there are petroleum power electrical plants although they are a small percentage.

Correct. Notice also, where they exist; California.

As for the rest of your comments, they're also correct. The concept of unintended consequences rears it's head every time.

However converting energy to electrical or other technologies such as fuel cell has been shown to be inefficient. It would save more gas if you simply use gas in your vehicle than using these alternative methods. If there weren’t petroleum power electrical plants then one could argue it would save on oil consumption but as it stands now it is increasing oil consumption.

There are foreseeable problems with some of these technologies when they reach a massive scale. The chemicals use with batteries in electric cars will cause manufacturing issues including pollution and additional health hazards during accidents. Wind power will at some point cause weather pattern changes. Right now it is not really noticeable but at what point that it will is not really define. Will it make much of a difference, I don’t know.

If that were true, we'd all be driving electric cars right now. (Hint: We're not)

Who said they have to be electric cars?

Ya know, it annoys me that nobody else noticed that Solar power, for all of it's uses does not address the energy needs for oil. Is solar going to solve transporation, for example? No....

Why not? Once you've got energy that can produce work, you can do whatever you want with it.

Uh-oh, Bithead and the other ostriches with their heads buried in the sand are gonna be hoppin' mad! They're answer to the oil crisis was more drilling, in ANWR, offshore, your backyard, Michael Jackson's fantasy park, etc.

Ya know, it annoys me that nobody else noticed that Solar power, for all of it's uses does not address the energy needs for oil. Is solar going to solve transporation, for example? No....
Wanna use solar? Fine, I've no problem with it coming on line as the market finds it works.. both technically and economically. But please, I'm begging ya... quit tying solar, geothermal etc to the crisis create by our unwillingness to drill for oil domestically. They have nothing to do with each other, unless you're going to tell us that we have a lot of electric generation going on fueled by oil.

In this case, the market has to be smart enough to sacrifice short-term gains in anticipation of long-term pains, but that requires a commitment from the entire market, because if any one player decides to take that short-term gain everybody loses.

You have this EXACTLY backwards.
The market went for Horses.
A realtive few people invented automobiles.

Get the picture?
Let the market do it's thing. And please don't tell me that's what's been happening. Given the degree of governmental intrusion into the market... where everything is regulated and taxed, a free market this most certainly is not.

The "Bush ban on drilling" as it call it is nothing of the sort.

How so?
If congress had lifted the ban and the executive order was left in place would drilling be allowed?
Unless the answer is yes they were both real hurdles.

It's silly to blame the President for this. Pelosi, Reid, et al are to blame.

Or praise, depending on which side of the debate you're on.

The "Bush ban on drilling" as it call it is nothing of the sort. The executive order was put into place many years ago when oil was cheap and offshore drilling not likely. The congressional ban is where the real hurdle is at. The Presidents lifting of the ban is symbolic and wouldn't have done anything 7.5 years ago.

It's silly to blame the President for this. Pelosi, Reid, et al are to blame.

those who oppose drilling since it might reduce prices

You mean the Bush ban on drilling? Why did GW wait 7.5 years to do something about it? Because it might reduce prices and cost the Saudis some $$$?

Red flags go up with me anytime someone refuses to answer questions they know.Remind me of snake oil salesman.

Solar is about like fusion. Many promises not many results. I do see promise (sorry) in its use for water heating. As for cost effective conversion to electricity, I’m not holding my breath.

I’m not sold on nuclear since even the great France can’t find a solution to the waste by-product. Normandy is an accident just waiting to happen. Wind is becoming viable though.

It cracks me up when those who oppose drilling since it might reduce prices and think we need new taxes so the price will stay high or go higher. That way it will encourage people to use less.

So basically they are saying that they are happy with high energy prices and don’t mind hurting the economy.

Where in Florida?

There should be three locations.

The problem is that what is best for the market isn't always what's best for the people. In this case, the market has to be smart enough to sacrifice short-term gains in anticipation of long-term pains, but that requires a commitment from the entire market, because if any one player decides to take that short-term gain everybody loses.

Which is why we need, ideally, a carbon tax or, less ideally, a cap and trade system for carbon.

AHA! And therein, I think lies the key; Letting everyone scramble and letting the market work. It's the one thing we've not tried.

Actually that's pretty much what we've been trying for a while now. Right now, oil is the best solution for the market, and so it is what the market promotes.

The problem is that what is best for the market isn't always what's best for the people. In this case, the market has to be smart enough to sacrifice short-term gains in anticipation of long-term pains, but that requires a commitment from the entire market, because if any one player decides to take that short-term gain everybody loses.