What is an electricity guzzler?

While there are certainly less efficient electric vehicles, I really don't like using the term 'electricity guzzler'.
It makes it sound equivalent to a gas guzzler. Yet, the most inefficient electric car is still more efficient than the most efficient ICE vehicle.

Barring that, I prefer your second option.
The first is such a low bar as to be funny

 

personally, i don't think we should be denigrating any bev's at this point. let's just keep up the investment, r&d, and sales, in the hopes that efficiency will one day be a concern that needs addressing

 

Fueleconomy.gov Top Ten

Edit: changed to screenshot for clarity

 

Am I imagining it, or isn't that already roughly covered in the metric you chose for the first method? Those tons of CO₂ came out the stacks of the generating plants, so already reflect the plants' efficiency. Multiplying by an efficiency factor gives me a double-counting concern.

That could be where a difference comes in: count the CO₂ from generating facilities, and forms of generation that don't make CO₂ will look 'free'. Doing it that way would move the 'guzzler' bar to lower and lower MPGe numbers as the grid further decarbonizes.

 

Would this PHEV qualify as an electricity guzzler?


Conceptually, I agree with having the label for models that squander low-carbon or no-carbon electric energy when there isn't enough to go around to completely displace high-carbon electricity. But whether or not any models are bad enough to actually earn such a label is another matter.

 

Yes, it is an actual car. Or two of them.


And there were numerous others not far above it.

 

I'm fine with the idea of e-guzzlers.

Mostly because I'd like it if people just knew more about energy in the first place, and considering the efficiency of various electric generation methods appeals to me.

So why wouldn't there be electric cars that use a lot of electrical power relative to the work they do? "It's electric" should never be a free pass.

 

Its important to realize that you picked the 670 hp V8 version. I would not call it an electricity guzzler though Its simply using a larger turbo charged v8 with a battery to be more efficient. Your call on if its a gas guzzler. Its over $170K out the door and we don't need to worry about them selling all that many. People buy a lot of things they don't need but very few buy one of these and drive it a lot.

Now the Cayenne e-hybrid is a different story. It is in that sport luxury segment and @455 hp. Is 46 mpge really bad?

Compare Side-by-Side

The similarly sized Lexus RX @295 hp gets 22 mpg. The Lexus LX gets 14 mpg from its 383 hp v8. Not that the phev Porsche is efficient @21 mpg at hybrid mode, but ... I would not consider it a guzzler unless you pick lexus's best selling model as a guzzler too. The phev version of the Porsche is only about $2000 more than the ice version, making that substitute to electric power a relative bargain. I think we can all agree the Lexus LX is a guzzler especially compared to a BMW x7 x40i which goes 50% further on a gallon of gas. It is not categorized as a guzzler though because its an SUV like the porsche.

Perhaps a turbo 4 in an efficient configuration like the Rav4 prime would be much better. Hopefully Porsche can learn from it. If the Porsche was more efficient it could use a smaller battery or accelerate faster with one similarly sized.

 

Is 46 mpge on electricity worse than 22.5 mpg on gasoline? If we are taking the outdated cafe definition then the phev is much better, but this was about switching away from oil. What about in terms of CO2? Its 460 grams/mile of CO2 on the national grid, 390 g/mile in california versus 470 grams/mile on a 22.5 mpg gas car. Obviously you can cherry pick places that are worse, but how many Porsche phev's do Indiana or West Virginia really have? The co2 on gas is higher than your estimate because I used the epa's upstream emissions also, as I did for electricity.

Now if hill bought one of these, I'm sure he would just add some more solar panels instead of trying to build a 33% efficient steam generating plant.

 

If it were up to me I'd base the "guzzler" status on how clean the car is VS how clean it could be. For instance, The average streamlined BEV can be made to be efficient enough that the C02 per mile is close to 150 grams when fed from the average electrical grid. Even the Prius Prime hits 160gm/mile and the e-mustang hits 170.

So why not base the standard on what others can accomplish? Not that long ago, 50 MPG was considered nearly impossible to do in a car that was driven normally with normal fuel. Now there are a lot of cars hitting that target or close to it. It's obscene that we still accept cars that have only 25 MPG.

It would be reasonable to say that an E-guzzler is a car that causes 20% more GHG (Tailpipe and "upstream" GHG emissions) than the most efficient models.

For instance, the Chrysler Pacifica creates 270grams per mile. The Porche Tycan is 190 grams. They have two different purposes, but if it's being used primarily to commute it should be as efficient as any other 4 seat sedan.

Light trucks are a different kettle of fish. The automotive industry has convinced people that they need an SUV or 4 seat Pickup for everyday use, just in case they need to pick up 1/2 of a basket ball team. They get a pass on mileage because they are "work vehicles". I propose that we relook that.

A king cab truck with a 4 foot bed is not really meant for hauling things. Once in a while something goes in the back, but every pickup I've been in during this last 5 years have been used as a fancy sedan with an open trunk. If you can't show that you are going to be towing or hauling regularly, the sedan standard should be applied. If you are just hauling trash occasionally, it should match sedan standards.

 

The gas guzzler tax was initiated in 1978 to reduce dependence on oil - yes I looked it up. Did it work? No it has failed miserably in both generating government revenue and and increasing effieciency. How did it fail? If you look at the effect it is mainly charged on low volume expensive luxury cars, sports sedans, and sports cars where the penalty is not a hinderance. It did push automakers to shift demand from thirsty large cars and station wagons to SUVS. This effectively lowered CAFE for fleets. I don't think this outdated concept can get fixed easily, certainly penalizing energy inefficient phev SUVs as much as gas guzzlers like the Lexus LX or Toyota Sequoia can only be counter productive.

Sting of Guzzler Tax, Frozen for Decades, Fades - The New York Times

If you are worried about battery supplies in the long term, you shouldn't. Its a matter of building capacity. VW group which this energy inefficient porsche phev is part of is building a great deal of capacity as is tesla and its suppliers. Each sold almost half a million plug-ins last year and this year are experience rapid plug-in growth despite the chip shortage. There is a cost and weight penalty to being inefficient electrically for plug-ins, so the market will likely decide. On Gas guzzling SUVs, the market seems to be choosing fewer of them, but they are still a major problem.

If you build new ccgt natural gas plants they are about 50% efficient to the plug. Oil is about 93% efficient to the pump. That means same amount of fuel energy for a 42 mpge phev as a 22.5 mpg gasoline light vehicle. I expect phevs to get more efficient in the future. Again the bulk of plug-ins sold in the US and china are the efficient ones. A phev is going to be charged in the garage a lot more than public chargers, but we need more public charging infrastructure. Tesla and VW are helping to build it out.

I actually think they will be tiny percentage simply because making them more efficient lowers costs, and Tesla with its model 3 and toyota with its rav4 prime have shown how to make bevs and phevs more efficient. Others will copy them or improve upon them, or not sell that many plug-in vehicles.