It has always been legal to own a gun in this country. Nothing really new about this, accept small town laws vs the big boys in long robes making it official now. Every member of the street gangs, the Latino gangs who once sprayed everything with their black spray paint, like dogs peeing to mark their territory, will now shoot up freely with legal guns in their illegal hands.

Some cities are training their police in riot control. Why? Some reasons given involve closing banks and repossessed homes. I think not. We are headed for a severe depression now that our best hope for peace and prosperity has been pushed out of the presidential race. (Hillary Clinton was the great white hope) People will be hungry, and they will hunt for food in our cities all over the land. Lock your doors gramma, and get a gun now.

As a retired D.C. Police Officer I was undergoing riot training in 1971, and so were a lot of other departments.

We dont need any more muslims or socialists/marxist running this country and taxing our buster browns off right off the bat, thats what is making people hungry, and the failure to DRILL NOW off our coasts and take advantage of our own natural resources that the Democrats continually block, that really makes people hungry too when they cant get to work to feed their family.

Maybe some facts would help?

• The US is the LEAST taxed of the western industrialized world.
• The US has the worst healthcare coverage of the western industrialized world
• The majority of US Bankruptcies are caused by healthcare bills
• Drilling off the coasts would take15-30 years before a single drop of oil from that drilling would hit the markets.

As for "muslims" running our country - setting aside the fact that the Article VI of the US Constitution explicitly says that you CANNOT use a religious test for office (are you a closet traitor seeking to undermine the US Constitution?) - who in our current government leadership or candidate for leadership is a Muslim? There I think are maybe a handful of Members of Congress who are musllim but that's about it.

C'mon, lets see any hint of ANY factual evidence to support your rant.

Degs I know your intentions are good. But in a very short time, America built one of the largest if not the most powerful Navy in the world. This happen after our 7th Fleet was mostly destroyed at Pearl Harbor. At the end of the War ( 4 years ) we had more ships then all others combined ( not an easy task ), not to mention our Airforce wich at the beginning of the War was considered archaic to all others was then second to none.

But let's just say for the sake of argument that it would take 15 -30 years before a single drop of oil would hit the markets. Well then it would probably take 200 -300 years to see a major benefit from alternative fuels. After all, even Rolling Stone Magazine acknowledges that for every gallon of alcohol made you need a gallon of gas to make it. Not to mention that people are now starving thanks to alternative fuels. But unlike alternative fuels, in at least 15 or so years ( probably sooner, 1 -2 years ) we'll have more fuel.

If we go your route, only the rich will have energy.

Hmm, so you are suggesting we nationalize the US Enegy companies? I think the American Communist Party would support your idea, but that's not a very large constiuency - and pretty much everyone else is in opposition to that idea.

Otherwise the WWII Navy example is meaningless, because what drives the offshore schedule is a combination of

1. Exploration Investment and ROI (drill rigs cost $500k+/day just to lease, and 4 years to build a new one
2. Rig building Investment and ROI ( a rig takes about 4 years from investemnt to commissioning)
3. Exploration time/productive hole
4. Time from first productive hole to field production.

Existing offshore rigs are pretty much 100% utilized so new OCS leases need new rigs. That means if OCS is opened tomorrow, the first EXPLORATION begins 4 years from now.

Once you start exploring it takes 5 years to explore the field before you get your first production wells.

Then you have to build out the field which takes another 3-5 years.

So that's 14 years assuming no screwups or storms or other problems.

And here is the kicker. the nation that most benefits from this is... The Peoples Republic of China. Why? Because US growth rates are impacted less by oil prices than the PRCs is.

So we sacrifice our quality of life, to improve the PRCs? Now truly the ACP is going to side with you.

Now if we were to invest $20mil/day (20 rigs) for 15 years thats over $200 billion, Now for $100 million, Stirling Energy Systems can build a 500mWatt powerplant. Which will power some 500,000 homes.

So multiply that by 1000 ($200 billion) and that's 500 million homes - hmm more homes than we have in the USA....And no oil spills. Note that thats just from the exploration funding, that does not count the actual cost of oil extraction.

As for alcohol fuels, Gasahol is not the most efficient biofuel source. The reason we have focussed our Federal investment in corn based ethanol wouldn't have anything to do with the political contributions ADM has provided this adminstration would it? Just a coinky dink that ADM is the biggest producer of corn in the USA.

