Stitch wrote:dtw2hyd wrote:True, but supplier saying this is the best we can do and Boeing being content with it is the problem.
Technology will advance. There are Li-Ion formulations that are a fair bit safer, but they as yet lack the energy density and/or longevity to meet the requirements (not just of aerospace, but also automotive and consumer electronics/tools). However, work is being done to improve their performance and once they are as effective as current formulations, they should be adopted (and as they scale in production, costs will drop and their adoption will increase).
I am going to query the use of the word "requirements".
"There are Li-Ion formulations that are a fair bit safer, but they.. (fail) to meet the requirements of aerospace, etc, etc."
Boeing's 787 could very easily manage with older tried & tested Li-Ion formulations. It would add a few kg to the empty weight of the 'frame, and reduce the effective payload by an equally small amount, but it isn't in itself going to stop the aircraft from performing 99.98% of it's current spec.
But for some reason (pride?) Boeing are incapable of taking this backwards step.
And, since Airbus do not seem to have the same issues, I am guessing that they are already using these tried & tested Li-Ion types. Either that or they have been incredibly "lucky" ... so far.