I don't think it's going to work in reality or ever be impenetrable, but it could still theoretically work. Most people go short distance every day. If they're full evs, that leaves much of the 200-500mi battery capacity unused on most days. They could also plug in at work to store the cheap power during peak solar.
BEV (eco) vs HV, which one costs more money
- Thread starter Jimmy Vo
- Start date
- Replies 55
- Views 6K
I don't think it's going to work in reality or ever be impenetrable, but it could still theoretically work. Most people go short distance every day. If they're full evs, that leaves much of the 200-500mi battery capacity unused on most days. They could also plug in at work to store the cheap power during peak solar.
I agree that using the car battery doesn’t make much sense. A BEV with a large battery may not need to be charged every day, but you don’t want to discharge it after you get home by feeding the juice in to the grid. Then you’d have a dead car in the morning.
A battery bank at the house makes more sense. We have a relatively small lead acid bank that stores our solar energy. Any excess is fed to the grid. Typically we don’t use any battery capacity, so not much solar is required to keep them charged. We were without power for 8 days in September due to a local fire and the system performed quite well.
It would be possible to use the batteries after sunset to power the house. Basically, going off-grid. Then recharge the next day and repeat. Depending on the battery capacity and energy consumed, a suitably sized solar array would be required to fully recharge. I’ll double check the numbers, but a coworker has installed 8, 64kWh Kia batteries at his house. That’s huge. He has solar as well. He could probably go 2-4 weeks without power.
He’s in So Cal with gas heat and appliances and plenty of sun. In the Pacific Northwest, with electric heat and less sun, especially in winter, it is extremely challenging to go off-grid, or even keep a small bank of batteries charged. We have ~12kW of available capacity and the 3KW array has been making 2-4kWh’s per day.
Last edited:
Very few BEV drivers return home with their battery exhausted. Even more so as batteries and ranges increase. It would be a fringe case for someone to do 300 to 400 miles in a typical day.
Very few BEV’s can actually travel 300-400 miles in a day without stopping to recharge. It wouldn’t be necessary to travel that distance to arrive at home, or work, with a battery at some stage of depletion. It’s no different than an owner of an ICE car driving until the low fuel light comes on. And we know how adverse some BEV owners are to charging above 80% SOC.
Two people in my department of 10, own Tesla’s. They don’t top off the battery after every drive any more than an owner of an ICE tops off the tank after every drive. There are countless other BEV’s at work. I’ve mentioned before, that some BEV owners partake in charging for free at work on Friday to drive all weekend on that juice. Then they charge again on Monday to drive all week. So, on Wednesday or Thursday night, or the end of the day on Sunday, they won’t arrive home with a tremendous surplus of kWh’s.
How much of the 60-90kWh battery will they be willing to sacrifice to run the A/C all night? The TV, lights, cooktop, water heater, dishwasher, coffee maker, microwave?
What if they, heaven forbid, actually had to pay to charge. If they paid $.30/kWh to charge would they be willing to use the expensive electricity that is stored in the car to power the house overnight if the off-peak night time rate was $12/kWh?
You did notice I said as batteries and range increase?
If an EV driver with a 100+ kWh battery arrived home with 50% SOC, they could easily use that energy to keep from adding to the demand peak in the evening.
Our household usage averages <25 kWh/day (including charging our EV).
I don't understand the scenario where they would pay .$30/kWh to charge and then substitute it for $.12/Kwh usage later.
Charge overnight at lowest TOU, drive during the day, feed the house (at least partially) during evening peak (demand and $$) hours, then recharge later at night when TOU rates are lowest. They are never pulling from the grid in peak times, reducing overall demand and also paying for all the electricity they use only during the lowest cost times.
That your workplace offers free charging certainly changes the behavior of EV owners, but that is also a fringe case scenario and not typical by any stretch of the imagination. In this case, they could charge for free every day and power their house with it at night (BTW, I think free charging is not a good thing for a variety of reasons).
It wouldn’t be wise. Perhaps you can understand that the kWh rate at ChargePoint, or a DC/DC fast charger might be higher than the peak rate back at the casa. It wouldn’t make much sense to use the car to power the house in that, fringe, but entirely possible situation.
How much longer do you believe that TOU rates will remain low at night with more and more EV’s charging at that time? The utility companies are moving the goal posts as we speak. They’re in business to sell electricity and make a profit for their investors. When they see an increased demand in usage, the rates will go up.
Employers, businesses, municipalities and airports provide free EV charging all over the friggin’ place. It isn’t a fringe case. I see it as the drug dealer that gives you the first taste for free, now you’re hooked.
Someone is footing the bill. Either the employer/business is offsetting the cost by reducing employee benefits elsewhere or raising prices to the consumer. Municipalities will have to raise taxes, pass bond measures or rob funds from another department. Or, if utilities actually provide “free” electricity for select purposes, they’ll have to raise rates across the board.
