Bush to lift offshore drilling ban

[digitalman]

Originally Posted by ReefHound

Hybrids are great once you get past the $30,000 price tag and wait list.

I've read somewhere that the price offset for the typical driver from a hybrid to a conventional car is 5 years.

Why not persue the car that runs on water I saw on the Internet a few years back?

[OH-JJ]

Originally Posted by georoc01

The problem is that lets take the Ford Escape Hybrid, it gets about 30MPG vs the 20 MPG the non hybrid version gets. It costs $7,000 more with a battery that has an unknown shelf life. Even at $5 a gallon its going to take about 85,000 miles to hit the break even and if you have to finance your vehicle, its going to be even more than that.

So I guess it depends where you are from an economic version and what kind of premium you would pay for a hybrid vehicle. Personally, I am waiting for the plug-in version of the Escape Hybrid, which will supposedly get close to 100MPG. Now we would be making some progress!

The problem is still the cost of the replacement batteries. and then you get into the environmental issues. is the increase in fuel economy greater than the impact of the disposal and replacement of the batteries?

[SlvrDragon50]

That's why you get a real hybrid like the Prius. There are electric cars right now that already get 100+ mpg such as the Tesla but those are much more expensive than hybrids. I know someone in CA( I think) converts cars into electric for 10k

Originally Posted by georoc01

The problem is that lets take the Ford Escape Hybrid, it gets about 30MPG vs the 20 MPG the non hybrid version gets. It costs $7,000 more with a battery that has an unknown shelf life. Even at $5 a gallon its going to take about 85,000 miles to hit the break even and if you have to finance your vehicle, its going to be even more than that.

So I guess it depends where you are from an economic version and what kind of premium you would pay for a hybrid vehicle. Personally, I am waiting for the plug-in version of the Escape Hybrid, which will supposedly get close to 100MPG. Now we would be making some progress!

[aggie99]

The bigger issue is that even if they started drilling right now in the Gulf (which won't happen because propsecting isn't permitted and they need to find it) we wouldn't see the first barrels of oil for at least 3 years and most probably 5 years. Granted we will still be dependent on oil in that timeframe but Bush is using the current economy and demand crisis to gain public support and push this through congress. I wonder if he has any private interest in this after his presidency ends? (Not trying to start a conpsiracy theory, just wondering)

[SlvrDragon50]

I still had not heard of a battery breaking down so you can't say they are short term.

[ReefHound]

Originally Posted by aggie99

The bigger issue is that even if they started drilling right now in the Gulf (which won't happen because propsecting isn't permitted and they need to find it) we wouldn't see the first barrels of oil for at least 3 years and most probably 5 years.

And where will we be 5 years from now if we don't open up for drilling?

Doesn't matter if it'll take 3 to 5 years to start producing. The relief on the market will be immediate because prices are set based on future anticipation. Just like when there is a oilfield strike or pipeline failure the increase is immediate even though that oil is six months away from reaching the market.

[Bert]

If the drilling is the only propposal than we are headed in the wrong direction. if the government combines the drilling with other energy sources then we will get some were. We need to look at off shore wind farms( off shore so they dont kill birds and po oter groups) hydropower and neqular power( I tink thats how bush spells it), geothermal,and solar power.(I am working on a device that will convert the hot air from windbags,(ie polititions, news casters etc) in to electricty.

[Bert]

Add on I do suport the off shore drilling. If nothing else it may help calm fears and, stableize the current market

[OH-JJ]

Originally Posted by aggie99

The bigger issue is that even if they started drilling right now in the Gulf (which won't happen because propsecting isn't permitted and they need to find it) we wouldn't see the first barrels of oil for at least 3 years and most probably 5 years. Granted we will still be dependent on oil in that timeframe but Bush is using the current economy and demand crisis to gain public support and push this through congress. I wonder if he has any private interest in this after his presidency ends? (Not trying to start a conpsiracy theory, just wondering)

Sorry that is completely incorrect.

from that time the oil companies say go, they will be pumping oil in less than six months.

there will be a short delay while they double the crane capsity of some of the rigs. and they will be recalling the drill ships that are currently loaned out drilling core samples.

but within the year there will be many wells pumping oil.

but the even faster result will be OPEC will be scared and they inturn will drop there prices.

[Grizbear98]

I don't understand how destroying the environment to get a natural resource that is diminishing, can be replaced by newer technologies, and the cost will not be reflected for 7 years and will STILL be high, helps us at all