
Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe - aaronbrethorst
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/elon-musk-boeing-787-battery-fundamentally-unsafe-381627/
======
Camillo
This is a very smart move by Musk from a PR point of view. By accusing
Boeing's batteries of being fundamentally unsafe, he garners the maximum
amount of trust from people who are concerned about battery safety, so that,
when he immediately follows up with an explanation of why this couldn't happen
on a Tesla, those very people are already leaning towards believing him. This
goes over much better than attempting to defend the safety of high-density
batteries in general.

~~~
MikeCapone
I think he probably saw it as a defensive move: He doesn't want li-ion
technology to get a bad name, and that doesn't mean only explaining why
Tesla's approach is safe, but also trying to help others avoid mistakes that
could hurt the whole industry including his company.

~~~
dmix
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offense)

> Generally the idea is that offensive action preoccupies the opposition and
> ultimately its ability to directly harm.

------
garretruh
While I have enormous respect for Elon Musk, I would hope that Boeing
engineers have just as thorough an understanding of the workings and safety
implications of Lithium-ion batteries. Though Tesla's engineering is
admittedly much more focused around battery technology, Boeing has decades of
experience with aircraft electrical systems.

~~~
djt
no doubt Boeing know that even if the batteries smoke and fail they wont be a
threat to safety, but Musk has a better handle on marketing. If there is smoke
on a plane or car people expect the worst, regardless of if it is actually a
safety issue.

~~~
martinced
From my limited experience with smoke in cars, sadly they often turn to fire.
Because, you know, like the first humans that did create fire, very often when
a fire starts there's smoke...

I've seen a Saab in which the ashtray started to smoke and then before we
could pull out (on the highway) the dashboard had flames and started to melt.

And I've seen a very nice and shiny Porsche 911 Carrera model 964 whose
alternator belt did broke and then started "burning" on the engine. We smelled
it and then we could see smoke. By the time we opened the engine trunk (with
our fire extinguisher in hand) it was on fire. Funnily enough the repair were
under warranty and there wasn't much to change (the trunk needed to be repaint
and one or two pieces changed).

When there is unexpected smoke on a plane it _is_ a safety issue.

Seen that a Boeing supplier's factory went up in flames due to a battery that
took fire, I'm not exactly sure there's "no doubt Boeing know that even if the
batteries smoke and fail they won't be a threat to safety". Same for the 16
hybrid sport cars that burst into flames on that parking lot due to batteries
shorting.

I think that: "There's no smoke without fire" may be the sentence you're after
; )

~~~
djt
yes in a Petrol car there is a problem with smoke = fire. My whole point is
that smoke in a petrol engine usually means something as either caught fire
etc. Smoke in a Battery compartment may or may not.

Is it a safety issue? Probably, but not definitely. Do the general public have
a problem with smoke on a plane? Hell yes.

Our experience with traditional cars and planes is that where there is smoke
there is fire. That may or may not be true with the batteries, I dont know but
I do know that Boeing do a LOT of testing, so would be suprised to see a plane
go down due to these problems.

I believe the cars you were talking about were completely submerged in sea
water and then caught fire. Presumably any car or plane submerged in sea water
will get written off which is probably why they dont worry too much about it.

------
eduardordm
Elon seems to really want to get involved in this. Make no mistake, Boeing and
SpaceX are fierce competitors for government contracts with very dubious
selection processes.

I'm saying this because he is a businessman, not an engineer. He seems to be
getting a lot of information about the 787s batteries inner workings when the
number of airplanes and suppliers are very limited.

Edit: I'm not trying to be cynical, but I do think that if Elon really wanted
to help he should contact Boeing and do it instead of playing politics.

~~~
sfall
while not a PE he is no slouch, he has a bachelor's in physics

~~~
digikata
Is a Professional Engineer certification relevant here? All the PEs I've met
work in the civil engineering field.

~~~
itp
Sounds like you only know people with Civil PEs, then. There are different
examinations and qualifications for different disciplines.

Source: my wife is a Naval Architecture PE.

~~~
jessaustin
Yeah that's the only kind of PE I've met. As a profession they do not impress.
These guys are incapable of _imagining_ anything they haven't done before a
hundred times, let alone doing it and putting their seal on it.

