In my previous blog post the Energy Economy, I mentioned how in 1982 there were 301 oil refineries and now in 2012 there are 148. This of course effects the price of gasoline. We are a country at war and according to pickensplan.com, the United States is importing 60 percent of its oil from other countries. Since in office, President Barack Obama has infused $5 billion into electric vehicles. This seems counterintuitive given that Natural Gas vehicles offer a more sustainable and domestically lucrative solution. Now, let us not forget about safety.

Imagine that you are walking across a street, obeying all of the street signs like a responsible pedestrian. From around the corner comes an electric vehicle and the driver doesn’t see that you're crossing the street. Would the noise of a gasoline car make the difference? I think so! This is one of the current concerns with electric vehicles. They are also made from a lighter composite material to help with mileage. On the surface it may help with the environment, but at what cost? Is your life worth the risk?

Next is the issue with power. One of the biggest concerns with electric
vehicles is a limited power capacity. This may not seem like an issue but if you lived in a seasonal area like New England with weather fluctuations wouldn’t that
effect the life of the car battery? Electric vehicles also have less power than gasoline vehicles. Electric vehicles are a great technology, but it is not going to solve America’s energy needs and still needs development before $5 billion of public money be invested into it. Don’t forget that the vehicle will still need some gasoline and will need household electricity. This electricity would be drawn from an already drained energy grid. Where exactly are the savings coming from? It just cost us $5 billion!

Personally I’d rather the $5 billion not be spent or be spent toward solar energy in the desert, or on wind farms. How can a solar energy company in the desert go bankrupt?

I agree with former Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar’s statement that the United States should make big vehicles that can go 60 miles on a gallon of gasoline. He said it can be done, and I believe him.

Let us now switch the conversation to natural gas vehicles. The United States currently has over 100 years of worth of proven natural gas reserves. Examples from other countries prove that these vehicles work, have a longer life than traditional gasoline vehicles, and have enough power to do the job.

In the NY Times, Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed entitled, “Get it right on gas” where he partly advocated for big natural gas companies and cited safety and environmentalism as a reason against smaller companies. He also talked about exporting the gas and supports strict regulation and punishment for non-compliant companies. I take issue with this for several reasons.

First, large companies subcontract to the “mom and pop” gas drillers that he mentioned. What safety precautions aren’t already being followed? If a company big or small is drilling in the United States there is knowledge of who is drilling and where.

From a philosophical standpoint there needs to be room for small startup companies to have the opportunity to produce energy. If only the large companies are allowed in this business, then doesn’t that defeat the purpose of capitalism and prove monopoly? I do agree that there are some things that large corporations do effectively. If safety is a concern, then yes, protocol should be followed, but not at the expense of out-pricing the smaller companies from being allowed to be in this business. The benefit is that smaller companies will do the initially harder, less lucrative work that the larger ones will not.

America didn’t start with a room full of corporations. Corporations started small and in time with success got big. That’s how jobs are created. Thomas Friedman is a self-admitted “jobs killer.”

Just last year in a forum with former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Friedman spoke of his favoring public and private “fusing” and that he is a self-admitted “jobs killer” in favor of outsourcing. Barbour fired back with a priceless one-word response, “Values!”

If Freidman is such an environmentalist then what saves more
energy: using Natural Gas for vehicles in America or shipping the resource across the world to sell to other nations? Seems like a waste of energy in the travel. I do understand what business is, but since he is in favor of fusing public and private, I use this guided approach to ask who is right?

Meanwhile, he proposed bureaucracy-building that would slow
the process down. I thought that environmentalists want to speed things up to save the planet. In the meantime, the trade deficit soars, the environment suffers, and the American economy isn’t benefiting from its own natural resources with the good-paying jobs and tax income that would go with them. The American economy needs a jump start and our ailing energy grid needs a fix. Natural Gas is a solution and is at least half the pollution than what is currently being emitted.

The United States is importing 60 percent of its oil from other countries, is at war, has huge trade deficits and a colossal national debt. Why not natural gas vehicles? To me that’s what "getting it right on gas" is!

(Note drought isn't helping the Hoover Dam provide energy for water systems spanning across western state lines either.)

www.cngvp.org/About/abou_naturalgas.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-29/business/ct-biz-0729-natural-gas-cars-20120729_1_natural-gas-plug-in-vehicles-ford-focus-electric/2