh]

Right-wing fish wrap, the Orange County Register, lets no opportunity to slam alternative energy technology pass. So, as expected:

 

[TomT]

Actually, from what I can make out in the article, it seems fairly accurate and centered... Batteries ARE the biggest problem with most electronic devices (including EVs)...

Right-wing fish wrap, the Orange County Register, lets no opportunity to slam alternative energy technology pass.

 

[ebill3]

Right-wing fish wrap, the Orange County Register, lets no opportunity to slam alternative energy technology pass. So, as expected:

What is the problem? What is incorrect or slanted? Seems rather factual to me.

An easier read: http://files.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/Focus/20130127_focus.pdf

 

[Stanton]

Thanks for the link: much easier to read!

 

[LakeLeaf]

FAA has pulled flight certification for the 787 because of the batteries catching fire. That's a very costly problem.

 

[TonyWilliams]

FAA has pulled flight certification for the 787 because of the batteries catching fire. That's a very costly problem.

Not entirely accurate. The FAA (and most other world aviation regulatory agencies) have grounded the plane by "Airworthiness Directive" for batteries that fail and are a safety of flight issue. Pulling the aircraft's certification is not on the table for an isolated issue like a battery.

 

[Herm]

What is the problem? What is incorrect or slanted? Seems rather factual to me.

The problem is that it is a right wing newspaper.. how dare they!

 

[ebill3]

What is the problem? What is incorrect or slanted? Seems rather factual to me.

The problem is that it is a right wing newspaper.. how dare they!

Yeah, that's what I sort of figured.

 

[garygid]

Lithium ion batteries come in many very different chemistries.
Apparently these are the oldest, "original" Lithium-Cobalt chemistry,
which are very different from the LEAF's battery, which I believe is
a much safer chemistry, similar to the Lithium Iron Phosphate cells.

 

[RegGuheert]

Right-wing fish wrap, the Orange County Register, lets no opportunity to slam alternative energy technology pass.

While I do not agree that this is a right-wing slam of alternative energy technology since it does not talk much about those applications, I must agree that the article seems intent on cherry-picking data to try to provide a skewed view of reality. Perhaps the author thinks this angle is somehow exciting.

Case in point, note the following text in the article:

Battery experts are split over what's next. Some think the lithium ion battery can be tinkered with to get major efficiency and storage improvements. Amatucci said he thinks we can get two to three times more energy out of future lithium ion batteries , while others said minor chemical changes can do even more.
But just as many engineers say the lithium ion battery has run its course.
"With the materials in the current lithium ion battery, we are definitely plateaued," said George Blomgren, a former senior technology researcher at Eveready and now a private battery consultant. "We're waiting for something to come along that really does the job."

That text seems reasonable and covers both sides of the discussion with expert opinions. But then note what the author places in the sidebar at the top of the article:

Developed a quarter century ago, lithium ion batteries are the state of the art in the battery field, and scientists acknowledge they've run their course.

I'm sorry, but that sidebar is disingenuous at the very least considering that, according to the text, only about half of scientists acknowledge this and the other half acknowledge the opposite. Sorry, that is strong writer bias in my book.

I'm sorry, but I fail to accept the premise that Li-ion battery technology has plateaued. In my experience, such proclamations of inherent limitations in this or that technology rarely prove to be true. Inevitably some young engineer or scientist who is ignorant of such proclamations will come along and take further steps because they didn't know it was impossible. In the case of Li-ion batteries, there seems to be a steady stream of developments in terms of energy and power densities, reliability and safety as well as cost reduction that are being introduced into the market.

Also, as Gary has pointed out, the 787 uses a much older and more dangerous generation of Li-ion batteries than the current generation EVs, yet the author does not point out that Nissan has fielded 1000 times as many LEAFs as Boeing's 787 each with batteries ten times as massive likely with higher energy and power densities without any safety incidents. I suspect that the Nissan LEAF uses a much more advanced charging system than is found in the Boeing 787. IMO, if the battery system in the 787 does not incorporate per-cell monitoring and charge control, then that battery was simply an accident waiting to happen.

 

[TonyWilliams]

that battery was simply an accident waiting to happen.

The whole premise to the FAA exemption for this battery to be used in the B787 is that they could contain the bad stuff (this is a common way to get around proper engineering), hence any fire/explosion/smoke was explained away. Obviously, everybody knew that there could be a problem, or they would not have addressed it at all.

Besides, wouldn't you like to sell lots of $200,000 battery packs to operators around the world forever? Not much incentive to make the end-all, be-all battery pack.

I'm sure they didn't count on it making world wide news, and getting them shut down, though.

Edit: I know somebody will challenge me on the price of the batteries, and let me just say that it's probably more than that. A brake set (common wear item) for some planes approach $100,000. The last plane I flew had to replace the main landing strut (it overheated from the brakes!!)... a real simple part that looks like a giant shock absorber; $250,000.