~~~
Spooky23
Generally speaking, you don't want creative processes for the construction of
overpasses, highways, and building construction. You want something that is
structurally sound, safe for the application in question, and of a design
suitable to being bid on by multiple contractors.

------
AndrewKemendo
This a month and a half after Boeing/Lockheed was derisive about Musk
publicly:

[http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-12-18/musk-
vs...](http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-12-18/musk-vs-lockheed/)

~~~
josefresco
Wow, a $70 billion market dominated by essentially only two major players.
Sounds like a market ripe for disruption.

~~~
notahacker
If you have the ability to put together a team that can raise a few hundred
million in venture capital to go after a few big government contracts, then
maybe. There's a reason why some markets are dominated by essentially two
major players.

Not sure where the $70 billion valuation comes from either, but if you add
together the market capitalization of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and SpaceX
you're still under $100 billion. Boeing and Lockheed Martin also make other
stuff.

------
codex
I've found that humans are much better at doing than they are at thinking.
Humans can generate countless hypotheses and evidence to support those
hypotheses, and yet most human theories are flat out wrong. This is why we
have the scientific method, which verifies hypothesis with good old fashioned
elbow grease.

The real "five whys" question here is: "Why did this battery get through
Boeing's (most certainly exhaustive) certification process and win FAA
approval?" Boeing is well aware of the risks of lithium ion batteries and must
have "proven" to themselves and the FAA that this design was sound through
rigorous testing.

I suspect there is an "unknown unknown" here; something so unexpected a test
couldn't be fathomed to exercise it. How does one find unknown unknowns? It's
a fascinating question.

------
WestCoastJustin
Forbes is running an article [1], suggesting it is in Boeing/SpaceX/Tesla's
goint best interested to prove/make safe lithium ion batteries. Reason being,
they all have products that use them, and they should have a _great_
reputation, and there should be zero stigma attached to them.

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2013/01/29/why-
elon-m...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2013/01/29/why-elon-musk-
wants-to-help-boeing-fix-the-dreamliner/)

------
robomartin
While I can't dispute anything that is being said I think it is unfortunate
that this is playing out the way it is.

I can't dispute it because there's virtually no reliable publicly-available
information on the design of this battery pack. I think it is unbecoming of an
engineer or scientist, particularly of prominence, to voice such opinions
without access to design data from the source.

Before I could even begin to dare to voice opinion I would need to study CAD
models, electrical and electronic diagrams and test data. I would also want to
have access to representative samples of the packs for inspection. Even then,
unless there was something so obviously wrong with the design that a
conclusion was inescapable I'd refrain from rash public comments and redouble
evaluation efforts to make sure every angle was evaluated exhaustively.

Having designed high-performance, high-current chargers in the past I know a
thing or two about battery technology, particularly when it comes to failure
modes. When you are doing that kind of work you purposely test designs to
induce and document failures and design around them when possible. Yes, I have
blown-up lots of batteries and chargers. And, yes, this means that if you've
worked with high-energy battery technologies (and electronics in general) you
get a good general sense of the good, the bad and the ugly. I get it. And I
would still want design and test data from the horses-mouth before uttering a
word.

The problem here is that the engineers at Boeing are not clowns. Unless you
consider people with advanced degrees from the top engineering schools in the
world to be clowns. This is an industry that takes what they do very, very
seriously. A lot of work, simulation and testing goes into all of their
projects. I could not imagine the engineers at Boeing slapping together a
battery pack for something like the 787 project without years of work and
testing. I just can't see it. Yet, they are human beings which means that
mistakes and miscalculations do happen. That's true of any human endeavor.

And so, making such comments is also disrespectful. I understand competitive
forces very well. But there's a time and a place for that.

If he is wrong he'll have a lot of explaining to do. If that is the case I
hope he'll devote just as much energy to issuing the necessary apologies and
clarifications as he does being critical.

EDIT:

If you ever get a chance to visit the Boeing factory in Seattle it is a must.
I did many years ago. As an engineer it was fascinating. I remember one test
they showed us where they clamped down (I think) a 747 wing in this huge
structure and used incredibly large hydraulic jacks to bend the wing up and
down repeatedly for failure-mode testing. I could be wrong, but I think I
remember the peak to peak bending at the wing-tip was in the order of ten
stories. I could not imagine designing and building an electro-mechanical
structure that could do that and survive with enough functionality to get
people safely back to ground level.