Now Degs, I never said that we should nationalize the US energy Companies. Please don't try and put words in my mouth that I never said. But if I'm not mistaken, aren't you for Nationalizing Health Care. I'm sure the American Communist Party is for that. Don't make yourself look two-face.

I am glade you brought up China. Aren't they offshore drilling for oil just about 50 miles from the Florida coast with Cuba? It seems somewhat nuts that Third World Countries such as China and Cuba would be able to pay $450 k a day to drill for oil, yet it would cost too much for us to do it. So I reviewed your links. They are contradictive. Go a head, do the math. since last year there is 25 more offshore rigs then the year before ( a 7% increase ) and the market dose not reflect the profit of over the 50 trillion dollars that the rig companies would of made. Sorry. Also in less then 8 years ( according to one of your links ) Deapwater Offshore drilling will account for 25% of offshore drilling compared to the 9% of today. Unfortunatily it will be other nattions who will profit from it, thanks to the doomsayer's in our country.

Now let's talk about the Stirling Energy Systems. What type of energy is needed to operate the system? Is it oil, gas, coal,wind maybe nuclear? One way or another, you will still need a form of energy to produce energy.

As I have been in the Heating & Cooling industry for years I can agree with you that at the moment it is cheaper to use electricity then LP Gas to heat your home. Nat. Gas is still a little cheaper then electric. But I assure you, if most people change to electricity, the cost of new Sub-stations ( you just can't build a new power station ) and revamping the electrical grid to handle the new load would cost us more. And we would still need a form of energy to make energy. In the long run we should invest in nuclear power stations. Do you agree? But we still need energy for transportation. Believe it or not, there is not enough dinner grease to go around.

As for Gasohol, I agree with you. I think most anything today that is considered to be green is BS. Going Green is just another way for rich fat cats to make money. If I had money, you can bet your sweet ass that I would be investing Green in the stock market.

Now who do you think built the US Navy during WW 2? It was the free Market, ( you know GM, Ford, Singer and most of the free industries ). If you notice the markets that lost the war were not free markets. Come to think of it, it is still the free market that builds for the Arm Forces today.

Degs it wasn't long ago that a flat screen tv cost about as much as a small car. Due to demand, most people can now afford them. If the demand calls for more new rigs, I'm sure the cost will go down as more companies would be willing to get into the market. As of now rig cost is only $10 per barrel.

But even if drilling for oil will take 10 or so years, it will mean more competition in the market and lower prices. What are you offering?

No, other countries don't "profit" from offshore drilling - Oil Companies do. ALL nations benefit from an expanded oil supply because it drops the price of the commodity, but the PRC benefits more than the USA does. So when we calculate what the 'externalized' costs of drilling are in our OCS, we have to look at who benefits the most from it.

And the answer to who benefits the most, is The Oil Cos and the PRC. The US itself benefits very little since all oil is sold on the world market at world market prices. Sure you could pass a law that says that domestic production has to be sold domestically - but at best that will raise the price of oil in some parts of the country as transport costs come into play. Meanwhile the oil being sold domestically will be sold for the same price as the world market. So we get no tangible benefit from drilling in the OCS.

Arguably, (if you want to take the America Firster perspective) since oil is a valuable resource, by using up oil in the rest of the world first and saving ours for when the oil collapse comes, is a wise defense strategy. (silly arguement, but no worse than your Cuba arguement).

As for my links being inconsistent - its pretty clear you didn't read them based on your questions about Sterling Energy Systems. But even so you missed the point.

For the cost of delivering the first BBL of OCS oil to the US markets, we could build enough solar power generation capacity to power all the homes in the USA and then some. That's a much better Energy ROI than opening the OCS.

You would not have to dramatically upgrade the electrical distribution infrastructure if that power was being used to charge plug-in vehicles during the night (yes you would need to build some sort of storage bank, be it water, hydrogen etc. which cuts your efficiency, but again, its still much better energy ROI).

Your Navy example fails on two fronts:

• The US Government essentially nationalized all shipyards, and switched to a centralized command economy to allocate the resources. Sure private companies got paid to do the work, but the resource allocation was centrally planned. The only way this could be done with the OCS drilling is by nationalizing the oil industry
• It was taxpayer, deficit funded. Are you suggesting that we should have taxpayers pay for the exploration of the OCS? The only way that will fly is if the taxpayers reap the benefits - ie by nationalizing the oil industry.

