backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 122 comment(s) - last by JustTom.. on Dec 5 at 12:36 AM

eSolar Inc.'s solar panels in action. eSolar Inc. is one of two companies currently receiving investments from Google's RE less than C initiative.  (Source: eSolar Inc.)

Makani Power Inc. is also receiving Google Funding. Makani seeks to harness a novel but potent form of power -- high altitude winds.  (Source: Makani Power Inc.)
Tech giant Google is putting its money where its mouth is, when it comes to energy change

Despite rampant commercial success, having a stock price of over 700 dollars, the wildly successful top internet search engine, possibly the top free email service, a new cell phone OS, and a constant stream of new services that equate to internet market domination, Google has never seemed quite as evil as some big companies.  The company has always preached a strongly altruistic philosophy.  Its goal is to "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" and its often used slogan is "Don't be evil".

Now Google is looking to not just avoid being evil, but possibly do something really helpful for mankind.  Google has launched an initiative called RE<C, which stands for Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal.  The plan looks to eliminate worldwide reliance on dwindling fossil fuel supplies by developing renewable resource technologies to the point where they are cheaper than traditional fossil fuel power.

Google is looking to give consumers and businesses a good reason to ditch oil and coal for renewable energy.

Google has a personal interest in energy as its data centers use a lot of it and millions of users spend countless watts of computer power, finding sites via Google's search engine.

Its initial investment efforts will be in advanced solar thermal power, wind power technologies, and enhanced geothermal systems.  Google notes, though, that it will also actively pursue any other breakthrough sources of renewable energy.

Google has not disclosed exactly how much it will invest into the new venture, but it has announced its first project -- to build 1 gigawatt of renewable energy capacity (enough power to power San Francisco) -- is cheaper than the generation costs from coal.  Google is looking to hire top engineers and researchers to aid in this project.  Much of the funding for the initiative will go to this Google driven project.

Additional funding for the initiative will be channeled in the form of strategic grants and investments into organizations and individuals who are developing cheap renewable power.   Companies, R&D laboratories, and universities all have a shot at the money.

So far Google has targeted two firms.  The first is eSolar Inc. (PDF) who specializes in solar-thermal power.  This company is highly regarded by Google as breaking new ground in providing utility scale, cheap solar power. 

The second sponsored company is Makani Power Inc. (PDF).  This company has the (literally) lofty goal of collecting high altitude wind energy.  According to the company, if only a fraction of this energy, high altitude air streams driven by solar radiation, could be captured it would easily provide for all the worlds current power needs.

Google is joining the push for carbon neutrality, which aside from lower carbon emissions, also lowers a broad array of other industrial pollution by lowering energy consumption.

Google has stated that it is extremely committed to a green vision of the future.

These moves follow other do-good projects from Google, seeking to advance mankind, including a trans-Pacific cable-line and a 30m USD moon challenge.  This initiative is by far Google's largest and most ambitious project of this kind, though.  It should be interesting to see how the power of this giant can affect the energy industry.  Google is not the only brainy organization looking to help solve energy woes, though -- The University of Oxford just released a significant plan on how to both cut energy usage and save money.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Step in the right direction
By Gnoad on 11/30/2007 3:02:04 PM , Rating: 5
Energy is probably the worlds biggest concern right now, so anyone that works towards fixing that and actually does something gets my approval. For too long now have we all heard how bad the situation is and yet seen little to nothing done so far to fix it.

Sorry, but hybrid cars, CFL light bulbs, and ethanol do not count as fixing our energy crisis.




RE: Step in the right direction
By Spivonious on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 11/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 11/30/2007 3:26:45 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry for my duplicate post below. You posted while I was typing mine. Guess I need to type faster. :o)


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 3:32:20 PM , Rating: 1
No, its quite alright Tom. You elaborated more than I did on the subject than I did....but I'm sure I'll get more fight back for my Global Warming comparison...but really they are linked to be one and the same.


RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 11/30/2007 3:34:41 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think you'll get much fight on the GW statement - I think many DT readers are suffering from Global Warming Fatigue®. :o)


RE: Step in the right direction
By LogicallyGenius on 12/1/2007 3:23:04 AM , Rating: 2
Speaking of computers , we need computers that run on 12 volts AC. Its not that hard to achieve this.


RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 12/1/2007 12:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
What do you see as the benefit to this? Semiconductors are inherently DC devices.

If I could redesign the PC system from scratch, I'd have the main supply put out a single 40-50VDC to the main board, and have localized voltage step-down regulators for individual subsystems.


RE: Step in the right direction
By LogicallyGenius on 12/2/2007 11:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
We need to eliminate the stepdowns, they are a biggest drain on energy.


RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 2:23:05 AM , Rating: 2
Nice idea, but it's not going to happen - because of the physics, we're stuck with them. Semiconductors are much more efficient at low voltage, and power is most efficiently delivered to homes at high voltage.


RE: Step in the right direction
By theoflow on 11/30/2007 3:53:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Its not....its actually a politically created crisis....such as global warming.


WOW...Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

If you don't worry about global warming that is fine, but not realizing that the world is running out of resources is very short minded.

The debate for global warming will only be concluded for another couple of centuries, if you really want to debate about it.

However, you have to realize that there is a finite amount of resources available. Nothing is infinite and those finite resources are becoming stressed with the increased need for those resources. Even worse, these resources are becoming equally distributed around the world with China and India ramping up.

I also think you are very confused that the goal of global warming and energy conservation is to become more efficient with the expenditure and collection of resources. No one is asking you never to drive a Gasoline car anymore, but it makes no sense for someone to drive a gas guzzling SUV by themselves in traffic.

It it beyond logic and reason that people consider a hybrid suv car, Ford Escape or Toyota Camry hybrid? I understand that America is the land of the free, and we are free to do what we wish within the boundaries of the law, but there are certain laws in place which protect the society as a whole at the expense of the individual.

So exactly what is your gripe with Global Warming and Energy conservation?


RE: Step in the right direction
By clovell on 11/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 4:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So exactly what is your gripe with Global Warming and Energy conservation?

My gripe is this statement:
quote:
there are certain laws in place which protect the society as a whole at the expense of the individual.

The laws that the left & environmentalist are requested are based on theory, not fact. The statement that oil is a finite resource and will soon be gone has been made every 10 years, for about 100 years now. The truth is, our oil reserves are higher now than they ever have been. There is no shortage of oil - but rather a limitation on where we can drill for oil due to the left wing environmental lobbiest.

To use a political agenda to punish the american person's decision, and make it an excuse as "better for the whole" is a bunch of bullshit - especially when the problem itself cannot even be proven to exist.

quote:
No one is asking you never to drive a Gasoline car anymore, but it makes no sense for someone to drive a gas guzzling SUV by themselves in traffic.

This happens to be your opinion - and most of these types of opinions are based on Class Warefare, and the thought that somone else does not have the same right to global resources as you do. If the person can afford the inflated price of gasoline, due to wall street and its shell game, then more power to them. Frankly, its none of your business how many people they carry in their cars, or how far they drive, or where they are going.

quote:
It it beyond logic and reason that people consider a hybrid suv car, Ford Escape or Toyota Camry hybrid?

So now its up to the dictatorship to tell me what im allowed to drive - because it makes the most sense to you?


RE: Step in the right direction
By Donkeyshins on 11/30/2007 5:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The statement that oil is a finite resource and will soon be gone has been made every 10 years, for about 100 years now. The truth is, our oil reserves are higher now than they ever have been. There is no shortage of oil - but rather a limitation on where we can drill for oil due to the left wing environmental lobbiest.


The problem with this argument is that it assumes that oil is not a finite resource. This is not the case since the simple fact exists that the earth is of a finite size and therefore the amount of oil on earth is finite. How much oil remains? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else knows, either. However, I think even the oil industry is realizing that the easily accessable oil reserves (e.g. not oil shale or tar sands) are becoming scarce.

It is foolhardy at best to assume that we won't reach a point where extracting oil will become economically unfeasable. As such, it is only prudent to invest in researching alternative fuel sources (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and yes, even nuclear).