I think this might be it: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRf395ioJRY>

Here's video on the 787 wing: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA9Kato1CxA>

Also: [http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/03/boeing-787-passes-
incre...](http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/03/boeing-787-passes-incredible-
wing-flex-test/)

So, yes, please, I think it might be wise to remain quiet and let those who
actually have real data go through a proper investigative process and get us
real answers. If anything out of respect for the work, talent and dedication
that goes into designing and building such amazing products.

~~~
Confusion
Boeing batteries are overheating. Tesla batteries are not overheating. There
are sufficiently similar requirements on their performance and safety that any
layman can conclude there is something wrong with Boeings design.

    
    
      The problem here is that the engineers at Boeing are not clowns. 
    

The problem here is that you think that is what is being alleged. It isn't: an
enormous and old company like Boeing can have an entrenched culture that leads
to decisions being made that do not follow the advice of the engineers. What
makes Tesla and SpaceX competitive is not their technical knowledge: it's the
fact that they can use that knowledge effectively.

NASA's engineers aren't clowns either, yet their shuttles exploded,
unnecessarily. The Feynman committee tore their procedures, not their
engineering ability, to shreds.

~~~
smackay
It was an engineer, Roger Boisjoly, who repeatedly warned about the safety of
the o-rings, particularly in low temperatures. The decision to launch the
shuttle came from management not the engineers.

[http://www.space.com/14522-roger-boisjoly-shuttle-
challenger...](http://www.space.com/14522-roger-boisjoly-shuttle-challenger-
disaster-obit.html)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Feynman was on the accident investigation committee, and was critical to
exposing crucial facts and making sure they made it into the report. Feynman
even wrote an additional report to add to the committee's work.
<http://www.ralentz.com/old/space/feynman-report.html>

Bolsjoy's ordeal is now in the curriculum of many engineering ethics courses.

~~~
pdaddyo
Also nearly half of Feynmann's 2nd book "What Do You Care What Other People
Think?" covers the shuttle enquiry in great detail.

------
jessaustin
_"I design a cell to not fail and then assume it will and the ask the next
'what-if' questions," Sinnett, [Boeing's 787 chief project engineer] said.
"And then I design the batteries that if there is a failure of one cell it
won't propagate to another. And then I assume that I am wrong and that it will
propagate to another and then I design the enclosure and the redundancy of the
equipment to assume that all the cells are involved and the airplane needs to
be able to play through that."_

OK, maybe part of this is bravado, and it seems that the failure of one cell
certainly has spread to another, but so far at least no plane has crashed as a
result. I think Boeing's engineers should get some credit for that? One could
imagine worse results than we've seen, especially in fields of engineering
that don't have aviation's safety practices.

~~~
cpleppert
>>but so far at least no plane has crashed as a result. I think Boeing's
engineers should get some credit for that?

There are a grand total of 49 planes total that have been produced and the
plane has been in service for little over a year. The fact that no plane has
crashed tells you nothing statistically about the safety record of the design.

The fact that aviation has a great safety record is MORE reason to worry about
any issue, not less. Modern commercial planes are expected to fly for decades
over tens of thousands of flights. Even a small issue that is incredibly
unlikely is too dangerous when compared to the great safety record of existing
airplanes.

------
EEGuy
There is a published picture [1] of one of the failed assemblies next to a
normal assembly of the same type, sitting on a forklift pallet. It's easy to
gauge the assemblies' physical size and count a minimum of 16 visible cells.
Not visible in the photograph are bus bars or power connector.

I don't see a lot of paint discoloration, and a label of some kind is not
charred or much discolored.

[1] [http://phys.org/news/2013-01-overcharging-batteries-eyed-
boe...](http://phys.org/news/2013-01-overcharging-batteries-eyed-boeing-
mishaps.html)

------
3amOpsGuy
I'm just surprised there isn't more damage from the fire! I use similar
chemistry batteries (although much smaller) in RC planes (they are very energy
dense for their weight).

When they are damaged (normally through charging incorrectly but in some cases
through puncture / crash damage) they burn extremely rapidly and very
violently for their size.