I’m not a fan of “free” charging either. We may have found the first subject on which we both agree.
Then, there is the, yet to be addressed, issue of a fuel tax equivalent on electricity used to operate a BEV on public roads. Other than a few states that have added a fee for registration, BEV owners aren’t contributing to the delinquency of our road maintenance system.
That’s a fair statement. But the whole situation is complex.
If you lease vehicles for 3 years as many do it’s easy math and a clear winner is easily identified with the deals available at the time. If you buy both and keep for 5-7 years the math gets more complex. If you buy and keep for 12-15 years like I do it gets very clear again (not in the EVHybrids favor).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How so? Maintenance should be lower or equal. Fuel you either get a choice of gas at 40-50mpg or electric at whatever your rates are, you can pick the strictly cheaper one or factor in convenience value (for me, convenience goes to plugging in at house daily over going to gas station, but could be either).
Battery defects are rare (only the original leafs in aware of with that problem?) and degradation is very slow.
BEVs vs ICE requires picking solely gas or electric in advance.
Clarity does have higher repair costs than cheaper vehicles, but I don't know if it matters as much compared to equivalent. That could be a benefit though in possibilty of accidents rather than a negative. Negotiating if there's a Total loss situation should yield fair to generous (above market) offers and not be stuck with no choice vs. potential hidden damage after repair.
Last edited:
These types of statements usually are based on replacing the battery at the end of the warranty period, but not factoring in an engine replacement when it's warranty expires.
I think there is a disconnect on the V2G goals and execution.
The utility will use your EV to borrow electricity during peak demand times, then replace it in lower demand times. There is no cost to you, and in fact they pay you a small amount for the privilege.
The ideal scenario is indeed workplace charging (free or at cost is irrelevant). This is usually done during the day when demand is low and renewable production is high. Come home at night and plug in, and the utility then has access to a small amount of your battery to help knock the peak off of the evening demand (one car doesn't make much difference, but thousands will). Since they have to design the grid generation/supply for the peak demand time, decreasing this peak can result in huge benefits to the utility.
Right now I am getting paid $50 year to allow them to delay or slow the charging on my car during "peak events". I can override at any time if I happen to need an immediate charge. They have a similar program if people put in smart thermostats for the heating/AC use.
The idea for a utility is a flat demand curve. The closer they can get to that the more efficiently they can operate. TOU rate differentials are a very crude tool to push people to usage at lower demand times. Technologies like V2G and smart thermostats offer them more effective ways (and they are willing to pay for it)
jdonalds
Well-Known Member
We installed solar for the house before buying the car. The system worked so well it was producing more than we use for the house only so there was ample power left to charge the car battery.
Of course the smaller battery of the Clarity PHEV is sized right for around town driving so a daily dose of power mid-day when the sun is highest works well. It only takes 2 hours to charge the Clarity. The solar, when operating at peak, produces about 6kWh which is just shy of what is needed to charge the car so a small amount of power is drawn from the city as the car charges. As soon as the Clarity is fully charged the solar system switches to pumping power back into the grid. The solar is net-metering with the city so we don't have a power wall, the city acts like a battery for us, storing any extra power from our solar system then feeding it back to us when we need it.
Citi electricity cost is about $0.16/kWh 24/7. If gas drops below $2/gallon then gas would become a cheaper way to drive; that is if we didn't have solar. But gas is about $3/gallon now in California and is quite unlikely to drop below $2/gallon any time soon. So in our case electric is the way to go.
The solar system saves us about $2,200 to $2,500 per year when we compare with house power and car gas before the system was installed. Payback is between 6 and 8 years. We are three years into having solar and the Clarity. Solar provides about 86% of what we use for both the car and house annually.
Solar is not a win for everybody. Some rent so can't have solar or even a charging station. Those who own their own home may not have a physical location to install enough panels. Some may not have sufficient sun due to the local climate. Power companies can stand in the way through rate tiers that are not beneficial for home solar. But for many solar is a great solution to lower costs and cut pollution.
Of course the smaller battery of the Clarity PHEV is sized right for around town driving so a daily dose of power mid-day when the sun is highest works well. It only takes 2 hours to charge the Clarity. The solar, when operating at peak, produces about 6kWh which is just shy of what is needed to charge the car so a small amount of power is drawn from the city as the car charges. As soon as the Clarity is fully charged the solar system switches to pumping power back into the grid. The solar is net-metering with the city so we don't have a power wall, the city acts like a battery for us, storing any extra power from our solar system then feeding it back to us when we need it.
Citi electricity cost is about $0.16/kWh 24/7. If gas drops below $2/gallon then gas would become a cheaper way to drive; that is if we didn't have solar. But gas is about $3/gallon now in California and is quite unlikely to drop below $2/gallon any time soon. So in our case electric is the way to go.
