I would take the chance for $22 that they will extend the red stickers too. I took a chance back in December that the green stickers might only be good for one year, but now it looks like the bet paid off.
Honda clarity PHEV versus 2018 Accord hybrid
- Thread starter Johnhaydev
- Start date
- Replies 42
- Views 19K
I would take the chance for $22 that they will extend the red stickers too. I took a chance back in December that the green stickers might only be good for one year, but now it looks like the bet paid off.
My decision was between the Accord Hybrid and the Clarity. For me it was an easy choice as my goal was to mostly drive EV with the hybrid flexibility on longer drive. I have not been disappointed as after 2.5 months and 5000 km, I have not even spent 30$ on gas.
I have also noticed as someone else mentioned the higher quality of the Clarity which really feels like a Acura. The Accord does not have a the same level of quality feel. However, it is true that with the Clarity I have accepted to give up some luxury features I would have in the Accord: power seats (not in the Clarity in Canada), power roof, ventilated seats, rear seat heating and heated steering wheel. But I was ready for this compromise to get this wonderful PHEV, as someone mentioned even the Accord Hybdrid 2018 has amazing fuel consumption, you ALWAYS use fuel.
The only scenario where I would have considered the Accord Hybdrid is if I would do mostly long trips - in which case the benefit of the plug in would not be so substantial.
Sent from my iPad using Inside EVs
I have also noticed as someone else mentioned the higher quality of the Clarity which really feels like a Acura. The Accord does not have a the same level of quality feel. However, it is true that with the Clarity I have accepted to give up some luxury features I would have in the Accord: power seats (not in the Clarity in Canada), power roof, ventilated seats, rear seat heating and heated steering wheel. But I was ready for this compromise to get this wonderful PHEV, as someone mentioned even the Accord Hybdrid 2018 has amazing fuel consumption, you ALWAYS use fuel.
The only scenario where I would have considered the Accord Hybdrid is if I would do mostly long trips - in which case the benefit of the plug in would not be so substantial.
Sent from my iPad using Inside EVs
Even the red ones can be renewed next year. Gives you another three years of HOV use.
bobcubsfan
Active Member
Doing it today. Thanks.
montelatici
New Member
I was looking for a PHEV with extended electric range for my commute, so the Accord was not in contention, but I had a chance to test drive a Touring Accord to compare with the Touring Clarity I eventually leased. I am not sure if it is the fact that the Clarity is made in Japan, but the Clarity felt far more like a luxury car than the Accord. it just felt a lot more solid than the Accord and even the leather of the Clarity felt more like the leather in my Jaguar XJ8 while the Accord leather was not nearly at that level. The Clarity also seems to be far more advanced in design with it's aluminum construction sections and double insulation around the doors which I did not notice, on the Accord. And, overall construction just felt superior, perhaps because it is a Japanese made Honda.
izudin
Member
I am an engineer, not an economist so you might take it with a grain of salt, but I don't think your statement is correct.
Even thought you have PV (which I also have) charging is not free. You have to look at the "lost opportunity cost", basically saying what I could do with that energy if I did not charge my electric car. If you did not charge the car, that energy could be used by another load, that is taking energy from a grid (and paying utility price). Or , if your other load doesn't need so much energy at the moment, that energy would go into the grid, and assuming you have net metering, would offset your total consumption from the grid (at the electric utility price).
Therefore, you are not charging your vehicle for free, it cost you whatever is the price that your electric utility charges you.
Even going grid free, you have to pay for solar panels and they have a finite life. This adds up to a non zero cost per kWh.
If I bought a $30,000 system that lasts for 30 years that is $1,000 per year. Granted, that is a pretty big system, but only net metering makes that feasible for return on investment.
Without net metering it might be 20 years or more to get a return. Maybe panel costs have come down enough to make a positive ROI possible without net metering, but it probably depends on where you live.
In Iowa, a 10 kW system might generate 13.5 MWh per year, if it cost $30k that would be same cost as me buying electricity from the grid, and that would only be if net metered and carry a credit month to month (which they don't do with my utility) . As it is, I would have to draw a lot of power from the grid in winter.
If I bought a $30,000 system that lasts for 30 years that is $1,000 per year. Granted, that is a pretty big system, but only net metering makes that feasible for return on investment.
Without net metering it might be 20 years or more to get a return. Maybe panel costs have come down enough to make a positive ROI possible without net metering, but it probably depends on where you live.
In Iowa, a 10 kW system might generate 13.5 MWh per year, if it cost $30k that would be same cost as me buying electricity from the grid, and that would only be if net metered and carry a credit month to month (which they don't do with my utility) . As it is, I would have to draw a lot of power from the grid in winter.
Tomrl
Member
We're running a 4.68 kW system which will break even in 10.75 years at the rate we have produced over the last 2 years. We were able to roll the cost of a new main panel / breakers and all installation costs into that so really that break even including all that extra work is pretty darn good I think. Now if I could only get a Tesla Powerwall hooked up to it...
KentuckyKen
Well-Known Member
I have a 10kW PV system that cost me $15,000 (after tax credit) and in my location and low utility rates will pay off in 10 years. Every component is warranted for 25 years and I am grandfathered in with regards to net metering. My utility will never pay me in cash, all they do is take 100% of the production value at current rates off my bill. So there is no other value that my solar production can be used for and I am not “losing” anything by saying I’m charging for free. Over the 25 year lifespan I am charging for free and with projected degradation of the PV panels and utility rate increases, I will save about $50,000 and be protected from any rate increases.
So yeah, I am charging for free if you look at the long run. And I’m not figuring in depreciation since in 25 years I’ll be 90 and long gone. Heck, I’m already dead in dog years.
So yeah, I am charging for free if you look at the long run. And I’m not figuring in depreciation since in 25 years I’ll be 90 and long gone. Heck, I’m already dead in dog years.
