China's Submarines May Soon Be Powered By Lithium Batteries (interestingengineering.com) 93
The Chinese Navy could finally use lithium technology to replace the lead-acid batteries that are now used in its fleet of conventional submarines. Interesting Engineering reports: Since lithium batteries had a higher risk of catching fire or exploding, the navy was hesitant to replace the submarine fleet's current batteries with them. But, "after solving these problems, the replacement of lead-acid batteries with lithium batteries in conventional submarines is just around the corner," said Wang Feng, study lead and a submarine designer. The study claims that technical answers have been discovered through significant testing and development in China's electric car sector, and lithium batteries have been demonstrated to operate safely under difficult circumstances. The modifications could considerably improve a submarine's capacity for survival and battle, according to research that was released on October 15 in the peer-reviewed Chinese journal Marine Electric and Electronic Engineering.
For more than a decade, the Chinese military has planned to replace the lead-acid batteries in its fleet of conventional submarines with lithium technology. The lead-acid batteries on these submarines, which have not seen significant development since World War II, have proved problematic due to their poor energy storage capacity, delayed charging, limited power output, short lifespan, and harmful gas leaks, according to the paper. Nickel and cobalt, which are added to batteries to increase performance, were a contributing factor to mishaps; however, some Chinese battery manufacturers have begun using iron and phosphate in their place recently.
For more than a decade, the Chinese military has planned to replace the lead-acid batteries in its fleet of conventional submarines with lithium technology. The lead-acid batteries on these submarines, which have not seen significant development since World War II, have proved problematic due to their poor energy storage capacity, delayed charging, limited power output, short lifespan, and harmful gas leaks, according to the paper. Nickel and cobalt, which are added to batteries to increase performance, were a contributing factor to mishaps; however, some Chinese battery manufacturers have begun using iron and phosphate in their place recently.
Samsung (Score:1)
Did Boeing ever solve their 787 issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
The one where the lithium batteries in the avionics section caught fire. They did a hack fix of sealing them inside fireproof boxes but did they ever get to the bottom of why they were catching fire in the first place?
Problem with Li batteries is they work fine for 99.999% of the time but just occasionally there's a tiny fault that leads to bad things happening. Not what you want 200m under the sea.
Re:Did Boeing ever solve their 787 issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, given it was 10 years ago when that was a problem, the 787 has been flying flawlessly since then, I'd say the problem was resolved.
The problem turned out to be at their battery manufacturer Yuasa, which is a well-known Japanese battery maker. Apparently they had a deficient inspection system and the FAA audited the company in 2013.
One also needs to know that the energy from the fire isn't in the materials, it's actually the stored energy of the battery itself. So if you're experimenting, discharge the battery first.
So as long as the Chinese don't cut corners and use high quality battery makers, they should had no problems at all. Oh, who am I kidding, they're going to use cut-rate cheap batteries made at a factory running a knockoff shift of batteries.
Re:Did Boeing ever solve their 787 issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Oh, who am I kidding, they're going to use cut-rate cheap batteries made at a factory running a knockoff shift of batteries.
China has a very well deserved reputation for making janky, substandard and occasionally dangerous products.
However, they are absolutely capable of building some of the best equipment in the world, provided there is someone overseeing the operation that gives a shit. I think the Chinese government would give a shit about the quality of their military hardware, so I'd expect the quality to be world-class as well.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
China has a very well deserved reputation for making janky, substandard and occasionally dangerous products.
To be fair, the fault may not lie entirely with Chinese manufacturers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (Gavin Belson at Chinese factory Silicon Valley clip)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed it's western demand for cheap goods that is the primary driver behind low-quality products. If the demand was for high quality, and the money offered was good, Chinese companies would step up. Of course they also learn from the best (us) on how to maximize their profits by cutting costs, so even when you do want a high-quality product manufactured you have to have sufficient oversight of the manufacturing process. Many products made in America also suffer from the same problems as the imports. Ev
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed it's western demand for cheap goods that is the primary driver behind low-quality products. If the demand was for high quality, and the money offered was good, Chinese companies would step up.
