I've done this calc for my own requirements.
They may not meet your own requirements. But that's not what matters. What matters is when carmakers stop focusing on just adding more battery and start focusing on reducing costs.
Even Tesla has started doing this, making the statement that they can pump out more SR+ vehicles that LR vehicles (because they are battery constrained), so that is their focus right now. I personally think that 240 miles is a bit below what I think the sweet spot is (280 miles).
I don't know exactly what the motivations were, but Nissan decided to focus on the sub-$30K niche with the 40kWh LEAF.
VW appears headed in this direction as well, but I will reserve comment until they do prove that they have battery supply and are really serious about entering the market.
And like I said, it may not be 4-5 years. Maybe it's 7-8. But it's coming. Folks that say otherwise are burying their heads in the sand.
In the meantime, as battery supply is going to be an issue while manufacturing scales up (even if raw material supply doesn't further slow things down), it makes far more sense, if reducing GHGs and local air pollution are your motivations, to put several more people in much less expensive PHEVs with smaller batteries sized to handle routine needs, instead of sticking huge, expensive batteries in a much smaller number of cars, when most of that capacity will go unused most of the time. One Niro/Kona/Soul BEV = 3.5 Volt 2s or 7.3 Prius Primes.
lpickup wrote:P.S. While I do agree with your factoring in battery longevity and temperature into required range calculations, my opinion is that is more of a local travel phenomenon. Cold temps on a trip should only really matter for the first leg of the trip (and maybe not even that if you pre-heat), so range loss is not going to be as extreme as when you are just driving around town.
No, it's the opposite. Around town you benefit from Regen, on a trip (uphill) you don't. On a road trip you want to stop as little as possible, so times between pre-heating are going to be long, and any energy for that while charging just makes your charge time longer.
lpickup wrote:Degradation could be a factor of course, but again, I don't think you have to assume any more than 20% loss. Why? Because by then a battery replacement (if needed) should be reasonably affordable for a 10 year old car, and in a Tesla you are probably only looking at 10-15% loss in that timeframe. Factoring in 50% loss in 12-15 years is far too conservative.
I'm not going to assume anything about future battery prices or the availablility of replacements. We've got plenty of LEAF owners here who did that; enough said. As noted in another post, the best capacity warranty extant AFAIK is 70% for 8 years, and we've got plenty of examples of batteries losing more than that in less time. At the moment, the oldest Model S is not quite 7 y.o., and there are Teslas that have exceeded that 30% loss. I know of no battery chemistry currently available which can provide 12 years of service at anything like the capacity % required for other than local use. which is one reason I'm a fan of battery leasing with guaranteed capacity.
lpickup wrote:I simulated my long distance trip using various vehicles as well. I found that even the Model 3 SR could handle the trip I take without any timing impact to my driving pattern (although the stops would be strictly regimented), which was a big surprise to me. That's 220 miles of range and slower charging that I can get from my LR. So even if I experience 30% degradation I am not too worried.
Unfortunately, even the Model 3 LR couldn't handle mine except when brand new, and it's far too expensive to be mass market.