The solar system saves us about $2,200 to $2,500 per year when we compare with house power and car gas before the system was installed. Payback is between 6 and 8 years. We are three years into having solar and the Clarity. Solar provides about 86% of what we use for both the car and house annually.
Solar is not a win for everybody. Some rent so can't have solar or even a charging station. Those who own their own home may not have a physical location to install enough panels. Some may not have sufficient sun due to the local climate. Power companies can stand in the way through rate tiers that are not beneficial for home solar. But for many solar is a great solution to lower costs and cut pollution.
Electric is around half the price in OR (and in CO). It seems to be about 1.5-2x cheaper in much of the country, with some notable exceptions.
I believe most of my miles have been free (to me) so far as well.
Keep in mind that Teslas are significantly more efficient than the Clarity also.
I believe most of my miles have been free (to me) so far as well.
Keep in mind that Teslas are significantly more efficient than the Clarity also.
fueleconomy.gov has published miles per kWh for the entire Tesla lineup. The range is from 2.32-4.16. Mid 3’s seems to be quite common.
The Clarity, based on owner feedback on this forum, indicates a range of 3.4-3.9 miles/kWh.
Do you have any data to support your statement?
If you want to compare apples to apples (lab tests under controlled conditions), the Model 3 LR AWD is 28 kWh/100 miles (121 MPGe), The SR+ is 24 kWh/100 miles (141 MPGe).
The Clarity PHEV is 31 kWh/100 miles on electric (110 MPGe), the Clarity BEV is 30 kWh/100 miles (114 MPGe)
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42480&id=42275&id=40044&id=42278
Did you notice that Dislin said Teslas? (That’s actually a question, not a statement presented as a question.)
The fuel economy.gov site showed 11 Tesla models with higher kWh/mile ratings (less efficient) than the Clarity PHEV and 8 models with the same or lower kWh/mile ratings (more efficient) than the Clarity PHEV.
Yes, the Model 3 SR+ is rated as the most efficient. Tesla finally caught up to the Hyundai Ionic.
The laboratory data shows that Tesla currently manufactures a model that is rated as the most efficient EV. The data also indicates that, as a fleet, Teslas are not significantly more efficient than the Clarity.
I didn’t do the math, however, a quick glance of the Tesla efficiency ratings leads me to believe that, on average, Teslas may be less efficient than the Clarity.
If you compare the "standard" sedans that Tesla offers, all are more efficient than the Clarity. If you get into performance versions, add large wheels with low profile tires with large tires, or SUVs, then yes it brings the fleet average down. But keep in mind that even their base versions offer much higher performance than the Clarity. If you want to treat the Clarity as a "fleet" like you are the Tesla, add in the 68 MPGe FCX and that brings the average down to well below the Tesla fleet average.
Semantics aside, a Tesla sedan is more efficient than the Clarity, whether that is a smaller Model 3 or the larger Model S.
What happens to those efficiency numbers when that higher performance is put to use? I’m thinking they won’t look so good. The numbers were derived from operating the cars under the same conditions. Apples to apples.
I’m going by what was said, which I believe is important. “... Teslas are significantly more efficient than the Clarity...”
The data shows the 2020 Tesla S LR at 30kwh’s/100miles. The same as the Clarity BEV. The Tesla S STD is at 31kWh’s/100. The same as the Clarity PHEV. That’s not more efficient and it certainly isn’t significantly more efficient.
It may be difficult to agree on what is significant, in my book, zero is not significant. So, even though you’re always right, in this case, the data indicates that you’re wrong.
There are many factors to consider, but the most telling is that on any trip over 50 miles, any TEsla will be more efficient. Once the Clarity fires the ICE, energy efficiency goes in the toilet.
If you want to cherry pick a best case scenario for the Clarity, you can argue that it is nearly as efficient as a Tesla sedan. But in the course of the average drivers yearly usage, a Tesla will consume less energy per mile and be more efficient than the Clarity PHEV (any BEV will be).
Good God! I’m not cherry picking squat. I’m comparing the efficiency of the vehicles when operated as EV’s.
Robert_Alabama
Well-Known Member
I'd argue that the Clarity is essentially equal to the Tesla sedans for EV operation in both efficiency and cost. As to the gasoline operation, in my area the cost to operate the Clarity per mile is about 20% more than electricity. For the benefit of not having to worry about recharging on the road (and knowing you might pay more than a 20% premium for travel charging), I would still argue that from a cost perspective that they are still pretty close in $/mile which is pretty important to me these days. You could bring up maintenance differences, but I have paid zero for maintenance in over 2 years (included with purchase from the dealership I bought from), so for me that can't tilt toward the Tesla. I will still buy an EV someday, maybe even for my next car, but for now I'm pretty happy with the Clarity.