Lithium Batteries Shipping Rules Discussions

[TylerDurden]

This would look kinda cool on the back of my xtracycle .

Prolly not at the courthouse...

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[OneWayTraffic]

This was always going to happen. Lithium is an explosive metal, and carries risks. Safer modern types of batteries like LiFePO4 are too recent to be reflected in laws yet.

What we'll probably see is a trend towards standardisation. More and more packs being sent as fully built mass produced models and hobbyists being forced to basically order cells and build their own packs. Guys like Ping will suffer.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[dak664]

United Parcel Service still has these web pages I first saw a couple months ago:

http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/about/news/service_updates/battery.html
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/resources/ship/packaging/guidelines/batteries.html

Apparently for ground shipment they just require a label "LITHIUM BATTERIES - FORBIDDEN FOR TRANSPORT ABOARD AIRCRAFT AND VESSEL". If more than 12 cells per box they say DOT requires additional hazmat papers in a resealable envelope, which would presumablely trigger their requirement of preapproval for shipments requiring hazmat papers. They don't specify a maximum size for a cell, and their link to the official DOT standard is broken.

 

[TylerDurden]

What I'm hearing is that someone needs to engineer battery packs that bear the "some assembly required" description. If the cells have already been certified, maybe jumpers in between the cells so that the pack enclosure becomes a shipping container for legal purposes?

Good point.

Might be faster/cheaper to devise technical solutions, while the bureaucratic cogs are getting lubed.

 

[Lapwing]

This was always going to happen. Lithium is an explosive metal, and carries risks. Safer modern types of batteries like LiFePO4 are too recent to be reflected in laws yet.

Well with the specific MSDS data sheets I think there is an argument to be made that many types of LiFePo4 batteries are only marginally "lithium" batteries.

http://www.everspring.net/product-battery-msds.htm

Iron & Graphite are the principle components, so we stop calling the Lifepo4 LFP Thundersky anything other than an Iron/graphite battery. Many other "tithium batteries would be similar.

Unfortunately regulations apply at only 25 grams of lithium acording to Thundersky specs, which would permit (at 3.4% lithium content), of around 735 grams of actual battery material. Even the single 40Ah cell is 1.5kg.
Ouch!

 

[KAE]

Here is a link to a youtube video where an Irish sounding guy takes apart a LiFePO4 cell and does some destructive things to them including a full short circuit test that shows how the cells react, by getting hot and venting a little bit. No flames, no explosions, no nada. Check it out, perhaps if we put together some more tests like this and document them with some spare cells we can collect a large enough body of evidence as a community to prove our case instead of each individual having to destroy their entire product line!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw4RHdPHq0s

 

[Lapwing]

For what it's worth looking up a couple of the examples of lithium fires on the NTSB site.......... kinda makes my scalp crawl.

Some examples of battery fires quoted.

http://ntsb.gov/events/2006/PhiladelphiaPA/Exhibits/351085.pdf

Perhaps we could all benifit from safer designs, that a little regulation might provide force? Might not be a bad thing.

 

[frodus]

This from Dave Kois at EVComponents:

"No need to be concerned yet. This ruling did not adopt any new rules for the
transport of lithium batteries. If the person who posted the information would have
read the document he linked to he would have known this. It is highlighted in yellow
in several places in the document. The ruling does however make some changes to the
transportation of batteries in general, which are only voluntary for now but will be
implemented starting January 2010. I will follow up with the appropriate
authorities as well as our freight broker to determine what we will be required to
do. It does look like they are looking at drafting new rules specifically for
lithium batteries in the future and I will certainly be on top of any new
developments with this including the commenting."

It does sound like there's more to the story.....there may be cause for concern, but has ANYONE contacted the appropriate authorities yet to find out the details?

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[GTA1]

$50,000 is a pretty petty fine for the risks irresponsible behavior poses.

Perhaps the penalty need to be upped to lifetime bans from air travel (aka being on the "no fly" list, and fines of $1m per infraction, and / or lifetime imprisonment.