 

[Nubo]

I'm sorry, but that sidebar is disingenuous at the very least considering that, according to the text, only about half of scientists acknowledge this and the other half acknowledge the opposite. Sorry, that is strong writer bias in my book.

There's a strong undercurrent of bias altogether. While everyone would like batteries to be "better", calling them a "scourge", or "slowpoke of the high-tech highway" misses the point entirely. There are millions of Lithium batteries in use everyday. It's a gigantic market. It has ENABLED entire high-tech markets. So, yes, they ARE GOOD ENOUGH. Laptops and cellphones and powertools and CARS, etc. etc. etc.. It's hardly a "scourge". It's a REVOLUTION. The writer seems impossibly blind to the revolution that has occurred precisely BECAUSE of the huge improvement in battery technology in our lifetimes. The central premise of his story is BS, and yes it plays to a certain demographic.

 

[RegGuheert]

The whole premise to the FAA exemption for this battery to be used in the B787 is that they could contain the bad stuff (this is a common way to get around proper engineering), hence any fire/explosion/smoke was explained away. Obviously, everybody knew that there could be a problem, or they would not have addressed it at all.

Agreed that containment was a key design principle, but the failure rate for the main battery needed to be sufficiently low to satisfy the requirements of many fault-tree calculations that it impacted. Not so much for the application as the APU starter battery. (It's the same battery, BTW.)

Besides, wouldn't you like to sell lots of $200,000 battery packs to operators around the world forever? Not much incentive to make the end-all, be-all battery pack.

I'm sure they didn't count on it making world wide news, and getting them shut down, though.

Edit: I know somebody will challenge me on the price of the batteries, and let me just say that it's probably more than that. A brake set (common wear item) for some planes approach $100,000. The last plane I flew had to replace the main landing strut (it overheated from the brakes!!)... a real simple part that looks like a giant shock absorber; $250,000.

I've read that this particular battery costs $50,000, which is much higher than the nearest competitor in a Boeing aircraft (777) at $19,000. The battery in the 767, which the 787 replaces, costs only $6,000, IIRC.

I'm betting the price after all is said and done with this review will be very close to your $200,000 number, but hopefully the batteries will last much longer than 4X as long as the current design and this maintenance will also be reduced. In the near-term, however, there will likely also be accelerated inspections along with the redesign to ensure they got things right.

 

[derkraut]

that battery was simply an accident waiting to happen.

The whole premise to the FAA exemption for this battery to be used in the B787 is that they could contain the bad stuff (this is a common way to get around proper engineering), hence any fire/explosion/smoke was explained away. Obviously, everybody knew that there could be a problem, or they would not have addressed it at all.

Besides, wouldn't you like to sell lots of $200,000 battery packs to operators around the world forever? Not much incentive to make the end-all, be-all battery pack.

I'm sure they didn't count on it making world wide news, and getting them shut down, though.

Edit: I know somebody will challenge me on the price of the batteries, and let me just say that it's probably more than that. A brake set (common wear item) for some planes approach $100,000. The last plane I flew had to replace the main landing strut (it overheated from the brakes!!)... a real simple part that looks like a giant shock absorber; $250,000.

Hey Tony.....ya gotta go easy on them brakes when landing. :lol:

 

[TonyWilliams]

Hey Tony.....ya gotta go easy on them brakes when landing. :lol:

That one was a ditzy female who couldn't fly her way out of a wet paper bag.

Too fast on the Vref, landed long, smashed into the runway and stood on the brakes. Classic idiot moves.

Then, she didn't evacuate the plane with indications of overheating brakes... and she flew it home to maintenance after this.

She was eventually fired.

 

[derkraut]

Hey Tony.....ya gotta go easy on them brakes when landing. :lol:

That one was a ditzy female who couldn't fly her way out of a wet paper bag.

Too fast on the Vref, landed long, smashed into the runway and stood on the brakes. Classic idiot moves.

Then, she didn't evacuate the plane with indications of overheating brakes... and she flew it home to maintenance after this.

She was eventually fired.

Uh.....Roger. :roll:

 

[willk55]

The writer is from the Associated Press. You can't get much further left than the AP.

 

[ebill3]

The writer is from the Associated Press. You can't get much further left than the AP.

Quite true. But, since it was published in a "Right-wing fish wrap", it therefore follows that it must be right wing biased. Yes, I know, that line of reasoning violates logic.

 

[TomT]

The two cancel each other out so it winds up being fair, centered and balanced...

The writer is from the Associated Press. You can't get much further left than the AP.

Quite true. But, since it was published in a "Right-wing fish wrap", it therefore follows that it must be right wing biased. Yes, I know, that line of reasoning violates logic.

 

[GRA]

I haven't read it myself, but from comments here that appears to be the same article that was published on yahoo news, which I referenced here:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6494&start=240#p261187" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure what Yahoo's political bias might be, or why it's relevant.