Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The rate for charging at home is quite different from the rate at a commercial charging station.  And of course, around here regular is about $3 per gallon.  Presuming say 33 mpg, which is doable, you're spending less than 10 cents per mile on gasoline.

Of course you're comparing an article describing someone based in SoCal with your gas prices. And they stated SoCal energy prices are 28.2 cents/kWh.

A quick google search suggests Atlanta electricity is going for 15 cents/kWh. Which would mean that the same GV70 Electrified would be driven for about 5.668 cents per mile in Atlanta vs SoCal. 

While your hypothetical 33 mpg gas car in SoCal, where gas around me is currently around $4.50/gal, would be roughly 15 cents per mile. 

And that's not even getting into the fact that the GV70 Electrified is a luxury SUV, and you're not going to find many gas-powered luxury SUVs that average 33 mpg. The equivalent GV70 combustion w/ 300hp engine gets 22/28, whereas the 375hp engine is 18/24. And the 375hp engine is a full 1.6 seconds slower 0-60 time than the electric. So assume you're getting a combined 20 mpg, that GV70 3.5T in SoCal with $4.50/gal gas would be north of 25 cents per mile. 

If you're trying to compare costs, you can't compare a luxury SUV in one of the most expensive places in the nation for electricity OR gas to a hypothetical 33 mpg vehicle of an entirely different vehicle class in one a state with below the national average gas price. 

This 1.2 Million-Mile Tesla Model S Is On Its 14th Motor, Fourth Battery Pack (insideevs.com)

this Model S is currently on its fourth battery pack. Four batteries at 1.2 million miles mean that the average pack lasted some 300,000 and counting, which is actually a strong showing in our opinion.

what's the average age of the 4 batteries?

4 years?  is the Model S a 2008 model?

what's the average age of the 4 batteries?

4 years?  is the Model S a 2008 model?

Article states it's a 2014 model, and the owner has driven an average of 131,000 miles per year (roughly 10x a "typical" driver). So I think you can throw "age" of batteries out the window, because age is just a proxy for mileage in most cases--but clearly not this one. 

From what I can glean, EV batteries likely need replacement around 10-12 years of normal driving (120,000-150,000 miles).  And they are expensive, often more than the value of the car at that age.  They do have an 8 year 100,000 mile warranty (usually) but the fine print on that could be worth reading.

That's better than a typical lead acid battery in cars, but they are of course a lot cheaper.  The other factor is "erosion" in range over time, maybe 3-5% per year.  Some of this might improve with simple software advancements.

I don't know.  The laws of physics are proving pretty harsh for battery manufacturers.  There's only so much that software optimization can accomplish when facing off against the fundamental nature of materials.

I don't know.  The laws of physics are proving pretty harsh for battery manufacturers.  There's only so much that software optimization can accomplish when facing off against the fundamental nature of materials.

My understanding is that the "software advancements" are largely low-hanging fruit that Tesla (and Nissan) learned the hard way largely regarding things like thermal management during charging / etc. I know Tesla's software allows you to plan out Supercharger visits on a route, and as you're approaching the charger will be readying the battery for optimal charging--I don't know exactly what they do, but I'm sure it's easily google-able... 

I would also suspect that there are things you can do re: charging rates. I.e. if I set an alarm for the morning on my cellphone, it now reduces the charging rate to hit 100% just before the time of the alarm. I would think that Tesla's charging software might be sophisticated enough that if you get home at 5 PM and you need 100 miles of charge to get back to 80% battery, it might not just charge the batteries as fast as possible (which would only take a few hours), but deliberately slow the charging rate so you get those 100 miles by the next morning to increase battery life. 

Both of those would be software optimizations that would improve battery life. And IMHO they should be "table stakes" in the EV industry at this point, but I don't necessarily know if they are--the first one particularly for other manufacturers that don't have a captive charging network like Tesla. 

And part of it is learning. If you regularly deplete to near-zero and then charge to 100% (as one would do with a fuel tank in an ICEV), you'll reduce battery life. If you regularly don't let it drop below 20% and only charge to 80%, it increases battery life. 

Either way, the Tesla from the article was averaging 300,000 miles per battery pack, which for a typical driver would be >20 years of driving. 

My understanding is that the "software advancements" are largely low-hanging fruit that Tesla (and Nissan) learned the hard way largely regarding things like thermal management during charging / etc. I know Tesla's software allows you to plan out Supercharger visits on a route, and as you're approaching the charger will be readying the battery for optimal charging--I don't know exactly what they do, but I'm sure it's easily google-able...

I would also suspect that there are things you can do re: charging rates. I.e. if I set an alarm for the morning on my cellphone, it now reduces the charging rate to hit 100% just before the time of the alarm. I would think that Tesla's charging software might be sophisticated enough that if you get home at 5 PM and you need 100 miles of charge to get back to 80% battery, it might not just charge the batteries as fast as possible (which would only take a few hours), but deliberately slow the charging rate so you get those 100 miles by the next morning to increase battery life.

Both of those would be software optimizations that would improve battery life. And IMHO they should be "table stakes" in the EV industry at this point, but I don't necessarily know if they are--the first one particularly for other manufacturers that don't have a captive charging network like Tesla.

And part of it is learning. If you regularly deplete to near-zero and then charge to 100% (as one would do with a fuel tank in an ICEV), you'll reduce battery life. If you regularly don't let it drop below 20% and only charge to 80%, it increases battery life.

Either way, the Tesla from the article was averaging 300,000 miles per battery pack, which for a typical driver would be >20 years of driving.

Well yeah, I'm assuming we're already including these types of known optimizations in our current estimates of battery life.  None of this is new stuff, much of it applied to recharge on other versions of rechargeable batteries long before EVs were part of the discussion.

What I'm saying is, I believe we're already near the limits of what software optimization can achieve.  We're likely over halfway there, which means any further improvements are only going to be incremental and not likely to change the calculations all that much.  

Yeah, most people only charge to 100% before a road trip or before a day they know they might approach a 240+ number.

Heck, the way EV charging works, even on a road trip you only take it to 80% because the charge rate slows down significantly above that. I think you can go something like 20-80% in 20-30 minutes on a Supercharger, but the additional 20% to hit 100% would take almost another half hour on top of it.

I can't find solid numbers on public charger rates in CA. I suspect b/c there's a bunch of different locations, different owners/operators (non-Tesla), on top of different charge capabilities. Via Quora, I see numbers for DC fast chargers in the realm of 0.30-0.60 $/kWh, but numbers for slower Level 2 chargers in the realm of 0.10-0.35 $/kWh (which seems low quite frankly).

In many ways it depends what you need. If you REQUIRE fast charging, it looks like it's going to cost. But we have L2 chargers in the parking structure at my office, and if you're getting to the office and just need a couple hours of slower charging while you work, it sounds much more reasonable. But I have a lot of trouble believing the lower ends of either of those rates are anything other than unicorns...

Right, so the ideal use cases remain the same.  Very good for urban drivers/suburban commuters or anyone else averaging under 100 miles per day and always returning to the same fixed point.

Less ideal for roadtrippers.

Impractical for roadtrippers who are towing heavy objects (and potentially always will be).