House passes bill protecting Apple's lithium batteries from limitations

[n2doc]

By Josh Ong
Published: 02:00 AM EST
In a move that could save Apple and other electronics manufacturers billions of dollars, the U.S. House of Representatives recently approved legislation barring proposed limitations that would have classified lithium batteries as hazardous materials.

Bloomberg reports that the bill, which would prevent U.S. limitations on air shipments of lithium batteries from exceeding international standards, passed in the House on April 1, but will need to be reconciled in a House-Senate conference committee.

The new legislation conflicts with a proposed rule by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration that would impose additional limitations on shipments of lithium batteries over concerns that they may overheat and ignite during transport. If the rule came into effect, manufacturers, retailers and airlines would all be subject to new packaging, training and handling requirements.

According to an analysis commissioned by the Rechargeable Battery Association, the limitations would cost $1.13 billion the first year in packaging, transportation, logistical and training costs.


more
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/04/08/house_passes_bill_protecting_apples_lithium_batteries_from_limitations.html

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Big biz wins again.

[kristopher]

4. I believe the runaway problem wih lithium batteries was defeated.

It was a specific early design that is no longer produced as far as I know. I'm certain it isn't produced by Apple or any of the other major electronic makers.

[jberryhill]

5. No, it is an inherent problem

What has gotten better are industry controls on the active safety circuit that is built in to lithium battery packs.

The bottom line remains that the safety circuit can fail.

[kristopher]

6. You'll need to provide a citation for that.

They've changed the chemistry also.

[jberryhill]

7. Yes, but "safer" and "solved the problem" are two different things

...as we know from our friends in the nuclear industry.

The bottom line is that you've got impressive energy density there. Thermodynamics doesn't care what the mechanism is - where you've got a lot of energy in one small place, it's lookin' to get free. Don't ever kid yourself about that with ANY technology.


http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lithium_ion_safety_concerns

Let me assure the reader that lithium-ion batteries are safe and heat related failures are rare. The battery manufacturers achieve this high reliability by adding three layers of protection. They are: <1> limiting the amount of active material to achieve a workable equilibrium of energy density and safety; <2> inclusion of various safety mechanisms within the cell; and <3> the addition of an electronic protection circuit in the battery pack.

----

Now let me translate that for you:

"I'd like to sell you some batteries."

Properly managed and handled, they are as safe as anything else. But the failure modes are dramatic and beyond the expectation and experience of the average consumer.

Now I know a lot of work has gone into automotive applications, but when a million are on the road and colliding with things at high speed, I don't expect them to be safer than gas tanks. Now... gas tanks are pretty safe... these days.... thanks to learning experiences like the Pinto.

[kristopher]

8. A reasonable presentation that is totally lacking meaningful evidence.

Plastic explosives and butane lighters have high energy density also, but that doesn't presuppose the existence of "runaway reactions" such as you are asserting is a problem with current lithium battery chemistries.

[jberryhill]

9. You do know that they brought down a 747 just a few months ago, yes?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-10-08-faa-lithium-batteries_N.htm

The FAA confirmed publicly for the first time that a UPS 747-400 that crashed Sept. 3 while attempting to make an emergency landing in Dubai after a fire broke out in the cargo hold "did contain large quantities of lithium batteries."

[kristopher]

11. You are asserting a cause - effect that has not been established.

Your assertion that "they brought down a 747" is self serving as the cause has not been established. However it is possible if there were batteries with the older chemistries involved. So to be clear - *IF* lithium batteries were involved I am completely confident it isn't going to be ones with the new chemistries, it will be the original ones that are acknowledged to have a problem.

Are you asserting that the newer chemistries, which store even more energy than those with the problems, ARE prone to the problem that the older chemistry had?

If so, state it clearly instead of using weasel words and false assertions.

[jberryhill]

15. Must you make every discussion unpleasant?

Anything storing a large amount of energy in a small space is going to have inherent hazards.

You may deny that all you like, and you can maintain that an aircraft fire which happened just a few months ago was a consequence of some outdated technology. That's fine. The FAA doesn't see it your way, and that's a simple fact. If you would like to trust the manufacturing controls of Chinese suppliers of these things, that's also fine. After all, if one can save a few cents per unit by lowering safety standards, then what are a few aircraft lost among friends.

However, you have an apparent emotional attachment to the subject which requires you to behave in a way that's not really motivated by having a normal conversation. Perhaps you might identify these completely safe lithium batteries which have apparently replaced all other batteries on the market in the last few months. I have provided you with relevant links, and all you provide is frothy characterizations.

[TheMadMonk]

10. Hmm, try leaving a butane lighter in the sun for a while and then...

...give it a little knock. I guarantee you, the results can be spectacular.

BTW Guess what? There ARE special rules for transporting ANY pressurised gasses (flamable or otherwise) on planes.

And FYI plastic explosives have special handling rules out the bloody wazoo when transporting by air or any other mode of transport as well.