Part of the problem is demand, or more precisely the allowance of poor quality by consumers. However, in many markets (e.g., USB cables), consumers overwhelmingly demand higher or at least functional quality even more than cheap prices, but the market continues to allow low-quality products. Why? Part of the problem is opacity in product characteristics due to lax regulation for marketing and product labeling. Other problems include poor publicity for historical product performance (e.g., doctored or ce
Re: (Score:2)
There is demand for high quality. And cheap crap. Chinese manufacturers are happy to make both, whatever you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now I've got 2 items I'm going to return to Amazon because they're crap. They're both tools and I've already replaced one from a retailer who specializes in the kind of tool I bought - the other I probably should have gone to Home Depot for. The picture on Amazon didn't even match what they sent me even though it was close.
I've been told this before, but "The most expensive tools are the ones you buy twice". I should have shopped smarter and spent a few more dollars, but at least I can still return t
Re: (Score:2)
> provided there is someone overseeing the operation
> that gives a shit
Yeah... kind of like the way ThinkPads went to shit after IBM sold out to Lenovo. Same laptops built by the same people in the same factory... but without IBM's QC people keeping them in line the defect rate skyrocketed and now what used to be pretty much the best PC laptop there was is now no better than any junky old dell or HP shitbox.
Re: (Score:2)
China produces lots of crap, but also lots of very good high quality products. Why do you assume they can't tell the difference, or that whoever is tapped to provide the batteries would lie about their capabilities or production quality? Does the Chinese government seem pretty chill about that type of stuff?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Chinese EV batteries are the best in the world. Tesla uses them in some regions so it is possible to directly compare them against US made Tesla batteries in the same vehicle, and the Chinese ones offer faster charging, more peak current, and more usable capacity (less reserved).
If you are interested then google "Tesla MIC", where MIC stands for Made In China, e.g. https://insideevs.com/news/514... [insideevs.com]
The Chinese have also been making very big battery packs, up to megawatt hours, for many years now. They use th
Re: (Score:3)
LFP batteries don't burn the same way that NMC batteries do. The US is at a disadvantage here, since China are the only ones making LFP cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's the important point: These aren't NMC batteries, they're LiFePO4, a much safer battery chemistry. So it's not that they're using dangerous NMC with extra safety valves fitted, they're switched to an entirely different battery technology to address the safety concerns.
A lot of home power storage units are going to LiFePO4 for the same reason, slightly lower power density than NMC variants but much, much safer to deploy to people's homes. You can also get drop-in SLA replacements built from LiF
Re: (Score:2)
but just occasionally there's a tiny fault that leads to bad things happening.
actually, an internal combustion engine is FAR MORE LIKELY TO CATCH FIRE https://insideevs.com/news/561... [insideevs.com]
Energy density (Score:1)
I guess lithium batteries has much higher energy density per weight than acid lead, but how about per volume? Because I don't think the weight has much issue in a submarine. Sure lead is heavier than water by a magnitude, but that's offset by the air inside, isn't it?
Re:Energy density (Score:5, Informative)
Lithium batteries offer more power per unit of volume, too. And having the batteries be lighter also means being able to make the sub smaller.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium batteries offer more power per unit of volume, too. And having the batteries be lighter also means being able to make the sub smaller.
Submarines are basically the whale of an oceanic fleet. Not exactly known to be svelte. Unless they're having a hell of a time finding a parking spot, I can't imagine size being that large of a factor.
Figure out how to torpedo the human cargo if you really wanted to make them smaller, since meatsacks take up considerable space.
Re: (Score:2)
Higher density and lower weight.
I don't have #s other than anecdotal, but I replaced a 26lb 35AH 12 volt Sealed Lead Acid (SLA) battery with a 17lb physically smaller 50AH 12 volt Lithium battery.
That equates to about 100% more energy density (same capacity is basically 1/2 the weight if comparing equal amp hours).
