Babeled

For my money, the highlight of last night’s debate came at the approximate halfway point of an otherwise total snooze-fest. Until that moment roughly 45 minutes of underwhelming and over-rehearsed talking points dulled my senses into submission. I was worn to the point where an outstanding question posed by moderator Tom Brokaw almost slipped by as completely innocuous.

The Question:

Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?

Immediately my interest was piqued and my attention was completely diverted from the mindless drivel of campaign speak. My mind was running; this was a great question.

Tom Brokaw married together two seminal moments in United States history that represent everything that is Holy about our Nation. The nuance of the question captured everything that sets America apart as one thousand points of light unto our global brethren. It reflects the power of our innovation, cultivated in an environment that promotes focus, diligence, creativity, ingenuity and an virtuous ability to rally around a common cause.

The Purpose:

During World War II elite scientists, understanding the nefarious machinations of a strengthening Nazi regime, lead by the pen of Albert Einstein, beseeched Franklin D. Roosevelt to begin constructing an atomic bomb in an immediate and clandestine call to scientific arms. Under a veil of government secrecy, an unrivaled team of physicists made the tough choice to keep massive weapons of destruction solely in the hands of the just. Sometimes morality calls upon the worthy to make the toughest of choices.

After the fall out of World War II subsided and the boon of American prosperity and ingenuity spread, our country flourished; even weathering the storm of a divisive and controversial Vietnam conflict. Communication had stagnated and a need was inherently realized by a new generation of inspired techno-wizards. Young geniuses like Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Bill Gates uniquely executed the American dream from their own covert operation of sorts, hunkered down in their own garage. Like The Manhattan Project before it, enormous leaps in scientific and technological understanding were taking place while the rest of the country unknowingly went about its business.

The Meaning:

In the 1940s the world was saved. In the 1980s the world would come together to talk about it. The chord Tom Brokaw so saliently struck in my mind’s eye was that we, Americans, possess exactly what is needed to conquer the universal crises of both energy and environment. Let the Manhattan Project and the grassroots explosion of Silicon Valley remind us where the real power, strength and honor of this great Nation are forever granted safe harbor; in the will of its people. Only a decade removed from our Revolution, Thomas Jefferson lamented over where the spirit of 1776 had gone. Both these initiatives demonstrated it simply went to rest in the hearts of its people until such needs arise.

Isoroku Yamamoto was both prophetic and wise when he foretold of the Sleeping Giant.

By now I’m sure we have all heard the election year colloquialisms: energy independence, climate change, renewable energy, drill here drill now, environmental stewardship, etc.

One campaign promise from one candidate leaps out at me as a sure fire way to accomplish or negate all of these.  That is the pledge made by John McCain to build 45 nuclear power plants over the next 20 years.

Now, as both a Republican and a young nuclear professional I am obviously in favor of this pledge.  But all my feelings aside, I can honestly say that this is the one pledge that actually has the potential to accomplish all of those popular colloquialisms at once.

The new Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) from General Electric has the capacity to produce 1,500 Megawatts of electricity.  Multiply this capacity by the 45 plants McCain proposes and we are looking at 67,500 Megawatts of new generating capacity in the US!

Contrary to what interveners will tell you, nuclear power is safe. Even the worst nuclear accident in United States history at Three Mile Island did not result in one single human death!  This statistic coupled with the advances in safety technology incorporated in the ESBWR makes nuclear one of the safest means of power generation available.

Also consider the fact that nuclear power is a zero-carbon energy supply.  Regardless of your stance on global warming, there can be no doubt that zero-carbon is the preferable means of generation.  Couple this with the magnitude of electrical generation that nuclear has the capacity for and you quite simply have both energy independence and environmental stewardship all in one package.

It is widely believed that Hydrogen Fuel Cells hold the key to transportation energy.  The biggest hurdle to this of course is where do we get Hydrogen?  With electricity prices so high, electrolysis from water (H₂O) is not practical and hence removing the Hydrogen from Natural Gas (C₂H₅) is the only alternative.  The down side to this of course is your byproduct from natural gas is CO₂ instead of just the pure O₂ that electrolysis produces.  Nuclear generated electricity would be cheap enough to allow electrolysis to produce enough hydrogen to power the nation’s vehicles.  Not only that, but the only byproducts would be the O₂ produced by the process and the steam (H₂O) from the car’s exhaust.  Yet another CO₂ reduction!