Clearly we aren't going to nationalize the oil industry despite the desires of you and the American Communist Party (curious bedfellow you have there), which means that the earliest ANWAR or OCS oil hits the US markets is 2025. Somehow I don't think that will have any effect on gas prices for at least 10 years, because the "competition" won't begin until the oil begins to flow.

Furthemore the energy produced from those fields is dwarfed by ten years of full solar production by the likes of SES

In fact, if we took a 95mile x 95mile section of arizona desert, covered it with SES systems (lot less manufacturing required than building the WWII navy), you would satisfy the total energy requirement of the USA - sure we'd have to upgrade some of the powergrid, but not that much since peak demand is actually for summer cooling, not winter heating.

Your belief in the free market is touching and quaint - but as we have seen with the Oil Cos unwillingness to drill in regions they already have under lease, the market incentive isn't there for them to go into a crash program of building lots of new rigs for the OCS. They are more interested in having lunch with Cheney to work out what part of the Iraqi oil fields US Companies get.

Sorry, but what link did you provide for the Sterling Energy System? Maybe if you had provided a link, I wouldn't of had to ask. Don't brow beat me for your error.

But once again you are wrong. It would take a major revamp to initiate this sort of system. A rebuild of the Nations Electrical System that I'm afraid the Government would have to Nationalize to do it. I thought you were against this? I believe you are not, as I will use the two bullets that you provided above.

• The US has the worst healthcare coverage of the Western industrialized world
• The majority of US Bankruptcies are caused by healthcare bills

This is from your writings not mine. If you are not advocating Nationalized Healthcare then what in the hell are you advocating? It seems to me that you have no problem siding with the American Communist Party and this is what makes you look two-face. BTW the American Communist Party, China, Cuba and every other Communist Nations encluding Europe feels that we should pursue our energy problem in the same manner you wish to follow. Go figure.

You're claim that it would be cheaper to use solar is nuts. First of all the cost of the system you provided in the nice photo that you link is about 1.8 million dollars per unit. To cover a one square mile area with these units would cost more than a Trillion dollars, not to mention the cost of what it would be for a 95 mile by 95 mile section in Airzona. Degs do you have your money tied up in Sterling Energy stock? To add to that, you would have to add new power trans- formers, trunklines and such. It's not that you would just be plugging your car in, ( BTW what are we going to do with all the used battiers ? ) but you will also now be adding a load to the system for the demand to heat homes and water, dry clothes and cook with. Not to mention the cost of manufacturing.

Like you, I get the same crap from my customers when I tell them that they need to upgrade their electrical system to install AC, water heating, and baseboard heat. If you only have a panel that was design for 65 -100 Amps and you now need 180 Amps to energize your home, then like it or not you either will have to upgrade your system or do with out. This would be the same with any electric company if the load is increased. Sorry you can't get a free ride on this.

Can you show me were the Government owned Gm, Ford, Singer, shipyards or any other company during WW 2? You can't. In the State I live in ( Michigan ) the government leases land to the timber companies. They tell them what the timber can be used for, but they don't own the timber companies. This would be no different if the government were to lease land ( as they do today ) to the oil companies. If the government were to lease lands to the oil company with the condition that it can only be used for the US consumption it is a condition for use. It is not Nationalizing, for there would be nothing to stop an oil company from getting oil from somewhere else. If we Nationalize Healthcare the government will own the healthcare system and full powers on it. You're confused.

As for raising oil cost in some parts of the country due to transport? What part of the Universe do you come from? In rural areas this has always been the case with everything that needs to be transported to the area. Give me a break.

The fact that you won't acknowledge that it is beneficial for China to drill just 50 mile from our coast is a telling story in itself. I'm sorry, but if you increase the amount of oil to the market the cost will go down. Yes it will benefit the oil companies, but it will also benefit the consumer too. I just can't see were letting the price of oil go up ( due to short supplies ) is helping Americans. Because of it, food, most products and transportation is becoming unafordable.