Sciency stuff:
https://www.power-sonic.com/bl... [power-sonic.com]
Re:The "Evil China" again? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't an evil China story. This is a "trying to catch up to 1990s tech" story.
If we were talking about:
Tibet invasion and genocide
Uyghur slavery and mass rape
Falun Gong imprisoned and forced organ donations for senior CCP
Militarizing international waters
Suckering the third world into debt slavery by bribing corrupt leaders
Destroying the environment
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Being the biggest narco terrorist state on the planet pushing fentanyl in quantities sufficient to overdose most of the planet
Or any of several other things....
Then it would be an evil China story.
But it's just a story about their useless sub fleet which they know would sink in the opening minutes of their failed Taiwan invasion so you can feel better about evil China now.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
With all the examples in history of a technologically inferior group succeeding in resist a technically superior one
Okay, but what does that have to do with a technologically superior group resisting a technically inferior one? What you should be looking for is examples of a technically inferior enemy overwhelming a technically superior one with numbers, because that's what China has going for it.
Re: (Score:2)
A highly motivated group, perhaps. Is anybody fighting for a dictator really highly motivated?
If we only had a contemporaneous example of the ongoing motivation of people fighting for a dictator. Nope, can't think of one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To be fair, I think the average Chinese military is a lot more motivated than the average Russian military. In the case of US v China it will come down to logistics problems for the US v. technology disadvantage and poor training / poor leadership for China.
China has a serious logistics problem pulling off an amphibious invasion of that size that can't be WW2 secret like D-Day due to modern technology. An amphibious invasion is already extremely complicated. But an inexperienced attacker pulling off some
Re: (Score:2)
China can use nukes to wipe out Taiwan, but, that's not what they want. They want to force Taiwan to bow down and surrender. Then, of course, they'll take over and do to Taiwanese citizens what they did to those of Hong Kong or what Mao did to those that opposed him. The only problem with that is the Taiwanese won't go along with it so they'll need to pull off an invasion and hold the island for an indeterminate amount of time. Which, as pointed out in another post, is something they cannot do. China has a
FYI (Score:2)
For anyone interested, I perused the parent's comments for you. His basic stands are that Russia and China can do no wrong, any attempt to reign them gets a "Red Danger!" or "#ColdWarFeelingsAllOverAgain" response, the USA is a fascist nation, and calling someone from the USA an "American" is wrong because as a Brazilian he claims the title of "American" as well.
LOTS of posts and nothing to say. He's nothing more than a propagandist.
Re: FYI (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
He can be an American. Just like everyone else who walks across the southern border and doesn't go home. He's only one anchor baby away from citizenship.
Boom! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with technological races is that you either adopt/adapt, or you get left behind. If you're still using WW2 in your subs when a war happens, theirs might catch fire, yours won't even get a chance to.
Am afraid that the rest of the world will have to come up with a Li design of their own, or with something completely new, if they want to stay even.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
(because it's hard to tell these days with so many dumbasses around)
You yourself being an excellent case in point.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you can go downwind faster than the wind, you should be able to go downstream faster than the water.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the American, French and British submarine fleets are all nuclear powered, so batteries are not an issue.
This is of course complete nonsense. Nuclear subs still have thousands of amp-hours of batteries.
Re:Boom! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll bet you have no idea what you are talking about.
Re:Boom! (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet the crew & engineers of nuclear submarines have to sign away all kinds of rights banning them from bringing to light the dangers & health effects of living & working so close to a submarine nuclear reactor.
That's true in a sense, in that all that stuff is classified, so they're not allowed to tell you about a lot of it.
I bet most navies don't even monitor it just so that there isn't any data to leak to the press.
That part seems false. You'd want to know if you were killing your expensively trained crew.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about the US military here. The same one that knowingly & deliberately gave hundreds of its servicemen exposure to nuclear explosions, which caused all kinds of nasty cancers, the most common being lymphoma.