Bringing potentially dangerous cargo on board should be no less an offense than bringing firearms, mercury, or explosives on board an aircraft.

 

[Rassy]

GTA1 wrote:

$50,000 is a pretty petty fine for the risks irresponsible behavior poses.

Perhaps the penalty need to be upped to lifetime bans from air travel (aka being on the "no fly" list, and fines of $1m per infraction, and / or lifetime imprisonment.

Bringing potentially dangerous cargo on board should be no less an offense than bringing firearms, mercury, or explosives on board an aircraft.

Guys, before you jump all over GTA1, remember he is just egging us on. He's the one that jumped on this forum recently and began extolling SLA, including SLA's future "improvements". He doesn't even understand the differences in various Lithium chemistries. From here on out I plan to just ignore this troll and keep my fingers crossed that the nice light LiFePO4 that I've enjoyed for the last year and a half don't explode and burn.

 

[cycle9]

I do wish Dave were to be right. But the fact that I know someone who is being fined over this tells me he may not be. The DOT seem serious about enforcing it, at least as far as any air transport goes (into or out of US). I haven't yet heard of any enforcement related to ground shipping.

I did read the document, and the part highlighted in yellow seems to contradict the specific rules they laid out later in the document.

I also don't know how much fine will be levied yet against the person in question. If it is a big fine, that will mean they're really serious. If it is a small fine, then it means they aren't so much. Time will tell.

But in the meantime, I do think this is time for folks to take heed - the LiFePO4 are being lumped in with all lithium batteries, and whether enforced now (as the pending fine would indicate) or in 2010, this could have a serious dampening effect.

My original goal with the letter was to try to get the community together to make sure our (EV and LEV) interests are represented on this, not just those of laptop and cell phone makers. Regardless of the specifics, such an outcome would be a good thing.

This from Dave Kois at EVComponents:

"No need to be concerned yet. This ruling did not adopt any new rules for the
transport of lithium batteries. If the person who posted the information would have
read the document he linked to he would have known this. It is highlighted in yellow
in several places in the document. The ruling does however make some changes to the
transportation of batteries in general, which are only voluntary for now but will be
implemented starting January 2010. I will follow up with the appropriate
authorities as well as our freight broker to determine what we will be required to
do. It does look like they are looking at drafting new rules specifically for
lithium batteries in the future and I will certainly be on top of any new
developments with this including the commenting."

It does sound like there's more to the story.....there may be cause for concern, but has ANYONE contacted the appropriate authorities yet to find out the details?

 

[TPA]

All I can say is that I moved my purchase timeline up to yesterday...just in case :wink:

What about the hobby sellers like hobbycity? If you get overnight shipping they will go by air. Are they being limited in shipping methods? Quantity?

 

[OneWayTraffic]

GTA1 wrote:

$50,000 is a pretty petty fine for the risks irresponsible behavior poses.

Perhaps the penalty need to be upped to lifetime bans from air travel (aka being on the "no fly" list, and fines of $1m per infraction, and / or lifetime imprisonment.

Bringing potentially dangerous cargo on board should be no less an offense than bringing firearms, mercury, or explosives on board an aircraft.

Guys, before you jump all over GTA1, remember he is just egging us on. He's the one that jumped on this forum recently and began extolling SLA, including SLA's future "improvements". He doesn't even understand the differences in various Lithium chemistries. From here on out I plan to just ignore this troll and keep my fingers crossed that the nice light LiFePO4 that I've enjoyed for the last year and a half don't explode and burn.

He may be a troll, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Air travel is relatively safe because even small risks are systematically hunted down and eliminated. I wouldn't want to be on the same plane as someone elses home built custom made LiPo pack. And if someone smuggles a dangerous pack on a plane, in contravention of the rules, then they deserve what's coming to them. The problem for us is that not all Lithium chemistries are alike.

It's a pity that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater here, but what is to be done? It's not enough to simply say that LiFePO4 is safe, it has to be proven. And then there's the possibility that future LiFePO4 based packs will be more dangerous than currently.

