They still die by calendar age based degradation. High miles low years isn't interesting. We know that works well. They don't like talking about the calendar age degradation. Every article like this leaves that part out. It's annoying. Many articles have been written like this. Many more will be written yet. I guess there are still people out there who don't know that EVs are ideal for drivers who accumulate high miles per year. Personally I don't think batteries are going to get interesting until solid state batteries. The problem is the electrolyte.

▲

bulbar 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you have more information regarding age based degradation? I haven't looked too deeply into the topic and I am not sure if the argument had been about pure age based degradation or about "after X years because a person will have driven Y kilometers since then".

▲

small_model 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

False

"A 2015 Model S with over 265,000 miles on the original battery (85% capacity remaining)"

▲

InsideOutSanta an hour ago | parent | next [-]

My EV is also over ten years old and has no noticeable battery degradation. I'm sure there is some degradation that could be measured, but in daily driving, I have the same range I did the day I bought the car.

▲

foxglacier 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's 25000 miles per year, which is high. So the opposite of false.

	▲	defrost 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The comment above is (I would guess) about the eleven years of original battery usage rather than the mileage. The implication being that runs counter to the claim of "calendar age degradation".
	▲	imtringued an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		So according to you, the more you degrade the battery, the longer it lasts? Usually you would think that 25000 miles per year over 11 years would degrade the battery faster than the car just sitting around for 11 years.

▲

zipy124 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If this is true it's interesting, as ICE cars typically prefer to be driven continuously at operating temperatures, rather than cold. This is why a high-mileage low-year car can actually have an engine in much better condition than low-mileage high year cars.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> They still die by calendar age based degradation

Source?

▲

y1n0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not OP, but this talks about it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X2...

	▲	gnfargbl 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That article says calendar ageing was the dominant ageing mechanism for batteries in their test vehicle, because said vehicle spent 96% of its life stationary. Unless I'm missing it, the article doesn't put a number figure on the rate of calendar ageing. Real-world observations suggest batteries are likely to be serviceable for around 20 years, which is around the same lifetime of an average ICE car. Users who can tolerate a much reduced range (which is most of us) can likely extend this even further.

▲

stavros 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Lithium batteries age even just sitting on the shelf. I fly RC planes and we store our batteries at 3.8V to lengthen their life, but they still deteriorate even when not used. Like anything else, I guess.

▲

nubinetwork an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Can confirm, I bought some Panasonic cells roughly 10 years ago for a battery pack, and have ~12 cells that didn't make it into the pack.

They've been sitting unused, in their original packaging, never opened... They're still sitting at the charge they shipped at, but the capacity is so diminished that one can't even run an esp32 for a day. I've tried cycling them to see if I can get the capacity back up, but I think they're toast already.

	▲	stavros an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, and those come at 3.8V (storage voltage) already, so it's not like they were sitting fully charged.

▲

defrost 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The article specifically talks about how this has changed with the evolution of chemistry in Li based car batteries.

I suspect the RC plane batteries you've been using for five years are not the same chemically as the EV car batteries in use in the UK for five years.

▲

stavros an hour ago | parent [-]

I can't read the article, as it's paywalled, but they're all LiPo/Li-Ion batteries, what's the difference? Hell, most cars just use the same 18650 cells we use, just a lot more of them.

▲

defrost an hour ago | parent [-]

> but they're all LiPo/Li-Ion batteries, what's the difference?

As I mentioned, the article specifically mentions that the battery chemistry has been changed and improved.

It neglects to dive into the chemical engineering specifics of such changes, as would be expected for press such as the WSJ.

I dare say there is as much variation in the attributes of the LiPo/Li-Ion battery family as there is within the borosilicate glass or soda–lime glass families (ie heaps).

▲

stavros 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sure, but why are you assuming RC planes don't use the chemistry improvements as they come out?

▲

JumpCrisscross 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

It’s a niche, small-volume market. I would be shocked if novel industrial battery chemistries are reaching it within even years of the frontier. (Less surprising would be small-batch novel chemistries. But these aren’t really comparable to the industrially-produced thing.)

▲

stavros 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

We mostly use the same 18650 cells everyone else uses for everything, it's not like we're waiting for custom batteries.

	▲	defrost 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Again, the article specifically talks about improvements in car battery life since changes were made to tweak the chemistry (very likely in small dope ways). The fact that the article states that this appears to result in longer life and the fact that you talk about your RC plane batteries not having a longer life would suggest that the fine specifics of the two batteries may well differ.

▲

avidiax an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Put them in the vegetable bin in the fridge, too. Should make them last much longer.

▲

borski 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is just untrue.