As
@Ampster alluded to, my last comment is simply meant to clarify a misuse/misunderstanding of a term. Not to make or disagree with any broader point in whatever broader thing is being debated (I haven't followed this discussion closely enough to know, or have an opinion on that).
Precisely. Both
cycle and
calendar aging are factors impacting
overall cell life, and both are dependent on a number of variables like SOC and temperature and in the case of cycle life C-rate. But to be clear, calendar aging is not only the result of abuse, it is just accelerated the further from optimal you get, but its a factor no matter what.
I'm not arguing with that statement, I agree with it for the most part.
What you would like to focus on (how long cells can be expected to last in real world conditions) is what matters to most of us most in a practical sense, its just not what calendar aging means.
Calendar aging + cycle aging together will determine how long your cells last, and both will depend on a number of variables that are not always aligned (for example, low temperatures are more optimal for calendar aging, but mild or warm temperatures are better for cycle life).
Point being its important to understand the difference between cycle and calendar aging, and understand that real world life of your cells is the product of both. Simply dividing the cycle life figure from the datasheet by 365 will not give you an accurate estimate. Both calendar and cycle aging will affect the real world life of your cells and specifically how and in what conditions you use your system will determine to what degree each factor matters.