Making a budget work consists of balancing earnings with expenses. There a lot of people right now, with the economy the way it is, that only have the choice of cutting costs or reducing expenses. Having to pay less for gasoline is a significant way of cutting costs and as already discussed it will also reduce the cost that is needed for paying for food, clothing and shelter.
Lets compare the cost of gasoline to the cost of other forms of energy. As already mentioned there is nothing that would help our family budget more than reducing the cost for gasoline. We are all familiar with the cost of gasoline. Right now, it is approximately $2.89 per gallon. We need to compare the cost of gasoline to the cost of other forms of energy such as that produced by coal, natural gas or nuclear energy. In other words we need to know how much the cost would be to produce a gallon of gasoline by coal, natural gas or nuclear power. The cost of coal is approximately $38 per ton and there is approximately 26,000,000 btu per ton. There is approximately 124,000 btu per gallon of gasoline. The calculation of how much it would cost to produce a gallon of gasoline using coal is as follows: ($38/1 ton) x (1 ton/26,000,000 btu) x (124,000 btu/1 gallon of gasoline). The result is $0.18 per gallon of gasoline. At the current costs for coal this would be a steal. Lets now take natural gas. The cost of natural gas is approximately $7 per 1000 cubic foot. There are approximately 1000 btu per cubic foot. Again the btu per gallon of gas is approximately 124,000. The calculation is as follows: ($7/1000 cf) x (1 cf/1000 btu) x (124,000 btu/1 gallon of gasoline). The result is $0.87 per gallon of gasoline. Finally, the cost of uranium is approximately $48 per pound. The energy in a pound of uranium is 36.4 million btu and again there is 124,000 btu per gallon of gasoline. The calculation is as follows: ($48/lb) x (lb/36,400,000 btu) x (124,000 btu/ 1 gallon of gasoline). The result is $0.17 per gallon of gasoline. Thus, for a gallon of gasoline, it is much cheaper if it were natural gas, and even better if it were coal or uranium. The next question is how much natural gas, how much coal and how much uranium do we have in the United States? Well, the United States has some of the largest deposits of natural gas and some of the largest deposits of coal of any of the countries in the world and we have about 7% of the world's uranium. We might have to import some uranium if we were to use it, but we wouldn't need to import any natural gas or coal.
The strength of a nation is the strength of it's economy. What if we were to use another form of energy instead of gasoline? What would this do to our trade deficit? What would this do to our dependence on foreign oil? It just might be the one thing that would turn our economy around. It definitely would lower the price at the gas pump. It would definitely reduce our personal expenses and help our personal budgets. It would directly reduce the cost for fuel and it would help immensely to reduce the cost for food and clothing. It would also help to reduce the cost for shelter. What would this mean to someone who has lost their job or to someone who has had to take a part time job and is just barely making ends meet or to someone who is about to have their house foreclosed on or to someone who has been looking for a job for over a year or to someone who has graduated from college and hasn't been able to find a job for over a year or to someone who has to decide between buying medicine or food. It just might mean everything. Then on the other hand what would it do for all the oil lobbyist's in congress. There wouldn't be any. They would no longer have the power they have had over congress all these years.
Well, we have seen what the cost is for other forms of energy. Now, how do we convert to using them. First, what is it that uses so much gasoline, and how we can find something to replace it? I suggest it's the car. The car is king. It is the one thing that has changed our lives almost more than any other thing. Almost everyone has a car and ninety-eight percent of all automobiles use gasoline. We need to phase out the gasoline engine car. It would do several things if this were to happen. It would reduce our pollution. It would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and it would for the first time in our life time (since the 1960's) make it so the oil companies don't control our lives so much, and so that we are not so much at their mercy. The most important thing is that it would reduce the cost of gasoline. We need to come up with a replacement for the gasoline engine car. There are several different cars that would work. There is the natural gas car. There is the hydrogen car. But, I think that the electric car is the answer. There are three things to overcome with the electric car: 1) The distance that the car can go (at least 400 hundred miles); 2) How fast the car can go (at least 70 mph); and 3) Overcoming the battery problem (nickel cadmium or other batteries that can achieve the above things). These are all things that can be achieved. There needs to be a government subsidized program or some other type of program for achieving these objectives. The rewards need to be significant enough that the car manufacturers would pursue these things with real seriousness. This can't be achieved over-night. But I really think that it can be done over a couple years. This seems impossible, but "need" is the mother of invention, and if there were ever a need it is now.