But what about that growing mountain of highly radioactive, long lived nuclear waste?

Mr. McCain has also pledged to both open the Yucca Mountain repository and pursue spent fuel recycling. Currently, spent nuclear fuel is stored at the plant that produced the waste.  The Yucca Mountain Repository is a multi billion-dollar project that has been long-delayed by political maneuvering and is yet to open.

Spent fuel recycling will not only provide additional energy to the cycle without further mining, but it will also reduce the burden placed on Yucca Mountain by slowing the rate at which the waste is produced.

The media has referred to Barack Obama as “lukewarm on nuclear.”  Sadly, this is a fallacy.  By refusing to open Yucca Mountain, refusing to allow spent fuel recycling, and failing to support new plant construction Mr. Obama is, by definition, anti-nuclear.  With Obama’s lack of support for each of the three issues that would allow nuclear to fulfill the nations energy demands his policy might better be described as “ice cold on nuclear.”  Obama cannot come out publicly and say this of course, for fear of exposing his inability to go against radical leftists.

Energy is at the core of nearly every major issue today.  The economy, national security, the environment: all are contingent upon meeting our growing energy demands.  Nuclear can meet those needs if our government would only allow it.

John McCain will allow it.  Barack Obama will not.  Consider this in November.

~Man Overboard

Home solar panel systems, both off- and on-grid systems, are becoming more readily available to consumers through both increased supply and a growing market from environmental awareness propaganda.  For years, people have debated the cost/benefit of solar panels for energy production with the general consensus being that traditional means of energy production are far more cost effective (previously with little concern given to the environmental impact of said energy production).  With that said, it is difficult to find good, solid numerical figures to perform a cost analysis for home solar panel systems.

The variety of available home solar panel systems today is vast.  Multiple manufacturers, types of panels, on- or off-grid, roof or ground mounts, and other factors all play into the cost of a solar panel system.  This analysis used several core inputs:

1. On-grid system (off-grid requires additional cost of battery system)
2. Roof installation (ground installations are typically more expensive due to mounting)
3. Total system cost has been reduced by the $2,000 Federal Tax Rebate available in 2008
4. A rebate is given by your local energy company (estimates used from Planit Solar)

Before the cost is addressed, the production efficiency should be discussed.  While manufacturers do not all have the same kilowatt-hour (kWh) production per square foot of solar panels, the range is fairly consistent.  The two manufacturers included in this analysis range from 1.6 to 2.0 kWh optimal energy production per square foot each month.  Take out your energy bills for the last twelve months and you can divide your kWh usage by 1.5 (for conservatism) and this will tell you how many square feet of solar panels you would need to power your home.  This is important for determining an overall system cost for your projected solar panel system, but it does not factor in to the figures that will be discussed shortly because the analysis focuses on cost per kWh, which effectively equalizes solar panel systems of all sizes.

For a solar panel system to power a home that averages 1,000 kWh usage per month (understanding seasonal issues are averaged in to control for air conditioning and other such circumstances), the total system cost is projected at approximately $50,000.  This is a hefty price-tag for a system that does not produce very much energy.  However, consumers have the ability to take out long-term financing with similar interest rates to mortgages, therefore the possibility of this investment amount is within reach.

The total system cost is enough to turn most people off from this idea.  Upon further analysis, the total cost of the system becomes irrelevant.  The type of solar panels being discussed have a minimum of a twenty-five year guarantee, so that is the useful life over which the next number crunching exercise will take place.  When one considers the total system cost divided by the total number of expected kWh produced over the life of the system, the cost per kWh ranges from $0.16 to $0.17.  This is in line with energy costs from your grid.  I cannot speak with for anyone but myself, however my energy costs $0.16 per kWh when you include the taxes and service charges.  That puts the solar panel array at the same cost per kWh equivalent to energy from the grid provided that your system maintains optimal output for twenty-five years.  This is an unreasonable assumption, so you can expect the solar panel system to cost slightly more than the grid energy.

