It's pretty amazing how much disinformation is out there with regards to EV batteries. There are a lot of misconceptions about degradation, environmental impact of manufacturing, and toxicity. I think there must be a concerted effort going on to deliberately misinform people, as is the case with e.g. climate change. (Not blaming anyone here for being part of that effort to deliberately misinform people, but there are probably victims of it here.)

Real world facts:

The results of an Idaho National Laboratory study released in March found that the test LEAFs lost 22-26% of their initial capacity after just 40,000 miles.

http://www.torquenews.com/2250/how-long-will-electric-vehicl...

Frankly, I'm burned out by the bullshit EV enthusiasts push out on these forums. EVs suck now and there's nothing on the horizon to say otherwise. Tesla is losing money hand over foot and no one is buying EVs. Sorry guys, time to call a spade a spade here. Building our non-ICE dreams on Lithium-Ion just doesn't make sense. We need a better fuel/storage source to compete with ICE.

I like how I have to provide sources yet the people making EXTRAORDINARY claims like "omg affordable EVs will be here in 12-24 months" are never, ever called out on their bullshit. Its been 12-24 months out for years. The sad fact that I provide real proof and skepticism leads to -5 downvotes shows you how immature and silly HN forums on are many hot topic issues, which EV seems to be here.

edit: to the guy below me who wrote ""EVs suck now" not even close. Full disclosure: I own a Model S. It is the envy of everyone I show it to."

Yeah, $100,000 cars tend to be impressive, but why am I paying for YOUR car via increasing my tax load? Take away the tax breaks and lets see Elon try to compete.

> The results of an Idaho National Laboratory study released in March found that the test LEAFs lost 22-26% of their initial capacity after just 40,000 miles...Frankly, I'm burned out by the bullshit EV enthusiasts push out on these forums.

From your link:

> One of the most important variables in battery longevity is temperature. In general, temperatures above 86 degrees F place great stress on the battery and speed up capacity loss. Vehicles that have a liquid-cooled battery, like the Chevrolet Volt or Tesla Model S, are less vulnerable to high-temperature effects as long as they are not parked in the blazing sun. However, the Nissan LEAF may be notably susceptible to rapid degradation in extremely hot climates. The results of an Idaho National Laboratory study released in March found that the test LEAFs lost 22-26% of their initial capacity after just 40,000 miles. This is most attributable to two factors: the vehicles were tested in Pheonix, where the hot climate accelerated capacity decline; and the vehicles were discharged to less than 5% capacity twice per day.

I'm not seeing how a number derived from deliberately-abusive worst-case scenario of a known-inferior approach is relevant to discussions of future EVs.

(If anything, that sounds pretty good - the worst-case scenario for one of the cheapest ones out on the market right this second is only 1/5th capacity loss? I would have expected it to be much worse.)

30% capacity loss is generally considered EOL for battery packs. (And that typically happens at 1000 complete charge-discharge cycles.) The Volt should have gone 1000 * 380 miles = 380K miles before hitting that.

On paper, I wanted a Leaf over a Volt, but the real world difference shows that differing battery technology still matters a lot. I dunno how Nissan built such a bad pack but there you go.

> The Volt should have gone 1000 * 380 miles = 380K miles before hitting that.

And might have if not subjected to worst-case conditions which EV drivers do not subject their cars to. What are the real-world results in terms of battery capacity declining? They don't seem to be anywhere near that.

So again, as I already said in my first comment, I'm not seeing how this is really relevant - much less some sort of fatal proof.

stupid edit: The second sentence of the first graf should say:

"""The Leaf should have gone 84 x 1000 = 84K miles before hitting that."""

40K miles to 22% loss is about 50% faster than it should die.

Real world facts: LEAFs tested in Phoenix and discharged to under 5% capacity twice a day lost 22-26% of their initial capacity after just 40,000 miles.

That's basically the worst case scenario and it still doesn't come anywhere close to supporting your claim of "on its last legs" at only 10,000 miles on the clock.

Personally I think the LEAF's lack of active thermal management for the battery is a serious mistake, and your link reflects that. But even then it's not nearly as bad as you said. With more normal use in a more normal climate it'll be vastly better still.

"EVs suck now" not even close. Full disclosure: I own a Model S. It is the envy of everyone I show it to. There are a lot of articles out there talking about how it's an awesome car. Those articles are wrong: it's far better than they say. The only objections people can come up with to it are based in fiction. "What if you want to do a road trip?" Well, I take advantage of the vast supercharger network. "What about battery degradation?" The battery was engineered to last 10 years and reports from the fleet so far is that they're doing better than expected. "Is it hard to find places to charge it?" No, it's really easy, because I charge it in my garage every day and never have to charge anywhere else in normal driving.

"Tesla is losing money hand over foot" is another example of this concerted campaign of anti-EV disinformation. They make a healthy profit selling cars. (Average profit per car is something like 28%.) That profit just gets poured into capital expenditures rather than being returned to the shareholders at the moment, because they're trying to expand at a rapid pace.