David in TN
Well-Known Member
I charge for free since:
1. My wife pays our electric bill, and
2. There is no fee to charge at my secondary work location - 35 miles from my house (2 days this week, 4 days last week, etc...) My primary work location is 3.2 miles from my house.
1. My wife pays our electric bill, and
2. There is no fee to charge at my secondary work location - 35 miles from my house (2 days this week, 4 days last week, etc...) My primary work location is 3.2 miles from my house.
izudin
Member
Let's forget about the cost to install the PV system (it is sunk cost, you can not do anything about it now), assume you got it for free.
Only if your PV system production is more than your total consumption (meaning your electricity bill is always $0, as the utility doesn't pay you if you produce more, which might be your case, I am not arguing that) you can claim you charge for free.
If the PV system (as it is my, and probably the case for most other PV owners) covers only a portion of the total consumption, in that case, as you said yourself (in the quote above), if you did not use the energy for charging, but instead injected into the grid, the utility would lower your bill for that energy at the same price you pay them. Therefore the EV charging cost you exactly the same as the price you pay for the electricity supplied by your utility.
Sandroad
Well-Known Member
So here's another angle.....If I install a grid-tied solar system in order to offset the amount of power used by my Clarity (which I did), the power produced by that system and sent to grid is power I would not have used (or paid for) if I did own a PHEV. So, for all intents and purposes, the power I produce is used at my house for my car, even though I'm grid tied. Since I "use it at my house" and "would not have purchased it" without owning and operating a PHEV, doesn't that make it free (of course only after applying your condition about forgetting installation costs).
izudin
Member
No, it doesn't.Since I "use it at my house" and "would not have purchased it" without owning and operating a PHEV, doesn't that make it free (of course only after applying your condition about forgetting installation costs).
Let's say that your monthly consumption, by all your load, except the PHEV is 1500kWh and your PV produces 1000kWh. Also, assume that electricity price charged by the utility is $0.10/kWh. (numbers are random, I just want to use nice round figures)
Your net-meter at the end of the month will show 500kWh (1500-1000) consumed from the grid and your payment would be $50 (500kWh * 0.1$/kWh).
Let's now assume that you also charge your PHEV and you use 300kWh during the month for that purpose. In this case at the end of the month your net-meter would show 800kWh (1500+300-1000) and you would pay $80. That difference of $30 is cost of charging your PHEV, with price $0.10/kWh ($30/300kWh).
On the other hand, if your PV produce more than your total (PHEV excluded) consumption, PHEV charging would be cheaper or even free.
For the same example as above, let's now assume that your PV production during the month is 1700kWh, with everything else the same. At the end of the month, if you don't charge PHEV, your net meter would show -200kWh (1500-1700). Assuming that the utility doesn't pay you for "negative" energy, your bill would be $0.
Let's now assume that you charge PHEV and use 300kWh for that. Your net-meter would show 100kWh (1500+300-1700) and your bill would be $10. That $10 is cost of charging your PHEV, with price $0.033/kWh ($10/300kWh).
Now, if your PV produces 2000kW during the month, your net meter would show -500kWh if you don't charge PV , or -200kWh if you do. In both cases your bill would be $0 and your PV charging would be free.
Therefore if your PV production surplus is more that what you need to charge PHEV, the charging is free. If you have PV production surplus, but less that what you need to charge PV, the cost of charging would be more than 0, but less that utility price.
If your PV can not cover complete consumption (excluding PHEV), the price of charging the PHEV is the same as the price your utility charges you.
Last edited:
KentuckyKen
Well-Known Member
Since the size and ROI of my PV system was calculated using the Aurora software package that includes all factors such as utility rates, latitude, weather, angle of panels, temperature coefficient, panel efficiency and degradation, etc., I have a very reasonable expectation that over a calendar year I will produce slightly over my consumption including charging. In the winter I may use more than I produce but in the summer I make more than enough to make up for those dreary winter days. Basically with net metering, I’m using my utility as a battery and am not using or paying for any NET use of electricity over each calendar year. And I didn’t have to pay for more panels than I need now since the small yearly degradation of panel efficiency will be covered when I replace my elderly 17 year old AC unit with a more efficient one.
I didn’t include depreciation since at my age, the actuarial tables say I won’t be shopping for a new system in 25 years. Also my system is projected to not only break even, but to save me over $50,000 over 25 years assuming the historical average of 4% yearly rate hikes. And I purposely did not include the fact that the PV system will increase the value of my home when my son has to sell it since in my area solar is too new to say for sure exactly how much value it adds.
So based on the above, you’re going to have a very difficult time convincing me that I’m not charging for free. But go ahead and try, I double-dare you. Am I missing something?
I didn’t include depreciation since at my age, the actuarial tables say I won’t be shopping for a new system in 25 years. Also my system is projected to not only break even, but to save me over $50,000 over 25 years assuming the historical average of 4% yearly rate hikes. And I purposely did not include the fact that the PV system will increase the value of my home when my son has to sell it since in my area solar is too new to say for sure exactly how much value it adds.
So based on the above, you’re going to have a very difficult time convincing me that I’m not charging for free. But go ahead and try, I double-dare you. Am I missing something?
izudin
Member
I am certainly not trying to convince anybody to anything, I am just stating the fact: If you are net positive (your PV production is more than your total consumption) than you are charging for free. If your PV production is less than your total consumption, the charging is not free.
According to your post, you are falling into the first group (good for you
) and you are charging for free. I am in the second group, and for me charging price is the same as the utility price.Reviving this, but I think the stability and that solid feel (I've experienced with luxury cars in the past) can also be contributed to the low hanging battery weight. This is a heavy car that moves nicely and handles very well - it sticks to the road!