We are not even close to alternative systems in this country, and at the moment are dependant on oil. Yes we should work together on future energy systems. But if you think that the free market is incapable of drilling for oil then why should it be anydifferent going your way?

If I grow a patch of potatoes in my back yard, I HAVE increased the supply of potatoes, but there is no way that I will affect the market price of potatoes unless my back yard is some 10,000 acres.

The OCS would deliver about 200,000 bbls/day in 2025. The projected US consumption at that time is something around 22 MILLION bbls/day, and WW closer to 100 Million.

so 220,000 / 100,000,000 = 0.22% increase in production.

Given the price inelasticity of oil is very flat, the promise of a fifth of a percent increase in production 15 years from now will have ZERO EFFECT on oil prices. Thus your "solution" is not only not a solution, but diverts financial resources (investment in offshore rigs) in the wrong direction.

Again, even at $1.8 mil/unit - which you assure me theUS industry could get much lower if there was a large order for them - a $200,000 Billion investment (which is what the OCS production would be) means we can buy 110,000 such units. SES production cost/household is roughly $2000/home. So for the cost of the OCS drilling, we could power 50 million homes (50% loss of efficiency in storing power for nighttime useage). Solar power is cheaper.

Now if this is used to power vehicles and not homes then you don't have to upgrade the grid since you are charging them during the lowest peak usage. Lets say this takes 50% of the cars off the roads (trucks can't run on electricity yet), that cuts US Oil consumption by 25%. Hmm 25% reduction in demand vs. 0.2% increase in production. Which one affects price more?

I don't know, I'm not sure that I have enough calculus to figure out that one.

If electric cars were any good, then there would be no need for the Hybird. But the $40k + price range puts the Hybird out of most peoples ownership.

A electric car in rural areas is not worth the bother. I'm afraid it is not capable of the long distances that one must travel just to go shoping at the corner market. But I will give you " A " for effort.

When writing about charging an electric car, we are not charging just a 10 amp 12 volt battery. But even if it were just a 10 amp battery it would need about .5 kilowatts per hour to charge it. If you had 40 million households ( it will probably be harder it you lived in an apartment ) or so just charging one car ( most likely it will be from 2-3 cars ) there would still be a surge of electricity on the power plants. More then likely they would be able to handle such a load.

But we are not writing about charging a 10 amp battery. You see just to charge a true electric car you will need at least 33 kilowatts to do so, or about 132 times ( it would take just about 4 hrs to charge a car battery compair to the 8 hrs needed for an electric car ) more electricity then your normal 10 amp battery. Let's put it this way, you would need about the same amount of energy that a clothes dryer would need if the dryer ran 8 hour strait without shutting down. If you don't think that we will have to do a major revamp on our electrical system I've got a great land deal for you.

But I'm afraid that is just the tip of our problems. You see if it were just cars, ( with a lot of work )you may be able to pull it off. But it's not just cars, it's also the energy that is need to heat homes. You know; heating water to wash with, cooking food, or just keeping your house warm. The Nat. and LP Gas that is in use today, comes from oil wells as a byproduct. If we don't drill then we'll have to heat our homes with electricity. And if everyone went to electric, we will have to revamp the system. It will take longer to do this then drill. Sorry Degs no free ride.

A good program to watch is " Ice Road Truckers " on the History Chanel. The oil rigs they are going too ( my god they are in the Artic Circle ) are the same oil rigs that are supplying America with Nat. and LP Gas. Like or not, we will be dependant on oil for a long time to come.

As for solar energy. If perfected, the Southern States can benefit from it. But the sunless Northern States won't ( at least for now ) I'm afraid. I used to install such systems to customers who just had to have them. What a head ache. In the Michigan winter if you have one day a month with sun you are ahead of the game. You also needed a backup system ( one reason I got into it, you know I can charge three times as much for this type of system ) for the days you had no sun ( which were many ). If you were useing sun to heat water for heat, then you had to have atifreeze in the system ( it would reduce your efficiency to half of what it was design for ) or put a heating system on the grid ( normally piping from a gas boiler that also needed antifreeze ) to keep it from freezing. If you were useing it to make electricity, it was way out of price if you wanted to heat your home with it. Not only that, if you don't vent the storage batteries correctly, you will either blow your house up or poison yourself. No matter what I did as a contractor, many of my customers wouldn't believe me that batteries had to be stored in a safe manner. What else is new.