But they did it in the name of science, because we had to stop the Nazis, who were exposing people to radiation in the name of science!
But seriously, they were literally studying the effects, so they weren't trying not to know what was happening. They did of course try not to admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, you wear a dosimeter any time you're awake on a nuclear submarine to keep track of cumulative exposure to ionising radiation, there are alarms everywhere, and you're subjected to a barrage of health checks when you arrive back on shore. They keep a very close eye on your health.
The US nuclear submarine fleet is as safe and reliable as it is because of one man: Admiral Hyman Rickover. He insisted on persona
Re: (Score:2)
Some nuclear subs do carry batteries and diesel generators as back up sources of power. I'm not upto date on exact models and navys though.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the subs with nuclear weapons ... most others are standard diesel/electric subs.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Am afraid that the rest of the world will have to come up with a Li design of their own, or with something completely new, if they want to stay even.
Lithium power would be a HUGE step down for U.S. subs. Lithium Ion needs to be charged regularly. If such a sub is in a protracted chase/escape scenario with a U.S. nuclear sub, the latter will just have to wait until the former runs out of power. Then it's a sitting duck.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nti.org/analysis/a... [nti.org]
Retaining a mix of diesel subs with their nuclear ones might be OK for them since the most likely scenario is we're the ones traveling halfway around the world to fight right in their backyard.
Re: (Score:3)
I once punctured and then soaked in water a swollen, charged lipo pouch cell. Nothing, and also nothing.
I'm not saying lithium batteries can't catch fire, I'm saying the risk is grossly exaggerated.
Prismatic LFPs are pretty darned safe. Any kind of battery is dangerous if you abuse it. Those lead-acid batteries fill your battery room with, you know, acid if they get holed. Plus, they will offgas hydrogen if charged too fast, which is also not ideal in a submarine. They are also quite massive...
Re: (Score:2)
I once punctured and then soaked in water a swollen, charged lipo pouch cell. Nothing, and also nothing.
I'm not saying lithium batteries can't catch fire, I'm saying the risk is grossly exaggerated.
Thankfully manufacturers usually do more than one test.
LiPos aren't that dangerous, but still, fire on a fucking submarine is like the worst thing imaginable so everyone should be extra careful. Spilling some acid wouldn't be anywhere near as bad in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Salt water is a safe way to dispose of lithium batteries. It's one of the recommended ways to make damaged or deal batteries safe for disposal.
https://youtu.be/Enjbp0VDQZc [youtu.be]
As you can see in the video, nothing happens when the battery is thrown into the water. Well, nothing visible. The battery is discharging, using the salt water as a conductor conductor, with the water itself acting as a heatsink. The current is limited by the conductivity of the water, essentially acting like a big load resistor.
Lithium Titanate Oxide is pretty safe. (Score:3)
You can drill a hole in the battery under load and it will not result in some nice fireworks.
Those LTO batteries are still a bit expensive though.
Not that it would matter for the US army where they pay private contractors $15 for a AAA battery.
LPF (Score:5, Interesting)
We have now 8 years experience with LFP cells in an industrial environment and despite occasional misuse (shorts, overdischarge, out-of-spec low and high ambient temperatures) they have proven to be exceptionally safe with not a single incident with the cells themselves.
This has been in use for years (Score:5, Interesting)
The Japanese Soyru-class and the French Barracuda both offer Li-Ion, at least as an option. I believe the first boat in the Barracuda series does indeed use this.
Question for the battery nerds: does li-fe-po have the same fire risks as Li-co? I don't mean in terms of the chance of it happening as a value, I'm more interested in "if they did catch fire, is the outcome as bad?".
I ask, because here in Canada we are very much worried about fires on submarines:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chicoutimi-submarine-fire
Re: (Score:3)
LFPs have no cobalt in them so that's a definite plus, but otherwise they're still pretty goddamned bad to be around if they actually do ignite. And while it's a lot harder to make that happen, it is not impossible. The big difference in reduced flammability is that NMCs produce oxygen when they burn, and LFPs don't so you can actually smother them.
