If you fast charge your Nissan Leaf more than once per week, you could see a decrease in your vehicle battery life by several years.

Mark Perry, Nissan’s director of product planning, said, “If fast charging is the primary way that a Leaf owner recharges, then the gradual capacity loss is about 10 percent more than 220-volt charging. In other words, it will bring the capacity…closer to 70 percent after 10 years.”

The same article also states that an average Lithium-Ion battery cell in an electric cycle has about 1,000 full cycles before it is classified as reaching its “end of life” (EOL).  If you fast charge your Leaf more than twice a week, however, the battery’s EOL could arrive much more quickly. Since the lifespan of the battery is determined by a fixed number of charge cycles, more frequent charging effectively ‘uses up’ battery capabilities more quickly.

According to the industry, a battery has reached its EOL after it has lost 20 percent of its original storage capacity, meaning a charging capacity of 80 percent, which occurs in about 10 years without frequently fast charging an EV.

With all the expenses of electric vehicles (and they seem to be making them more expensive over time), the cost of a replacement battery brings yet another cost into the mix if you want your EV to keep running. In fact, according to a recent British article, it could cost you up to £19,000 to purchase a new battery pack, which would be about $30,645 in U.S. dollars. Indeed, Nissan has stated the production costs for a replacement Leaf battery are around $18,000 – but has declined to say on its website how much a replacement battery would cost the consumer.

And it seems other automotive buffs are questioning the viability of the Leaf’s battery. As Daryl Siry wrote in a blog for Wired.com:

“It also appears that Nissan has cut corners on the most critical aspects of electric vehicle technology – the battery pack.”

Photo Source: Autogeeze.com

A few weeks ago, we mentioned the misleading Nissan Leaf commercial that told the story of the gracious polar bear on his quest to thank those who drive green. Apparently Hollywood doesn’t mind that Nissan’s “zero emissions” push might not be accurate, because the commercial has received an Emmy nomination.

While this commercial does make the point that we should be doing all we can for the environment (including lowering emissions), it deceives viewers and polar bears alike. The ad claims the Nissan Leaf is “zero-emissions,” though that isn’t entirely true. Electric vehicles (EVs) may be (or may not be) better for the environment than conventional gasoline vehicles, but all they can claim is zero “tailpipe emissions.” The energy that powers their batteries is produced by a national energy mix that relies heavily on coal. In fact, according to the EPA’s blog, as of 2009, 20 U.S. states generated more than half of their energy from coal; states such as West Virginia, Indiana and Kentucky were generating more than 90 percent of their power from coal.

And the polar bear ad isn’t the only example of Hollywood and the mainstream media pushing alternative energy misconceptions. This Wall Street Journal article interviewing the director of the new Pixar movie “Cars 2” has him superficially remarking about alternative fuels, “Why isn’t everybody jumping on that bandwagon? It makes so much sense: Electricity, solar, whatever. There’s ethanol. There’s all this stuff you could be doing.”

In a way, he’s right – there is “all this stuff you could be doing,” but all his suggestions are currently unviable technologies. However, there are other options that are more viable than electric, ethanol, or hydrogen cars. Domestic alternative fuels such as propane autogas are clean, affordable and American made; OEM autogas vehicles and aftermarket vehicle conversions available right now.

Many alternative fuels are currently too expensive to implement or range and performance issues remain. Autogas is providing fleets the most bang for their buck, with autogas vehicles having up to 90 percent the range of gasoline vehicles and no loss in vehicle performance.

If the media truly wants to support alternative fuel technologies, they should do more research and figure out that EVs aren’t the only ones helping the environment.