As it is I won't install these systems anymore. Too much of my time was spent trying to repair a system that I told my customers wouldn't work in this type of enviorment in the first place. They had every right to be mad that the systems didn't work, after all they would pay on an average of about $30k for a pile of shit.

Your argument that the price of oil won't go down if we drill for more, is wrong. As a business owner ( HVAC ) I know if I were the only one in the area I could charge my customers more. But if I had one competitor, then I would have to charge less. If more then one, even less. Do you honestly think Wal-Mart would sell for less if they had no competitors? I think not. If our Government gave the green light to drill, oil prices will fall. And who knows, we may not even have to drill. As it is, OPEC has no cometitors ( except for maybe China ).

Now Degs in the past I have notice that the way you write is way above par. But your links have been your Achilles Heel.

Let's use your last links as an example.

Link: WW Closer to 100 million

What dose a Yahoo Kids map have to do with your example?

Link: Price inelasticity of oil is very flat

When a barrel of oil cost $17.90 in the year 2000 and now in just 8 short years cost over $ 130.00 a barrel they are full of shit.

Link: SES production cost / household is roughly $2000/Home

Why should I believe this link anymore then you would believe a link I gave that came from the NRA or Newsweek?

I know you are not stupid, your writing abilities show this. To put it short I would love to write like you. But you really have to work on your links. They self-defeat you.

As for being dependant solely on oil, we shouldn't. And I agree with you that we need to find other alternatives but they are just not there yet. We need to work together on this, but we won't. Sorry.

The counter examples you offer don't really speak to the issues.

On electric cars or plug in hybrids. You are right, in rural america they don't make sense. Except that Rural America is less than 30% of the US population. Over 50% live in cities and 70% live in cities and near suburbs. Suburbs are where the driving fuel consumption comes.

Houses are set up to draw roughly 1 KW (typical household consumes 22kw in a day). During the night, most households consume very little power. That's when the grid is also in lightest use. That's also when you would be charging plug-in hybrids.

Again, I was only positing a 25% decrease in gasoline consumption. The load that takes off refineries and the oil market in general is dramatic. And it requires no changes to the grid.

You are also wrong about the viability in northern climates. Seattle turns out to be LESS VIABLE than Alaska for solar power - why? Because of the CLOUDS. I know of at least 1 cattle ranch in Eastern WA that is 100% off the grid Solar. If you can run a cattle ranch (with all its water pump needs), then you can power a residential house. And Eastern WA is about as far north as Continental US gets and it gets lots of snow. In fact Snow and cold temps IMPROVE the operational efficiency of the generating motors, so your arguement there falls apart.

Now lets look at your business case. How worried are you that a competitor is going to open up shop in 2030? Are you lowering your prices in anticipation? What if someone bought the building next to you and told you that they plan to open a competing HVAC business in 2030. Would you drop your prices? Of COURSE NOT.

Better yet, they guy also tells you that he's really only going to do it as a retirement hobby. That he's going to only take on 1 customer a month. Would you drop your prices? OF COURSE NOT.

Yet that is the equivilent model of business that opening ANWR or OCS gives you. No rational business person would affect their CURRENT PRICING because of potenial competition in 2030 (btw, the reason it goes out to 2030 is because of the OCS is opened now, the Oil Cos don't plan to sign leases until 2012 and only THEN does exploration begin).

Link: Price inelasticity of oil is very flat

When a barrel of oil cost $17.90 in the year 2000 and now in just 8 short years cost over $ 130.00 a barrel they are full of shit.

No it says exactly the opposite. World Oil Production has GONE UP by more than the total that OCS and ANWR would put into the system and STILL the prices went up because demand outstripped production. Adding 0.2% to production in 20 years will have ZERO EFFECT on oil prices.

As for believing the link - well Southern Cal Gas and Electric is a regulated utility and you can go look up their contracts with SES. Its roughly $2k/household of power.