The damage in the photographs of the 787 is not on the scale i was expecting.

~~~
jlgreco
This is a bit off-topic, but I have been considering retrofitting my roomba
with Li-ion batteries but am a bit concerned about the fire risk (partly
because I don't want to loose the roomba, but mostly since it is in my
apartment.) Is there anything that comes to mind that I should particularly
look out for or consider?

~~~
3amOpsGuy
May be worth exploring the differences between "safer" cells such as LiFe /
A123 vs the riskier Li-ion & LiPo types.

I understand the charging strategy for A123 is much simpler to implement than
for Li-Ion (may not even need a micro controller) but i'm not 100% confident
in that statement!

~~~
jlgreco
I'll look into that, thanks!

------
backprojection
So what's the motivation for using these batteries in the 787 anyway? Can they
just switch to whatever they've used before?

~~~
sp332
The new engine requires much higher-capacity batteries to start them. A
battery with the old tech would be huge and heavy. The new battery technology
is much lighter than the old ones.

~~~
lostlogin
That's interesting - why are the batteries onboard and not ground equipment?
Obviously restarting a stalled engine would be handy, but is this something
that actually happens? And if it is, couldn't the running jets provide the
power somehow? I seem to remember that some old WW2 prop aircraft had ground
equipment requirements to start them from cold (power or warmed air or
something?) Obviously this isn't an area I know about but I am curious about
it. Thanks.

~~~
joezydeco
I found a Boeing technical publication that discusses the power architecture
of the 787 and how the battery comes into play. Kind of interesting:

[http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4...](http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_07/article_02_1.html)

Page 4 says this:

 _"The power source for APU starting may be the airplane battery, a ground
power source, or an engine-driven generator. The power source for engine
starting may be the APU generators, engine-driven generators on the opposite
side engine, or two forward 115 VAC ground power sources. The aft external
power receptacles may be used for a faster start, if desired."_

So the battery seems to be very important when you're somewhere with no ground
generator. The battery starts the APU, then the power from the APU starts the
engines.

~~~
jessaustin
_So the battery seems to be very important when you're somewhere with no
ground generator._

Like in the sky? After your engines have stopped for some reason? That could
be exciting!

~~~
lostlogin
That's what I was wondering, but does this happen? And if the other engines
can start it as Joezydeco suggests, does not having them matter? Surely the
number or airports without decent facilities to help start them must be small?

~~~
NickNameNick
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9>

Its not without precedent...

------
dade_
I think Elon is justified for taking a public stance to protect his own
interests. As his companies develop products with the same battery technology,
it is likely that the hazards of the Boeing battery design could become
associated to the entire battery technology. This would be disastrous for his
organizations. I consider this a pre-emptive defensive move against
technically ignorant public and media. Boeing has a strong reputation and will
surely weather this mess just fine by identifying corrective action and doing
the right thing.

------
supercanuck
The public doesn't see this as Larry Ellison criticizing Bill Gates, but that
is essentially what is happening.

~~~
wnoise
What do you mean by this analogy?

~~~
snowwrestler
One fierce competitor in an industry publicly criticizing another. (Their
motives may not be completely pure.)

------
jpeg_hero
Everybody thought Musk was grandstanding when he first made the offer, but it
sounds like he's got the answers!

------
gregcohn
This article makes it sound like it could have been an issue more with the
human factors surrounding battery user than with the battery itself.
[http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020241385_7...](http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020241385_787deadbatteriesxml.html)

------
apapli
I think this is a very smart move by Musk. Grow the Tesla brand at very little
cost, and potentially win a new client to sell batteries to.

Surely a Boeing contract would bring decent margins (they will now pay a
premium for a quick fix) and much bigger scale economies for Tesla to further
decrease their operating cost base.

------
alan_cx
From a complete position of ignorance, I have never felt comfortable with
these batteries in aeroplanes.

On of my wastes of time is RC modelling. These batteries have been used now
for quite some time for power. What we RC people know is that while these
batteries have great performance, it very easy to make one blow up if not
handled correctly. Enough burned out sheds can testify to this. So, even if
the engineers say they they can use them safely, I will always feel nervous of
their use. Fine for things like RC models, laptops, phones, real cars even
etc, but the plane use, to me, has a question mark against it.

OK, Im 100% sure engineers can make a great defence of their use, but there
will always be a nagging doubt for me.