Meaningful evidence would be the simple fact that laptop and phone battery fires are still in the news, they may be rare now, but they are not yet entirely absent. Ample evidence as to the character of too many manufacturers, suggests that dangerous cost saving shortcuts are possible, or even likely, as demand for batteries continues to rise.

Misshandling, could well become a major problem too. Some minor mishap which cracks a battery case allowing moisture to slowly infiltrate and creating something of a time bomb. In a laptop it's a reasonably managable mess, even at 35,000 ft. In a pallet load of 1000 batteries it would be an unmittigated disaster almost anywhere.

Following only the basic Hazmat rules for bulk transport of lithium batteries would almost certainly guarantee disaster, sooner rather than later.

[kristopher]

12. That is exactly why i chose those examples.

The characteristics that make them dangerous are known and predictable. The same with the lithium batteries. Any incidents you continue to hear about are due to the chemistry that is being phased out. The new chemistries have greater capacity and do not have the potential for the runaway meltdown reaction to occur.

The older batteries are still being used because they are cheap and the risk is low. But going forward there is no reason to think they will be a permanent part of the landscape any more than 8 track tapes were.

Your cost-cutting scenario might be applicable, but it would present itself as use of the older chemistry batteries instead of the newer ones. Since that lithium chemistry has a shelf life of only about 3 years on average, I think it would be prudent to encourage manufacturers to phase them out by requiring prominent warnings on the products using that chemistry.

If there are special risks that are involved in transporting the newer ones (I don't think there is) I would also have no problem with hazmat regs covering them. My point was and is, though, that the "runaway" problem has been solved with the newer chemistries.

[TheMadMonk]

13. So if you snap one in half and add moisture it WILL NOT ignite?

If a battery is heated to the point of physical disruption will it deconstruct gracefully or not?

I'm still not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. There are very specific regulations for the handling and shipment of potentially dangerous goods, and those regs often have to be very specific to the goods beeing moved.

That's exactly what this argument is about. The lack of any regulations specific to Li batteries means they'll be moved under more general handling rules. The sort of rules where a careless forklift driver will figure there's no great harm in turnning a damaged box on a pallet.

And the sort of shortcuts I mean are dodgy fuses/protection circuits (even completely counterfeit ones). How safe is "totally safe" then? (Are you not the one stridently deriding supposed claims of total safety vis a vis nuke power?)

[kristopher]

14. Post 12 is perfectly clear.

The implication of the post I originally responded to was that the batteries are still prone to random runaway meltdowns.

That is true with older chemistries, and should be recognized appropriately in handling and shipping. Likewise the actual dangers of the new chemistries that ARE NOT subject to random runaway events should guide the policy for those batteries. Apple, which is specifically mentioned in the OP exclusively uses the new chemistry. The difference is night and day.

[TheMadMonk]

19. A quality battery yes. But even the "safe" chemistries rely on good...

...working protection circuits to prevent overcharging and fuses to prevent dangerous discharge rates. A badly constructed battery, even one using a "safe" chemistry, is an accident waiting to happen.

Spontaneous runaway events might be a thing of the past for one manufacturer (Apple) they are not necessarilly so for others.

Special exemption only for the "safe" chemistry? Of course no one would ever mislable a shipment.

The difference is under a tight regulatory model, the shipper is obligated to prove his shipment is safe before it is allowed to travel. Without regulation, the carrier is now obligated to demonstrate probable threat before he can refuse to move it. Chances are the best we can now hope for is that the carriers will voluntariliy choose not to place any bulk battery shipments on passenger aircraft.

[jberryhill]

16. He should really go to work for Exelon

After he wraps up the "completely safe" high energy density batteries, he can tell us they will provide power too cheap to meter.

[jberryhill]

17. What you fail to grasp about these unidentified "new ones"...

...are the as-yet unidentified new risks.

There's nothing wrong with putting a lot of faith in engineering, but it frequently occurs that the solution to one problem will often lead to as-yet unidentified new problems which don't become apparent until large scale deployment.

You have not provided a single link to any reference suggesting that all lithium batteries have become safe, that all manufacturers have become scrupulous in their production and labeling practices, or anything else suggesting that there is no risk from relaxing the handling requirements for Li batteries. All you have to offer is insulting rhetoric toward anyone with a concern that perhaps we might want to gain real world experience with any new technology before declaring it safe.

[jberryhill]

18. "I believe"... "as far as I know"... "I'm certain"...

Your use of citations is stunning.

[truedelphi]

2. I wonder how many on this board never think about the

Dangers inherent in swapping out your old phone for a newer one, every year or sooner?

Even if recycled "properly," the old item ends up on a barge to China where it will be picked apart for valuable parts, anything not utilized will end up in a land dump or a river.

[jberryhill]

3. Ummm.... lithium batteries are potentially quite dangerous in airplanes

A statistically certain number of lithium batteries are going to become unstable at some point. The shipment limitations and packaging regulations are designed to address a situation that could become a catastrophic hazard to an aircraft.