Solar panel technology is still slightly more cost prohibitive than grid-derived energy.  The gap appears to be closing, though, so environmentally-conscience and budget-conscience consumers should be on the look-out for this technology to become financially beneficial in the next few years.  Remember, while the initial cost is seemingly high, the cost gap per kWh for solar panels versus grid energy is closing.

Smart fortwo plucks the fuel-efficiency strings in many people’s hearts.  How fuel efficient is it really?  The smart fortwo models are getting pretty good mileage at 33 mpg city and 41 mpg highway.  However, one could expect a little more fuel economy out of a super-compact two passenger vehicle that looks like a hatchback that has had the back half cut off.  Also, the smart fortwo is a gasoline engine, no different than a Toyota Yaris or a Honda Fit.

In comparison with sub-compact cars, the smart fortwo is equal in price, immaterially better in fuel economy, and much smaller.  An additional difference is the smart fortwo requires premium fuel whereas traditional subcompacts do not.  This reduces the overall cost savings of the smart fortwo’s higher gas mileage. In fact, when one considers the overall cost per mile for each vehicle, the Toyota Yaris and Honda Fit are only $0.01 per mile more expensive to operate than the smart fortwo cars given the premium fuel requirement.

Smart fortwo is getting better gas mileage and is $0.01 per mile cheaper to operate, but there are a host of other factors to consider:

• Toyota Yaris and Honda Fit hold five passengers compared with the two passenger capacity of the smart fortwo vehicles
• The Yaris and Fit both have about twice the amount of passenger volume, more hip room, and include cargo volume (smart fortwo cars do not have cargo volume except for a miniature glove-box type storage bin in the more expensive models)
• Smart fortwo cars lack many standard features that are present on the Fit and Yaris including power steering, air conditioning, and audio system

Once you have added power steering, air conditioning, and an audio system, the most affordable smart fortwo model (smart fortwo pure) is well over $13,000, which is in the same price range as the Fit and more expensive than the Yaris.  Smart fortwo is also a Daimler-Chrysler product, or what used to be Daimler-Chrysler, and this fact troubles me on another level.  Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, and myriad other brand names this manufacturer’s vehicles are sold under, are notorious for being mechanically unreliable.  While the smart fortwo is new and there are no good repair and maintenance data as of yet, I expect that this vehicle will have mechanical issues much like its larger Chrysler cousins.

All in all, the smart fortwo is a cool idea that falls a little short of my expectations.  Something as small and non-functional as the smart fortwo needs to be getting significantly higher gas mileage than other non-hybrid vehicles before it would make sense to purchase a smart car.  As it stands right now, you would be better off buying a standard subcompact because there really aren’t any fuel savings and at least you can go grocery shopping in it without the bags on your lap.

Smart For Two Pulse image courtesy of Flickr user Earl of Omniscience

The rising cost of gasoline at the pumps has caused many people to rethink their spending habits and forced them to consider alternative ways of saving their money. The most practical means of reducing the price you are paying at the pump is to buy a fuel efficient vehicle. People are getting greener and buying hybrid vehicles to increase their average miles per gallon (MPG) and thus pay less for gasoline. However, after researching and analyzing data for forty-two vehicles, the best bang for your buck out there is without a doubt a sub-compact car. While the hybrid vehicles are more fuel efficient, they unfortunately are way too expensive and don’t yield a greater return on the investment compared to what you would save in trips to the gas station. Let me explain.

Collecting and Organizing the Data

I assembled a list of forty-two vehicles, including hybrids, sub-compacts, small cars, mid-size cars, luxury cars, and SUVs. My goal was to find out which is the best vehicle for fuel economy. Upon going to the manufacturers’ websites, I calculated the average of city/highway MPG. With the help of fellow Babeler Jason Morgan (aka. Babeled’s very own bean counter), I entered my data into an Excel worksheet, where I calculated Cost per Mile (CPM) for every vehicle in the data set. The average CPM represents how much gas money you are spending on each mile that is driven at the average MPG. Cost per Mile is a significant indicator of your vehicle’s fuel efficiency because it takes into consideration how much money you are spending on average each mile you drive.

Which Car is Better in Terms of Fuel Economy?