Re: (Score:2)
> and LFPs don't so you can actually smother them
Ahhh, that does seem like a very important distinction.
By "smother", would sea water do it? We're adding a lot of electrolytes but cutting the O2, do you know if that would help or hinder?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great question, and I really don't know the answer. I know that since NMCs offgas at elevated temperatures the process often involves flooding them with water so they cool down. this looks like a good resource, though [safety4sea.com], at a glance.
Everyone mocking battery powered submarines (Score:3)
They have one advantage over our nuclear powered submarines. They are super-super quiet. All the coolant systems on nuclear subs make a ton of noise comparatively. This is why the Russian navy, kept a few diesel/electric subs in their fleet.
Re: (Score:2)
They are super quiet when they are motionless. All the engines are turned off, and they are just sitting there, maybe on the ocean floor. As soon as they start moving, they are as noisy as any sub.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any idea how quiet a Los Angeles 688 is? The Russian Navy has a saying about the 688. The best way to find it is to look for a silent hole in the ocean.
I thought they were already doing this. (Score:2)
At least I distinctly remember hearing something about Winston (LFP) being used in submarines many years ago and quality issues surrounding them.
Knock-on Effects (Score:2)
1. The weight differential is probably substantial! This would affect the buoyancy of the submarine - effectively removing ballast. In the context of an entire submarine (structure, engines, other equipment, etc.), is this a significant change?
2. At various times and in various submarine designs, the batteries were sandwiched between the inner hull and outer hull. It was a maintenance nightmare, but made good use of otherwise dead volume, and inc
Re: (Score:2)
Poor guys (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Loose lips give enemy better ships (Score:5, Interesting)
They wanted to. But they could not.
Until the US gave them the technology [npr.org]:
100 years ago Lenin mocked "the capitalists" as fools, who'd sell him a rope, on which he'll hang them. But this was not the result of capitalist greed — this was government bureaucracy:
Were we still a properly capitalist country, the developer of the technology would've held on to — and profited from — it. But we're not. The US Government owns it, and licenses it "for the greater good" — including (nay, primarily to) the licensees, whose idea of "good" is vastly different from ours.
Does it even matter, whether this was treason or stupidity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you suppose, the situation with these Vanadium technology is unique and a once-ever leak?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing "wacky" about China getting both the actual technology and an official license to use it — before American companies did. Even if they aren't going to use it to equip their submarines, that's an outrage of its own.
But why would they restricted themselves — and how do we know, they did? Because TFA said "Lithium" not "Vanadium"? Ha-ha...
I don't know, if they did or not, but Americans seem to have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure, they are even that — Lithium batteries? Do you trust that:
Neah, of course you have no such confidence. You just sensed — correctly — that your beloved Socialism (collective ownership) is under attack and jumped to defending it on
Did Taiwan make this decision? (Score:2)
Great idea (Score:2)
Look for the coming underwater fires.
Just curious (Score:2)
Why wouldn't modern submarine design place batteries in segmented modules outside the main hull?
Re: (Score:2)
It would mean you had to pass the conductors through holes in the hull, and also make it harder to streamline. Minimizing surface area is kind of a big deal.
and harmful gas leaks (Score:2)
and harmful and EXPLOSIVE hydrogen gas leaks...
Lithium batteries, huh? ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Solved? I don't think so (Score:2)
But, "after solving these problems, the replacement of lead-acid batteries with lithium batteries in conventional submarines is just around the corner," said Wang Feng, study lead and a submarine designer.
Problems like these don't get "solved" so much as "engineered down to acceptable levels of risk". So that means instead of seeing batteries exploding in Chinese submarines at an unacceptable rate, we'll see them exploding at an acceptable rate (for whatever level of "acceptable" means for the Chinese military).
Copy/Perish (Score:2)
Nations that do not Copy/Compete/Imitate/Improve will Perish https://archive.is/tiqb8 [archive.is]