stephengoldberger Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Interesting that Ford President Alan Mullaly was pushed out of Boeing (at least in part) b/c he favored having the majority of development and manufacture of the Dreamliner being done in-house. The board and his successor were determined to "save money" by leaving the development to the subcontractors who would supply the finished subassemblies. Guess what: the Dreamliner is years behind schedule and billions over budget, and now facing a PR disaster as their battery subcontractor appears to have ... well, performed badly. Meanwhile Ford has brought their hybrid transmission manufacturing in-house, back from (presumably Toyota supplier Aisin) Japan, designed their own battery system, and seem to be having good financial performance after being the only major US manufacturer to avoid bankruptcy. My opinion: he is one of the few massively paid corporate leaders who is really worth his compensation. And I'm no more worried about my CMax battery than I am about the one in my cell phone, but I never charge the phone while it's resting on a combustible surface... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recumpence Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 John, there's lots of different chemistries for Lithium batteries. Some are more vulnerable to thermal runaway, some are not. As it turns out, the most vulnerable chemistries are also the ones with the highest energy density. So Boeing used that chemistry, as did Tesla. Virtually nobody else in the EV industry does, so the batteries in our C-Max's have a lower energy density but are much safer. Personally, I'm far more worried about that 14 gallons of gasoline sitting behind me, given how many regular cars burn to a crisp on a daily basis.Absolutely untrue....... Thermal runaway has more to do with internal resistance than chemistry. Case in point, I work with lithium polymer batteries in RC and electric bike applications. These are the cells that everyone thinks about relgarding battery fires. That is because, early on, all lithium chemistries had a very low "C" rating (how much amperage can be drawn from a cell related to their overall AH rating). The early cells were rated 1 or 2 C. This means their internal resistance was high resulting in voltage sag. This increased temperature in the cell, which increases the internal resistance. This increased internal resistance increased temperature and the cycle repeats intself. This is thermal runaway. However, the new lithium polymer batteries are upwards of 35C. So, a tiny 10amphour cell can put out 350 amps before any appreciable heat builds up. Therefore, these new high C cells are far more stable than the lithium iron cells eveyone raves about because of the high C rating and resultant very low internal resistance. Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recumpence Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 Personally I am more worried about a controller problem rather than the battery itself. No kidding...... This is my concern as well. I have heard horror stories about controller (Inverter) problems costing way more than the battery in a hybrid. Of course, we have a 100,000 mile warrantee on the inverter. That is only 3 years for me, however, due to the huge amount of driving I do. Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.