Now another benefit is all of the other jobs that can be created with the electric car. The first would be all the nickel and cadmium mining jobs that will be needed to produce the batteries, and the manufacturing jobs for the batteries. Second would be all the manufacturing jobs for the electric motors that would be needed. This would give GE and Reliance and Siemens (just to mention a few) a big boost. Then there would be all the copper mining jobs for the copper in the electric motors. The jobs that would be lost would be the car engine manufacturing jobs, but no jobs would be lost here in America because all of our car engines are Japanese or Chinese anyway. Another great benefit of the electric car is getting it filled up. You just plug it in when you get home at night.
Let's look at the budget equation again. The other side of the budget is getting more income or having a good paying job instead of having to cut expenses. We need to examine jobs in a little more detail. There are services jobs (including postman's, dentists, grocers, bankers, nurses, doctors, accountants, journalists, pharmacists, airline pilots, bankers, computer programmers, politicians, repairmen, etc.) and then there are productions and manufacturing jobs (including construction, manufacturing, agriculture, production, engineering, scientific research, and mining jobs, etc). The service jobs are dependent on the production and manufacturing jobs. The end result of the service jobs are a service. The end result of the production and manufacturing jobs is a product. You can only get so many service jobs and then they start running out. We are getting to the point where we have everyone servicing everyone. We need more production and manufacturing jobs. The production and manufacturing jobs that I want to address are jobs in the energy field. These are jobs for small business as well as jobs for large businesses. Specifically, I want to address jobs for coal fired, natural gas fired, and nuclear fired electric generating plants. The product is electric power. We have the demand for it (our cars). It directly reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Our money will stay in our own country. It will create jobs (jobs that create other jobs). Specifically, some of the jobs that it will create are the following jobs: steel workers, manufacturing jobs (motors, earth working equipment, power transmissions, mining machines, heavy duty trucks, heavy duty cars), welders, miners, fabricators, electricians, equipment operators, engineers, geologists, repairmen, rubber manufacturers, etc.). These are jobs not only to build the generating plants, but to operate them also.
Here is an example. The most well known venue in the state of Utah is Energy Solutions Arena (the home of the Utah Jazz). It used to be called the Delta Center (the once mighty airline company). Delta Airlines depended in large part upon production and manufacturing jobs, but many of these jobs ran out. Energy Solutions is now the name of the venue where the Utah Jazz play. Energy Solutions Company is not a well known company. Many don't even know what they do. Let's be honest. It is a company for disposing of spent nuclear fuel. It is done safely. It is done responsibly. It is done so that the low levels of radiation from the nuclear fuel will never be harmful to us if it is continued to be handled safely and responsibly. It is done in the Western deserts of Utah that are remote and isolated. These are jobs in the energy field. It is a successful company and provides several hundred successful jobs. It is an important part of our nuclear fuel electric power generation system. Delta Airlines can no longer afford to put its name on the once well known "Delta Center", but Energy Solutions can now put it's name on the the great "Energy Solutions Arena".
There is something else that is needed in order to have all of these production and manufacturing jobs (jobs that come from building and operating these natural gas, coal and uranium fired electric generating power plants). We need the ability to build these plants within a few years time instead of decades. The maze of Federal and State requirements and permits needed to build an electric power generating plant need to be modified and streamlined. If ever there were an area of the Federal government that could be reduced in size this is it. The environmental impact statements need to be expedited to the point where it only takes six months to get them approved. Don't get me wrong, the construction of these plants need to be done right and done environmentally correct, but it doesn't need to take four years to get an environmental impact statement approved. If we can put a man on the moon we can permit and build a new electric power generation plant in two to three years.