Most Fuel Efficient Vehicle In its Class

Hybrid Cars

• Toyota Prius: $.09 CPM
• Honda Civic Hybrid: $.09 CPM

Sub-Compact Cars

• Smart ForTwo: $.11CPM
• Toyota Yaris: $.12 CPM

Small Cars

• Toyota Corolla: $.13 CPM
• Honda Fit: $.13 CPM

Mid-size Cars

• Nissan Altima: $.14 CPM
• Hyundai Sonata: $.15 CPM

Luxury Cars

• BMW 328i Sedan: $.17 CPM
• Lexus ES: $.17 CPM

SUVs

• Ford Escape: $.16 CPM
• Hyundai Santa Fe: $.19 CPM

Hybrid SUVs

• Ford Escape: $.13 CPM
• Saturn VUE: $.14 CPM

Is it Worth it to Buy a Hybrid Car?

With the growing concern over increasing gas prices, many car manufacturers are advertising that the hybrid cars are the best vehicle to buy in our present economy due to their higher MPG. Well I am here to tell you, the consumer, don’t be fooled. If you want to buy a hybrid car because you are proactive about our environment and want to be “greener”, then that is the only reason you should buy a hybrid car. Purchasing a hybrid car is more like a personal statement over the growing concerns regarding global warming. However, if you are looking for a vehicle with good fuel economy that is the best bang for your buck, a hybrid car is not economical by any stretch of the imagination.

Along with calculating the CPM for each vehicle and the class of each vehicle, I also input the suggested starting price for each vehicle (MSRP). Keeping in mind that my data is completely based off of averages, Jason Morgan developed a formula to show how many miles you would have to drive a hybrid car or hybrid SUV to make up the difference in MSRP in terms of how much money you would be saving on gas. The formula, lets call if the Breakeven Formula, is a great indicator of showing you whether or not you are really saving money buying a hybrid vehicle.

Breakeven Formula

Breakeven Miles = Average Difference in MSRP ÷ −(Average Difference in CPM)

Note: Although this equation is relatively simple, it is imperative that you divide MSRP by the negative of average CPM, so that you see how many miles you would have to drive in order to breakeven. If you did not put the negative symbol in front on the average CPM, the breakeven miles would actually be negative and therefore the data would be insignificant.

• According to my data, the hybrid car is $.01 cheaper per mile to drive than the subcompact car, however due to the high MSRP of hybrid cars, you would have to drive a hybrid car nearly 900,000 miles to make up the starting price difference in gas savings.

• Based on CPM, a hybrid car is $.03 cheaper to operate than a small car. Due to the high prices of hybrid cars, you would have to drive about 368,000 miles to make up the starting price difference in gas savings.

• A hybrid car is $.04 cheaper to operate than a mid-size car, however due to the price of hybrids, you would have to drive at least 42,000 miles to make up the starting price difference in gas savings.

• A hybrid SUV is $.05 cheaper to operate than a regular SUV, however you would have to drive the hybrid SUV over 183,000 miles to make up the starting price difference in gas savings.

The hybrid class of vehicle is so overpriced for its fuel economy that if saving money on gas is what you are interested in, your best bet is to buy a sub-compact car. Even a small car is more economical than a hybrid, as driving 183,000 miles in any car, is pretty much driving it into the ground. Buying a hybrid car over a mid-size car might be a little more practical, however you still would not see the difference you are saving in gas until you reach 42,000 miles.

Conclusion: Don’t Buy a Hybrid to Save Money

When I first decided to research and write this piece, my intention was to show how much better the hybrid was on fuel economy. However, after analyzing the data, I would be doing an injustice to you if I told you to buy a hybrid car in order to save money. While hybrid vehicles are the most fuel efficient, they are expensive. Whereas the sub-compact and small cars are very similar in terms of fuel economy and much more affordable. It’s interesting to note that that the Chevrolet Tahoe, which was given the title “Green Car of the Year” in 2008, only gets on average 21 MPG and $.19 CPM. By the way, the Tahoe Hybrid’s MSRP is $50,000. Eventhough there are many other vehicles, hybrid and not, that are more fuel efficient than the Tahoe Hybrid, this behemoth somehow won this auspicious title. Overall, it is safe to say that if you are looking to save money on gas and in general given our present economy, then buy a sub-compact car or a small car. If you are pro-active about our environment and aren’t as concerned about money as the average consumer, then buy a hybrid.