DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

Bim forwarded this story about Ford’s courtroom loss in an SUV rollover case (mirror):

SAN DIEGO — A jury has ordered Ford Motor Co. to pay nearly $369 million to a woman paralyzed in a rollover accident involving a Ford Explorer, the nation’s best-selling sport utility vehicle…
The trial, which began March 15, involved a January 2002 accident on an interstate highway near Alpine, Calif., east of San Diego. The driver, Benetta Buell-Wilson, swerved to avoid a metal object and lost control of her 1997 Explorer, which rolled 4 1/2 times.

This is a precedent-setting case. It will be referenced in every SUV rollover lawsuit for the next 100 years, or until SUVs stop rolling over.

Here’s a frightening quote from Ford spokesperson Kathleen Vokes (mirror) (emphasis mine):

“We can appreciate the empathy that this jury felt for the plaintiff, but this was an extremely severe crash caused by the driver and any SUV would have rolled over under similar circumstances.”

The weekend Chron’s Real Estate section had a nice article about a custom home in Berkeley: Lean, clean and green: Berkeley builders toss the plans and create a work of art

A companion piece explained the builder’s struggles with making the home earth-friendly: It’s not easy being green:

The house … was built with the infrastructure in place for a solar electric system, solar hot water and geothermal exchange…

Builder David Bass hopes the new owners will be willing to spend the $25,000 or so for the solar panels, pumps and other parts and labor to complete the job.

“It seems to me the logical extension of building a house well is to make it green. It just makes sense. A house should be healthy, and it should last a long time. I think the world’s finally coming around to that point of view,” Bass said.

If he had had the budget, Bass would have delivered the complete package, but he admits it’s still a struggle to capture the hearts and minds of buyers.

“Green is good, but it’s not sexy. One of the things I hated about the [Berkeley Hills] fire zone — still hate — is that there’s all that money up there and clients spend it on marble and granite and Sub-Zeros.

“If you’re going to spend $5 million on a house, you can spend $40,000 to make it energy efficient. Unfortunately, many people don’t think that way.”

If that’s true, it’s a pity.

My only quibble with this otherwise excellent article is the following quote, again from David Bass, the builder of this $1.5 million dollar home:

What I’ve learned is that solar and geothermal aren’t going to happen universally before they make economic sense.

But they do make economic sense. My PV array will pay for itself in about 10 years, and then I’ll get free power for about 20 more. What about that doesn’t make economic sense?*

I know Bass knows this because of his other comments about solar energy being a “long term” investment. I guess his point is that most clients don’t think about long-term costs, but only about the initial purchase price.

(Gee, American consumers are shortsighted? Somebody kick the turntable; the needle is stuck again!)

*Chuck E. pointed out that most homeowners likely do not assume they’ll stay in their current houses for the 10+ years it would take to make a PV investment pay for itself. I didn’t consider this perspective, but there are at least two reasons why solar electric systems still make good economic sense:

• A functioning PV system adds to a home’s resale value. (You’d pay more for a home that wouldn’t cost you $100-$300/month to run, just as you’d pay more for a house with a new kitchen.)
• Or if you want to keep the panels, you can take them with you.

And for the whole time, you’re using emissions-free electricity, and reducing the ability of the utility companies to justify hugely expensive and polluting power plants.

On the topic of hybrid gas/electric cars, here’s a nice article comparing the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, and Ford Escape SUV (hybrid!):
Cutting the hybrid hype

The main points of the article:

• The mileage for hybrid sedans is good (42-48 mpg) but not as high as EPA estimates.
• Hybrids get better mileage in city driving than on open freeways.
• Hybrids often represent tradeoffs in comfort and utility.
  (Well, of course they do; every vehicle presents tradeoffs. For example, SUV owners have to spend 2-4 times as much on gas, and endure the higher risk of rollover accidents, and face the fact that in a multiple-vehicle accident they’ll be much more likely to kill the other driver, and pay more for insurance, etc.)

Hat tip to Jaques for the link. (I told you he was a frequent correspondent.)

At the intersection of sustainable living and loud rock and roll you’ll find an innovative new speaker cone made of my favorite agricultural product, hemp. My friend Bruce K. pointed this out, and I’m so thrilled with it I may learn to play the guitar just so I can get my speaker cab retrofitted with hempcones.