Now, let's look at some of the draw backs (some of the negatives) of this proposal. I think the first thing that comes to mind is "Global Warming" and what causes it. Remember it is a hypothesis that has not yet been proven. I think that it needs to be treated as such until it is proven. I think that our best scientists in the field (scientists that can objectively look at the data) need to be assigned to study it. I think that the percentage of the carbon dioxide in the air is very hard to be determined. I think that if it could exactly be determined, they would find it to be much lower than they thought. I think that the most indicative aspect of it is the rise of the ocean waters which is very little in the last 100 years (just a few centimeters). It has not risen at near the same rate as what CO2 is claimed to have risen. I personally believe that global warming is a cyclical pattern in our climate. There are hot periods and there are cold periods. For our polar regions, it happens to be unusually warm right now. It could possibly change next year and the polar regions might start forming ice again. I have watched the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" that was done by Al Gore and accept that there is some global warming. The ice that is receding in Glacier National Park or in the South Pole Regions is real. But there are some parts of the movie with which I have a real hard time. I think the most accurate gauge of the earth's warming as already mentioned is the rising of the ocean, which is only briefly mentioned and has risen only a fraction of a centimeter in the last several years. This is something that can be measured and is an accurate way to measure global warming. The movie deceptively shows very small areas of the earth that have been flooded and this is probably due to excessive moisture in the area such as floods or hurricanes that have occurred in those areas as compared to the actual rise of the earth's ocean. More importantly, I think that "Global Warming" may deceptively be the single biggest obstacle hindering our economy.
The movie also deceptively shows coal mines when they talk about global warming as if the mines themselves caused it. Global warming is the main road block in producing electrical energy with coal. I have often viewed from a distance the towers where coal is burned from the Hunter Power Plant (a coal fired electrical power generation plant) in Ferron Utah and the Four Corners Plant in Page Arizona. I have yet been able to see any smoke coming from the coal burning towers outside of a few hundred yards from the plant. I think that some of the reasons why are because of the many mechanisms in place to make sure the coal is burned cleanly. I also think that it is because of their locations and how the fumes are dispersed. They are located in remote spots and in areas where their is a lot of wind. They are in locations where the fumes are easily dispersed. How many more of these plants could we have and in turn how many more jobs would we have if "Global Warming" weren't hindering their construction.
Let's now consider the fumes produced from gasoline powered cars. I think the fumes from our gasoline powered cars is the single biggest thing polluting our air. We know it. We can see it. We can smell it. The fumes from a car's engine are poisonous. It can kill us in just a few minutes within a confined space. It is not a hypothesis. It has been proven. I live in the Wasatch front in Utah and there are several days each month where the days are "red burn" days, both in the summer and in the winter, and there is a haze over the entire valley and the cause is gasoline. We really need to ask ourselves the question (What is more harmful "Global Warming" or "Air Pollution"?). I think the answer is "Air Pollution". Do we want to eliminate that which sustains life (carbon dioxide or what is believed to cause "Global Warming") or that which causes death (carbon monoxide which comes from gasoline engines)? Let's not be fooled.
To consider some of the benefits of this plan, let's ask ourselves the following questions:
1. Will this plan reduce the cost of gasoline? Yes.
2. Will this plan create new jobs? Yes.
3. Will this plan reduce our federal deficit? Yes.
4. Will this plan eliminate our dependence on foreign oil? Yes.
5. Will this plan reduce our balance of trade? Yes.
6. Will this plan bring money back into our country? Yes.
7. Will this plan reduce our air pollution? Yes.
8. Will this plan create jobs that in turn create other jobs? Yes.
9. Will this plan bring new tax revenue into our country? Yes.
10. Will this plan help us each to balance our personal budgets? Yes.
11. Will this plan help our lives? Yes.
12. Will this plan help our economy? Yes.
13. Will this plan make our country stronger? Yes.
Shouldn't this plan be considered? I hope we can consider this plan or a plan very similar, which will help to save our economy.
