DaveinOlyWA said:
i would have to say that Most LEAFers will have a happy experience.
I will agree with that up front, but there are large numbers that will not have a happy experience, as what they were sold isn't exactly what they bought.
First, the people in hot places. Arizona, some of California, some of Texas, etc. Unless they knew up front that battery life to 70% is likely to be more like 40,000 miles or about 3-4 summers. The second tier of warm places will also be somewhat unhappy. While many of these people can still be very happy with their car even with capacity well less than 70%, Nissan will take a lot of anger from these people, especially as Nissan has not either a warranty program for such capacity loss, or a discounted battery exchange program. Or even for that matter even a public price for the battery pack.
Second, the people that rely daily on a large fraction of the battery. The battery will lose capacity with time, even in the best of places, and the range will decrease. Eventually this will cause a daily problem as the battery loses the capacity needed to take the daily routine. These people would also gain a lot from a discounted battery exchange, and the battery they turn in might be very valuable for people in hot places. They would gain less from a warranty, as they might not be down the full 70% or whatever percentage would be needed under a warranty. Nissan could have avoided this by trying to filter out potential customers that would be driving more than 40 miles per day without a charge at the destination, or more than 80 miles per day with a full charge at the destination.
I'm in a cool climate, and I commute about 30 miles, and I could charge close enough to work to mostly avoid a low battery warnings with half capacity. I am in none of the above categories. This doesn't affect me directly.
Nissan needs to work out how they are going to handle this issues, and start getting the word out well before next summer. The very worst cases are well handled by a car buyback or lease termination, and I'm pleased to hear that there have been such deals for those impacted the worst. The next group of cases are in my never humble and only personal opinion, would be best handled by a battery exchange. Under such a deal, Nissan would exchange a new, full capacity battery pack for a used one for a discounted price, and also would exchange, accurately measured capacity used battery packs with significant remaining capacity for used ones at a prices that would depend on both supply and demand for such used packs and for the measured capacity. Lastly, cells from packs with too little capacity for automotive use could be sold for things like backup power. The first exchange would be a cost to Nissan, but would improve the user experience for those most impacted. The second exchange would be income to Nissan, and would also improve the user experience. The last sale would also be income. The net gain to Nissan would be that there would not be large numbers of Leaf owners in hot places loudly unhappy, and at a lower cost than a large buyback program, or a warranty program (public or secret).
In numbers, assume Nissan's cost is $12,000. That would imply that a new pack installed without an exchange would be somewhere around $18,000. Assume that a 50% pack is not of use, and the cells can be sold for other uses like backup power for $4000. The distribution of capacity in returned packs is something that will likely be known only after doing this for a while. Assume half of the returned packs are at 50%, and half are at 75%, and assume that a 75% pack can be exchanged for a 50% pack for $2000 to Nissan. Then the break even price for a new for used exchange would be about $7,000, plus the costs of running the program.
If Nissan would make the exchange new for used price $5,000 I'd expect that would be far cheaper to Nissan than any other way of dealing with the unhappy drivers. Somewhat less than break even today, but as cell prices drop with time, would eventually be a profit.
