Babeled

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.

If you are anything like me, completely oblivious to your surroundings, you probably knew very little about the fires in Northern California.  Most likely you are nothing like me and can rightfully call me an idiot.  But enough of that it is time to get serious.  Events are bleak in California as wildfires are threatening the livelihood and existence of thousands of people.  Our buddy Jim (The Movie Whore) has the details…

I live in Chico California and the areas surrounding Chico are still being ravaged by this years wildfires. Fire fighters from several states have been brought in to help fight these fires and many Norcal residents have been evacuated and there a lot of people that have lost their homes in this years fires with more losing homes every day.

Ingrid Taylar has a blog and has a post here on how to help. Please take a look and if there is anything you can do help these people I would be eternally grateful.

Our valley is filled with smoke and ash from these fires. When I walk out side it is like seeing a fog blanketing our area and breathing is not always easy once you walk outside. There are warnings in our area not to go outside unless you need to and even then they recommend wearing a mask of some sort.

Perhaps you can pass this information along or research more about what you can do to help.  Contacting the Red Cross is always a great place to start.  Mother Nature can be a real beast and inevitably, we too will need the help of others someday.

Best of luck Jim, and keeps us updated with what’s going on.

Today I had the distinct displeasure or reading an article posted by the Center for American Progress (or lack thereof) entitled 10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear Energy.  I found the piece to be universally lacking in areas of scientific merit, modern technology, and practical thought of any kind.  I have taken it upon myself to dissect, disprove, and debunk each of these supposed reasons not to harness the power of the atom to free us from the binds of foreign oil.

Enjoy.

1. “Nuclear faces prohibitively high-and escalating-capital costs…Nuclear power plant construction costs-mainly materials, labor, and engineering-rose by 185 percent between 2000 and 2007.”

Find me one product, commodity, or service in the known world that did not rise by a similar margin in that same period and I will be very surprised.  Did someone say “Gasoline?”

“…and well-placed wind turbines can produce electricity for less than 5 cents per kWh.”

By “well placed” do you mean in a spot that never has a lack of wind?  So all we need to do now is place 50 thousand wind turbines atop Mt. Everest and - presto - limitless energy.

2. “Plant construction is limited by production bottlenecks. Japan Steel is the only company in the world “capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor’s containment vessel…but it can only produce four per year.”…China and India are increasing their nuclear capacity to meet growing energy needs.”

This sounds to me like there is market share for the taking.  So let’s build another facility capable of making these vessels right here in the US.  That IS the American way isn’t it?

I have to ask myself, if nuclear is so economically cumbersome, then why are China and India, the two fastest growing countries in the world, increasing their nuclear capacity?  That is a mystery, is it not?

3. “New nuclear plants probably won’t be designed by American companies.”

I guess the good folks at The Center for American Progress have never heard of the General Electric ESBWR or the Westinghouse AP1000. Both are generation III+ Nuclear reactors designed by American Engineers for American Utilities.

4. “Unresolved problems regarding the availability and security of waste storage.”

The people who tout this as a reason to shut down nuclear energy are the same people who routinely intervene in the Yucca Mountain Repository and the Spent Fuel Reprocessing both of which would solve the problem of nuclear waste and lower the cost of Nuclear Fuel.

5. “Nuclear faces concerns about uranium supplies and importation issues…Increased nuclear capacity would either make us more dependent on foreign uranium…”

The practice of nuclear fuel recycling will make plenty of Uranium available.  Also, forgive me, but I seem to recall another foreign dependency that might just pose a bigger problem than Uranium.  This comment is comedy at its best.

6. “Nuclear reactors require water use amid shortages.”

Two thirds of the world’s surface is covered with water and salt water works just fine for cooling a nuclear reactor.  If anything, nuclear energy is the only source of sufficient electricity to make desalination a viable solution to world water shortages.

7. “Safety concerns still plague nuclear power.”

Far more people have died or been harmed by plant accidents, mine collapses, and health hazards as a result of fossil fuels or “dirt-burners” than Nuclear Power - FAR more.

8. “Nuclear is already a mature technology-it will not get cheaper.”

Actually, the GE ESBWR (Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor) is a giant leap in reactor technology and can provide more electricity with 20% fewer complex components than any reactor currently in service.  To say a technology is “mature” is a quote best suited for the dark ages, not the 21^st century.

9. “Other clean energy technologies are cheaper, cleaner, and faster to build.”

So what do you do on a cloudy day with no wind?  Proponents of wind and solar have no answer for this question and I don’t expect one anytime soon.

10. “Nuclear subsidies take money away from more effective alternative energy subsidies.”

Sure, because the corn subsidies for Ethanol have worked wonders for the energy crisis, the American economy, and food prices worldwide.

I guess my point is, there is no good reason to not pursue nuclear energy as viable solution to the energy crisis.  If the opponents of nuclear energy won’t take the time to conjure up a believable, legitimate, FACT-BASED excuse to ignore the limitless energy that is at our fingertips, then they should step aside and allow Engineers and Scientists who are hard at work to solve the world’s energy problems.

~Man Overboard

On June 27, U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) went before Congress and proposed the Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies (SMART) Act.  This potentially monumental, bipartisan legislation holds the key to what nuclear professionals refer to as “Closing the Fuel Cycle” which goes by the common name of “recycling.”

For the last 30 years the nuclear industry has been at a virtual standstill resulting from passed industry accidents, lack of public understanding, and Cold War fears.  Since 9/11 there has been resurgence in the Nuclear Industry as the only viable solution to the energy crisis and our dependence on foreign oil.  This change from a policy of fear and suppression to understanding and innovation is known as the Nuclear Renaissance.

One of the last and largest hurdles faced by the industry is what to do with spent nuclear fuel.  This spent fuel consists of highly radioactive, long-lived fission fragments such as Strontium and Cesium as well as material such as Uranium and Plutonium, which raises concern over weapons proliferation.

The solution to this problem has been right under our noses all along.

For decades now, Europeans have carried out nuclear fuel recycling in a cost-effective, clean, and above all SAFE manner.  Since Jimmy Carter’s term as president however, the American Nuclear Industry has been forced to deal with spent fuel without recycling or even a permanent repository such the one at Yucca Mountain.

The SMART Act proposes to change all that.  This bill, which is sponsored by representatives of both parties, proposes the government split the cost of building two recycling facilities with private industry 50/50 and to allow for licensing of such facilities to operate under the watchful eye of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

If passed, the SMART Act will have wide reaching effects such as the reduced cost of nuclear fuel, eliminating the cost of storing and guarding spent fuel, protecting the environment, and protecting the public from an increasing amount of spent nuclear fuel.

Perhaps the most significant impact this bill might have is to break down one of the final barriers between American citizens and energy-independence, which by the way, translates directly into national security.

Make your voices heard.  Together we can overcome the deafening roar of the small number of radical environmentalists who are so driven by their fear and lack of understanding of science that they will do anything in their power to drive the nuclear industry out of business.  These interveners, though few in number, have the ear of the federal government and have thus far been successful in killing similar legislation.

If you care about the environment, national security, and reliable energy, then I ask you to contact your Senators and voice your support for the SMART Act.  Together, through cooperation, education, and innovation we can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and we can do it in our lifetime!

~Man Overboard