A writer for Stereophile recounts a demonstration of Tone Tubbies hemp speakers:

With his bass feeding a Mesa Boogie Road Ready 215, he alternated via a switch box between two identical EV-M400 bass cabinets, one fitted with stock drivers and the other fitted with Tone Tubbies. The stock drivers had the edgy, hollow sound of many pro loudspeakers. The Tone Tubbies, by contrast, were full sounding — richer, deeper, smoother, by far more musical and more pleasant to hear.

If that review sounds underwhelming, remember that it describes a solo bass guitar. If a simple speaker change can make a bassist sound musical, it’s not only a good deal, it’s downright miraculous. Heh.

Hemp speakers are used by Carlos Santana, Joe Satriani, Eric Clapton, Phil Lesh, Bob Weir, Billy Gibbons (ZZ Top), Kirk Hammett (Metallica), and Norm Perry, who you’ve probably not heard of but whose band I joined in March. (I just unexpectedly discovered his endorsement of them on the Tone Tubby Field Reports web page.)

I saw a glowing review of the new 2004 Prius in the weekend paper. The car is a hybrid, so it gets excellent gas mileage (estimated: 55 mpg), and Toyota’s MSRP is the same as for the previous model year despite numerous improvements, a new aerodynamic body design, and a US-market-centric interior design.

Just for fun I thought I’d write up a comparison between the Prius and a typical gas-hog SUV, the Ford Excursion. I compared the cost of the vehicles in two ways: the operational cost per mile — a simple calculation of the price of a gallon of gas divided by the vehicle’s estimated gas mileage; and the cost per cupholder, calculated by dividing MSRP by the number of places provided for storing your beverage.

As expected, the Prius has a much lower cost per mile to operate, because it will drive approximately 4.6 times farther on a single gallon of fuel. In a typical year of driving, the Prius would consume $469 worth of gas, whereas the Excursion would consume $2150.

But if like many SUV fans your main criteria for selecting a vehicle is the number of cupholders, then the Excursion is a much better deal. Featuring six cupholders, the Excursion is sure to provide a place for your entire family to hold their beverages, all at once. And get this — for $38,800-$43,200, you can upgrade to an XLT, Eddie Bauer, or Limited edition with eight cupholders. Whoo-hoo!

I have to admit that my analysis is flawed. I’ve assumed gas costs $2.15 per gallon, which is not true. According to a 1998 report from the International Center for Technology Assessment, the the real price of gas is significantly higher:

This report … identifies and quantifies the many external costs of using motor vehicles and the internal combustion engine that are not reflected in the retail price Americans pay for gasoline. These are costs that consumers pay indirectly by way of increased taxes, insurance costs, and retail prices in other sectors.

The report divides the external costs of gasoline usage into five primary areas: (1) Tax Subsidization of the Oil Industry; (2) Government Program Subsidies; (3) Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; (4) Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and (5) Other Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to $1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail price of gasoline, result in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14.

Let’s take a fresh look at those operational costs, using a “real” cost of $15/gallon:

OK, so the Ford Excursion is a big fat loser when it comes to fuel economy and toxic pollution. Everybody already knew that. At least it’s a safer vehicle, right?

Um. There are no published crash test results for the 2004 models, but in general, SUVs kill more people than mid-sized sedans.

I was able to find one somewhat relevant test: “Head Restraint” ratings from the IIHS. They use a four-item scale: Good / Acceptable / Marginal / Poor.

For the 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 model years, the Prius has earned the highest possible rating, “Good.”

For the 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 model years, the Ford Excursion has earned the lowest possible rating, “Poor”.

Frequent correspondent Jacque Harper points out reports that some Prius owners get much worse mileage than the vehicle’s EPA estimates would indicate. There’s a whole story here, worthy of investigation and analysis at a future date. But for the purposes of my SUV vs. hybrid shootout, I don’t find it particularly relevant. Whether the Prius gets 55 mpg or 42 mpg or 31 mpg, Prius owners are taking a stand: they are voting with their dollars for small, aerodynamic, fuel-efficient vehicles. They are attempting to do less damage to the environment than they could. They are setting a good example to others. They’re making a viable market for low-emission vehicles.

Are hybrids a perfect solution? Of course not. I’d rather drive an electric, and charge it from my PV array. But in the absense of viable ZEV options, hybrids are maybe the next-best thing.

[Update: I test-drove a Prius for a day and measured 53.9 MPG.]