Now, let's look at some of the draw backs (some of the negatives) of this proposal. I think the first thing that comes to mind is "Global Warming" and what causes it. Remember it is a hypothesis that has not yet been proven. I think that it needs to be treated as such until it is proven. I think that our best scientists in the field (scientists that can objectively look at the data) need to be assigned to study it. I think that the percentage of the carbon dioxide in the air is very hard to be determined. I think that if it could exactly be determined, they would find it to be much lower than they thought. I think that the most indicative aspect of it is the rise of the ocean waters which is very little in the last 100 years (just a few centimeters). It has not risen at near the same rate as what CO2 is claimed to have risen. I personally believe that global warming is a cyclical pattern in our climate. There are hot periods and there are cold periods. For our polar regions, it happens to be unusually warm right now. It could possibly change next year and the polar regions might start forming ice again. I have watched the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" that was done by Al Gore and accept that there is some global warming. The ice that is receding in Glacier National Park or in the South Pole Regions is real. But there are some parts of the movie with which I have a real hard time. I think the most accurate gauge of the earth's warming as already mentioned is the rising of the ocean, which is only briefly mentioned and has risen only a fraction of a centimeter in the last several years. This is something that can be measured and is an accurate way to measure global warming. The movie deceptively shows very small areas of the earth that have been flooded and this is probably due to excessive moisture in the area such as floods or hurricanes that have occurred in those areas as compared to the actual rise of the earth's ocean. More importantly, I think that "Global Warming" may deceptively be the single biggest obstacle hindering our economy.
The movie also deceptively shows coal mines when they talk about global warming as if the mines themselves caused it. Global warming is the main road block in producing electrical energy with coal. I have often viewed from a distance the towers where coal is burned from the Hunter Power Plant (a coal fired electrical power generation plant) in Ferron Utah and the Four Corners Plant in Page Arizona. I have yet been able to see any smoke coming from the coal burning towers outside of a few hundred yards from the plant. I think that some of the reasons why are because of the many mechanisms in place to make sure the coal is burned cleanly. I also think that it is because of their locations and how the fumes are dispersed. They are located in remote spots and in areas where their is a lot of wind. They are in locations where the fumes are easily dispersed. How many more of these plants could we have and in turn how many more jobs would we have if "Global Warming" weren't hindering their construction.
Let's now consider the fumes produced from gasoline powered cars. I think the fumes from our gasoline powered cars is the single biggest thing polluting our air. We know it. We can see it. We can smell it. The fumes from a car's engine are poisonous. It can kill us in just a few minutes within a confined space. It is not a hypothesis. It has been proven. I live in the Wasatch front in Utah and there are several days each month where the days are "red burn" days, both in the summer and in the winter, and there is a haze over the entire valley and the cause is gasoline. We really need to ask ourselves the question (What is more harmful "Global Warming" or "Air Pollution"?). I think the answer is "Air Pollution". Do we want to eliminate that which sustains life (carbon dioxide or what is believed to cause "Global Warming") or that which causes death (carbon monoxide which comes from gasoline engines)? Let's not be fooled.
To consider some of the benefits of this plan, let's ask ourselves the following questions:
1. Will this plan reduce the cost of gasoline? Yes.
2. Will this plan create new jobs? Yes.
3. Will this plan reduce our federal deficit? Yes.
4. Will this plan eliminate our dependence on foreign oil? Yes.
5. Will this plan reduce our balance of trade? Yes.
6. Will this plan bring money back into our country? Yes.
7. Will this plan reduce our air pollution? Yes.
8. Will this plan create jobs that in turn create other jobs? Yes.
9. Will this plan bring new tax revenue into our country? Yes.
10. Will this plan help us each to balance our personal budgets? Yes.
11. Will this plan help our lives? Yes.
12. Will this plan help our economy? Yes.
13. Will this plan make our country stronger? Yes.
Shouldn't this plan be considered? I hope we can consider this plan or a plan very similar, which will help to save our economy.