Sorry about the link to the kids yahoo, I grabbed the wrong link (the kids yahoo link pops as the top link and the one I wanted was the next one down - I'm using a beta version of IE 8 and it has some rendering/alignment problems)

Degs, it wasn't too long ago that both I and trapdoor quoted links from the NRA and Newsmax to you. Understanably you dismissed them as propaganda. Why shouldn't I think the same for these links? Come on, Offshore - environment.com, Blahla ( like who in the hell are they? ), The Daily Green, Kids Yahoo ( just joking about kids yahoo, I actually like it ). These links are about as believable as a link provided by PETA stating that humans are meant to be vegetarians. More then likely they are also represented by such noted intellectual authoritatives as Pamela Anderson.

Now the trouble with hybirds. Still need to charge them. You said a typical household will use 22 kw in a day, a hybird will still need about 33 kw for a full charge. Divide 33 kw by 22 kw and now you have an increase of electricity during sleeping hours.

Also most hybirds are out of the reach of the lower middle class if not most of the middle class. To repalce a battery on one, the cost is about $2k or more. Repair cost is, WOW. You still need oil and gas for them, and the deprecation is more then normal. Can't tow much. Many people will buy used cars ( like me, I by older Land Rovers as I can still do my own work on them ) because they can't afford new ones. But if it's impossible to work on or the cost of getting it fix is unbearable ( as in the cass of hybirds ) you can't afford to buy it. So now you have the problem of getting people to buy the car in the first place.

If you read my last post, I said if it were just cars you may be able to pull it off. But it's not just cars, it's also home heating. Were are you missing this? The cost of home heating is going up. In my area, just 3 short years ago, LP Gas was around $1.19 per gallon. It is now $2.87 per gallon and is expected to be near the $4 mark by the middle of winter.

As for the cattle ranch, when your right Degs your right. Yes if you have less clouds then solar will work better then if you have a lot of clouds. Didn't I kind of said that? I always wanted to live in the eastern part of WA, it's beautiful. It dosen't have the clouds or rain that Michigan has. I've winter camped in this state many times, but I wouldn't camp on the weastern side as it is cold and damp whit a lot of clouds. But back to the cattle ranch, I'd bet the rancher has more gas powered pumps then electric.

Often I heard that electricitiy is more efficient in snow and cold, but I hardly ever hear of a slow cranking battery in the summer. Efficiency is only true if the wire has insulation on it or the out side temp is well above 120 degs. fahrenheit. But in general it's more of an urban legend then a reality.

You are also right that I wouldn't be too worried of any competition of any competitor that will open up shop in the year 2030. But then I am a small business who is already 62 years old. So what.

But I would be worried if I were a large corporation and knew that my stock will drop because of it. Also you are assuming that it will 22 years or more to benefit from drilling now.

Somehow the Chinese disagree with you. As a country that is fast building they haven't time for OPEC.

Michigan has about a much cloud cover (rain does not matter) as Spokane WA (ok 90% of it), So if Solar works in Eastern WA (and it does) then it works in Michigan. So its a viable solution even as a localized power producer. Land costs are the variable.

The rancher BTW had ONLY electric pumps, He had a propane backup generator that he rarely if ever ran (1/mo maybe).

The motor efficiency I'm talking about is the Stirling generator motors. Their power output (like that of an Otto Cycle internal combustion engine) is dependent on the thermal difference between the heat and cold sinks. The solar heated side runs around 400dF. Drop the cool side by 30dF and you've increased power output by between 5% and 10%.

Plug-in Hybrids, not full electric, but plug in hybrids - take 5-8hrs to charge on a 120v 20amp circuit. They still use gas, BUT they get effectively 100mpg, vs 40-50mpg for traditional hybrids. The motivation for opening OCS and ANWR is gasoline prices. Double the fuel efficiency of half your fleet and you've dropped gas consumption 25%. Drop demand by 25% (vs. increasing suppy by 1/100th of that) and you are going to impact price no matter how inelastic it is.

And you are right, hybrids by themselves are outside the reach of the lower 2 quintiles of population. SO, you expand the tax rebate for buying a hybrid and you make it aggressively progressive: earning under $15k/yr, its a 50% of the value of the vehicle, tapering off to 0% at $100k.

Remember, we have a $200 Billion kitty here to play with, and as you pointed out, upgrading the grid infrastructure will take time and more money - what we are trying to do is to reduce gasoline consumption.

ANWR and OCS drilling simply don't make sense.

