In any case battery failure seems rare but it still is catastrophic and nobody can afford replacement. Hence companies should just provide some sort of warranty / insurance product for the few unlucky folks. Seems like an ideal candidate.
It was at the time one of the main reasons the 2nd hand markets in those countries were pretty healthy and saw a lot of movement of used cars.
"A 2015 Model S with over 265,000 miles on the original battery (85% capacity remaining)"
Source?
The implication being that runs counter to the claim of "calendar age degradation".
Usually you would think that 25000 miles per year over 11 years would degrade the battery faster than the car just sitting around for 11 years.
They've been sitting unused, in their original packaging, never opened... They're still sitting at the charge they shipped at, but the capacity is so diminished that one can't even run an esp32 for a day. I've tried cycling them to see if I can get the capacity back up, but I think they're toast already.
I suspect the RC plane batteries you've been using for five years are not the same chemically as the EV car batteries in use in the UK for five years.
As I mentioned, the article specifically mentions that the battery chemistry has been changed and improved.
It neglects to dive into the chemical engineering specifics of such changes, as would be expected for press such as the WSJ.
I dare say there is as much variation in the attributes of the LiPo/Li-Ion battery family as there is in the borosilicate glass family (ie heaps).