3 ms·
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 ag
by cgyvbunji 3mo ago
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.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago> They still die by calendar age based degradation Source?
- y1n0 3mo agoNot OP, but this talks about it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X25000702 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X2...
- gnfargbl 3mo agoThat 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.
- cgyvbunji 3mo agoIt's not clear how much of a factor calendar age degradation is in EVs because almost nobody is straightforward about it like they are in the battery industry itself.
- stavros 3mo agoLithium 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.
- defrost 3mo agoThe 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 3mo agoI 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 3mo ago> 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 3mo agoSure, but why are you assuming RC planes don't use the chemistry improvements as they come out?
- JumpCrisscross 3mo agoIt’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.)
- small_model 3mo agoFalse "A 2015 Model S with over 265,000 miles on the original battery (85% capacity remaining)"
- foxglacier 3mo agoThat's 25000 miles per year, which is high. So the opposite of false.
- defrost 3mo agoThe 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".
- foxglacier 3mo agoDo you mean 11 years is a "long" time? I'd say it doesn't matter how long it was - it ended up better the expected based on the miles, and since it was a high-mileage-per-year car, that supports the claim that degradation is determined (at least more than expected) by calendar years, as cgyv.. claimed. I don't see how it doesn't support his claim.
- defrost 3mo agoIt's all moot speculation in the absence of any firm notation of what cgyvbunji considers "calendar age based degradation" to be.
- cgyvbunji 3mo agoThe battery industry defines calendar age degradation, not a random guy on the Internet like me. It's like saying you can't discuss voltage without me defining what voltage is.
- imtringued 3mo ago
- bulbar 3mo agoDo 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".
- borski 3mo agoThis is just untrue.
- XRG 3mo agoIt is not necessarily untrue (source: am currently involved in battery R&D). However, the degree to which it is true will vary strongly based on the particular choice of chemistry, what sort of additives/agents are used (e.g. scavengers/getters), cell/pack engineering choices (protection against ingress of outside atmosphere and such), and so on and so forth.
- zipy124 3mo agoIf 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.