PRC btw is simply diversifying its oil sources and leveraging is ability to integrate itself into the economies of those parts of the world the US has long ignored (Africa, latam, cuba). Since the cuban find is only about 75% of ANWR, and that oil would have to go through the US controlled Panama Canal, thats not a win for them except as a political and $$ investment.

Lastly on your company example.

Yeah if it was Carrier or Lennox was announcing a new repair and sales center next door to you, even if it was opening in 5 years, you'd be right to be concerned. But that's not what ANWR or OCS are. ANWR and OCS each are about 0.2% of global production. That's not a Carrier or Lennox, that's uncle Joe who works 2 days a week. And ANWR and OCS don't come on line in 5 years, the come online at earliest in 15.

So if Uncle Joe's Heating and Repair - Open 2 Days A week, announces its opening up shop next door to you (ie we open OCS and ANWR for exploration) they YOU are not even going to worry about dropping prices (ANWR and OCS will have NO impact on gas and oil prices). You might even suggest to Joe that he come work for you to teach your new field hires since that way he doesn't have to make that capital investment (ie switch to different energy sources).

Opening OCS and ANWR simply makes no economic sense for anyone but the Oil Cos since they get to expand their "reserves" by some incremental amount.

Love the grid. Let's see if you are using 30 tubes ( Spokane Grid ) your BTU output is a little more then about 46,00 BTU's in July. But during the winter months, you would have to combined Nov., Dec. and January to equal July's output in BTUs. Kind of proves my point dosen't?

Now were is this cattle ranch located? How big is the cattle ranch ( one or two cows? ) ? How deep is the aquafer that supplies the water? And do you have stock in Sterling?

Now I ask you Degs, where is giving a tax rebate for buying a hybird going to help? No. 1, in order to give such rebates you'll have to tax the people of this country even more. Yeah that will help our economy. Let's tax more. Always a good answer, right? Have you forgotten that after two or three years you may want to sell these cars before they eat you alive on the cost of repair bills? Plus so you give a tax break of 1,500 dollars, what is to stop the car manufactures from charging another $2k to make up for the lost they will have in paying more taxes so the average Joe can buy a hybird? You still haven't address it's deprecation and if you can't afford a $30k + car then how can you afford a$28k + car. Plus you still can't tow anymore then 1,000 lbs., with them.

Now let's address it's efficancy. According to the link you provided, ( Ford testing 120 mpg plug-in hybird Escape ) this car isn't on the market yet and may not be put on the market anytime soon. It only achieves 30 miles of drive after an over-night charge. This 30 miles would only be, if you had no traffic. So in rush hour traffic you probably be lucky to get 3 -4 miles on a charge. so not only would you have to charge the car at night you will have to charge it during the day ( BTW this is the norm for most electric cars now ) too. The Escapes offer today only get 34 mpg hwy or 30 mpg city. We have cars that can do that now without the need to plug in. They too don't tow worth a crap either.

Let's look at how much energy you will need to charge one of these babys. More then likely ( due to rush hour traffic ) you will need the full 8 hrs to charge them. More then likely you'll have to charge them two times a day. So if you have a 20 amp 120 volt charge for 8 hours then this is how much energy you will need to charge them. 20 amps X 120 volts X 8 divided by 1,000 ( there is 1,000 watts in a kw ) is equal to 19.2 kws or 38.4 kws if you have to charge this car two times a day. So it comes right back to the amount of Kilowatts that I stated in the first place.

But what I liked most, if you read the last sentence of the artical you provided it says: " The cost of those advanced batteries today means the technology is currently not economically feasible for widespread consumer applications". So your point is?

Why are you not addressing the fact of home heating? If oil keeps going up, then the public will have no choice but to heat their homes with electricity instead of oil. Do you think that by drilling less and making oil products less available the cost of heating a home with gas or oil will be less? No, it will be more. This will drive the public to use even more electricity.

But if your arguments were right, then why should you worry if the government were to open the ANWR. Surely no oil company would invest ( although the Canadians are getting much of the oil they sell to America from the Artic ) if they were told they only had 10 or less years to drill there. The fact is , the oil companies are lining up to drill there. According to your whole argument, this would only mean monetary disaster to these companies. BTW why should I trust anything that CNN puts out anymore then you would if it were Fox's News.

Degs, we both should be working together on this. I know in the future we just can't be a nation only dependent on oil. This will have to change. But today we are dependent on oil.