~~~
alanctgardner2
I think people have exaggerated feelings of insecurity about planes versus
cars. Maybe it's because heavier-than-air flight just doesn't jive mentally,
or maybe it's because you have very little personal control when flying.
Either way, you carry these batteries on your person, in your coat pocket, in
a bag, leave them in your study downstairs, hell, drive around in a big box
made of them. Fisker Karmas were in the nasty habit of bursting into flames,
but that was viewed as a one-off design flaw, not a crushing blow to
'batteries in cars' as a concept. I think the collective anxiety we feel
towards planes, as a culture, shapes our views of these incidents too much. If
your car was on fire on the highway you may not have handled it as well as the
pilot in this scenario.

~~~
LnxPrgr3
Even old-fashioned gasoline cars carry with them a tank of incredibly
flammable fuel, a battery that can dump hundreds of amps into a short circuit
(and that vents explosive gas in normal operation), and a much higher risk of
colliding with other things on the ground. IIRC car crashes kill on the order
of 30,000 people a year in the US.

That said, I have had my engine catch fire while driving down the Interstate.
It took me a few seconds to pull over and get out of the car. The best pilot
ever isn't about to land a 787 from cruising altitude anywhere near as fast. I
can only hope the design keeps the battery fire from endangering life or
taking out anything else important in the meantime.

But my understanding is the rate of spectacular li-ion battery failures is
phenomenally low. Incidents happen, but the vast majority of batteries behave
themselves. From the early reports I've heard, the Boeing situation sounds
like one of abuse.

But like I said with the Fisker situation, we won't really know anything about
Boeing's situation until the investigations are complete.

Either way, I'll drop my phone in my pocket today with confidence, right
before doing something else far more likely to hurt me: driving to work.

------
yardie
> Japanese inspectors have cleared the maker of the battery, GS Yuasa, of any
> defects before the unit leaves the factory. But both Japanese and US
> investigators continue to examine and test the batteries to understand why
> they failed after they were integrated into the 787 electrical system and
> operated on commercial flights.

So it's not the batteries but how they are integrated into the plane? How is
this any different than how Tesla has packed their cells? Their cells looked
pretty densely packed from my POV.

------
codex
Elon might know a thing or two here, as just last year Tesla's battery testing
facility caught on fire [1]. In the absence of more information, allow me to
publicly speculate that perhaps that facility is fundamentally unsafe. <g>

[1]
[http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/peninsul...](http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/peninsula&id=8498972)

~~~
teyc
Being a bit snarky there?

Fukushima reminded me that there are some designs that required active safety
systems, while others like thorium reactors can be designed with passive
safety system.

Musk was not offering to help out with designing a new plane. He was offering
help with battery systems. This, he has more expertise than Boeing or its
direct subcontractor did.

Musk did not strike me as a person who have actively sought out publicity for
publicity's sake in the past. Personally, I'd rather more eyes went through
the design of a plane that I might ride in one day. Teslas are too pricey for
me.

------
nextparadigms
So basically Boeing chose to use the cheaper kind of batteries, instead of the
more secure kind. I imagine isolating thousands of tiny cells is quite a bit
more expensive than isolating much larger ones.

------
gtani
in addition to NYT story, Seattle Times, which has a reporter fulltime on
aviation

[http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020241162_7...](http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020241162_787battery29xml.html)

------
ck2
They should switch to LiFePo4 chemistry which will not burn.

My bike battery is made of that.

~~~
keeperofdakeys
LiFePO4 and LiMn2O4 chemistries aren't magic, although they are less prone to
'rapid disassembly', there is always a possibility. LiCO4 does have advantages
though, mainly related to energy density. For something like a car, or a
plane, higher energy density in cells means greater efficiency for weight vs.
energy potential. Also, it isn't like lithium cobalt is going to explode if
you look at it wrong. Nearly all the risk can be prevented by proper cell
management, via electronics.

LiFePO4 and LiMn2O4 have the advantage of larger output potential, which for
your bike, allows a large amount of power to be put into the electric motor
from a small battery. Electric cars/planes get around this by putting lots of
cells in parallel, but requires quite a lot of regulation.

------
jevinskie
Q