I'd be in the "get the cells certified, and ship them for local assemby" camp myself, which should keep most hobbyists happy, and let bigger companies get their packs certified.

In the meantime there should be some lobbying for more flexibility in approving packs built from safe cells.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[cycle9]

It's not people taking battery on planes that is the concern, it's shipping from sellers to buyers! How will you or anyone get batteries? There is plenty of demand for lithium batteries, so I think the shipping companies need to work this out, so they follow safe procedures. Looks like I may be sticking with tool batteries for some time.

Yes, this hits the nail on the head... while there is a subset of the population with the skills and time to assemble packs from tool batteries, this e-bike and EV technology will not ever become more widespread if it requires skills that only 1% or less of the population have. And as of yet, there are few resellers of these things in most areas (we are the only one within about a 300 mile radius here in the Southeast). So it's not like your average Joe or Jane can just walk into the store to buy one of these pre-assembled packs. The result is that most people who get into this technology buy over the internet... which means shipping ....

I have started to work towards this certification for all the packs we sell so that we can ship them to comply. But it is going to be time consuming and expensive, and we'll have to pass the costs on (batteries are not a money maker to begin with).

In the meantime, if we as a community can get DOT to recognize the differences between the distinct Lithium battery types, that would also be a good start. I personally think that LiFePO4 should be classified the same as NiCd, NiMH, and other "dry cell" technologies. Those still pose some risks (short circuit related risks), but the risks are far lower than with a large lithium fire.

Regards,
Morgan

 

[TylerDurden]

I have started to work towards this certification for all the packs we sell so that we can ship them to comply. But it is going to be time consuming and expensive, and we'll have to pass the costs on (batteries are not a money maker to begin with).

I sure as hell wouldn't wait for bureaucracies to get this done.

It seems the big players could influence the game to keep it difficult and expensive for small jobbers to get cells directly and build packs .

Maybe a solid-state relay on each cell can keep the pack as discrete cells until activated by the BMS for charge/discharge.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[julesa]

I didn't read the document, but if there's really any question about whether it applies to non-shipping transport of Lithium, maybe Tesla Motors would be interested in joining the discussion. They certainly have the political influence to make something happen if needed.

 

[TylerDurden]

I've been thinking about this for some time: I want to make a circuit board that can reconfigure my battery pack dynamically. It would be able to change the pack from lower votage higher capacity to higher voltage lower capacity. On the latter configuration it would be like a stock low speed bike with lots of range, on the other configurations (there could be several) it would basically join more serial groups together for more speed and climbing ability. The building blocks of cell strings could be small enough capacity to meet those transport limitation requirements. Perhaps they could even be stock tool batteries in their original enclosures. Has anyone had similar ideas?

Doctorbass has a Serial/Parallel switching system, but it uses big contactors.

Tiberius has designed low-loss 'diode' cell interconnects using FETs that can be stacked to handle large power.

In any case, more connections means more parts and more losses; especially if the connects require longer wire runs.

For the transport issue, per-cell disconnect could be done with one additional connection in the path: cell>SS relay>wire.

A removable fuse could be substituted for the relay, providing a total 'air-gap' disconnect; the downsides being three more connections per cell and that the end-user would need to install all the fuses prior to use. Fuses may also add losses, IIRC.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[TylerDurden]

What about those "ideal diodes" or some variant of them? Couldn't losses be minimized that way?

The devices reduce the diode losses and might be used as SS-relays, but all connections will add some loss (and risk of failure); so the fewer connections, the better.

Air-gap has been preferred in the past by UL and regulators for assured disconnection, so fuses have that benefit... plus they're cheap.

If SS disconnection is deemed legal, the average e-biker may not feel the cost increase (as cell prices drop). Larger-pack users will be more hands-on regarding cell connections, so fuse/bussbar installation may be an acceptable cost-containment method.

But before getting the cart before the horse... does anyone think a pack of unconnected cells would meet the DOT guidelines?