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 5:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
Which is all fine and dandy to research alternative sources of fuel and energy, however, its another thing for special interest groups to create a scare tactic (such an energy crisis) and use it for political leverage to create laws for their own benefit.


RE: Step in the right direction
By kiwik on 11/30/2007 9:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
Because it's always better to simply wait the day when the oil companies say "oops, there's no more oil" and start doing something.


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 9:37:33 PM , Rating: 1
Or because its better to fight something that doesnt exist?

As I said, alternative fuels are great if we can produce them to the consumer at a cheaper price than oil. But until then, its no use issuing a false "energy crisis" on the basis that oil might be gone in 10 years (which has been said 10 times in the past 100 years).

Ever heard the phrase "dont quit your job until you have another one"? Exactly, dont put up a flag for oil, until you actually have a full production viable second option.

All your false "hype" does is damage the economy and drive prices up even further.


RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 11/30/2007 9:38:31 PM , Rating: 1
It doesn't really work like that in the real world. In reality, the oil production will decline for a long period before it "runs out." And more specifically, the decline will drive prices up, which will cause more exploration offsetting the decreased production, and so on. And at some point as oil prices continue to rise other forms of energy production will be relatively cheaper. So the market solves the problem without any need for idiot politicians to "solve the crisis."


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 9:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
Geez tom - are we on the same page today or what?


RE: Step in the right direction
By bobbronco on 11/30/2007 10:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
Awwww... Isn't that cute. Group hug everybody!


RE: Step in the right direction
By Rovemelt on 12/1/2007 12:04:53 PM , Rating: 1
Tom, you are making huge assumptions here regarding the free market and oil and energy consumption.

Demand can change rapidly, and the rate of worldwide oil consumption can outgrow production. Also, you're assuming oil production will follow an orderly decline as it becomes more rare. If we ignore the issue and just hope that prices modulate consumption and that prices perfectly match the rules of supply and demand, you are asking for a real crisis.

You generally don't solve a crisis, rather you suffer through the consequences for not preparing for the crisis. So politicians should use all the information available to estimate risk and act accordingly. Diversifying your energy supply can only help to dampen the energy cost spikes that we are currently experiencing here in the us and give us more options in the future. Compared to fighting wars for oil, alternative energy sounds like good research investment to me.


RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 12/1/2007 12:08:43 PM , Rating: 4
Why would demand change rapidly? Worldwide demand is a function of the level of the global economy, which is basically incapable of making large step changes.

Why would supply change rapidly? You think it's possible that a large number of wells around the world will all dry up at the same time without any warning?

I think my assumptions are pretty valid.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Rovemelt on 12/1/2007 1:15:26 PM , Rating: 1
Demand is rapidly changing because economic activity in China and India is increasing and they have a huge population between the two countries. As they put more cars on the road, oil demand will change rapidly.

World petroleum production peaked in November 2005 at some 86 million barrels of oil a day, and has been declining slowly ever since. And this is while oil prices were rising and have reached a near record high when corrected for inflation. Things like tar sands and whatnot are being used to fill demand, but worldwide demand keeps rising and these other fuels are more expensive to extract/process.

Here's a recent Time article on peak oil.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1...

I don't think a large number of wells will simultaneously dry up overnight, but there's plenty of data to suggest a few large oil fields will dry up in less than a decade.


RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 12/1/2007 2:28:06 PM , Rating: 3
With respect to supply, you're making two assumptions:

1. That the current production level is being determined solely be availability of the natural resource itself. There are clearly a number of other factors at play, e.g., large amount of M&A activity in that industry over the past 5-10 years as just one example.

2. That the current "peak" is a global peak, and not just a local "peak." If you look at oil production trends over history, you'll see a number of production decreases. From the perspective of that point in time, each one probably was thought by some to be "peak oil," even though they weren't.

Also, high oil prices drive more oil exploration and development, but with a lag factor. Today's $100 oil prices will probably drive supply higher, but it may take a few years to work through the system. Remember, it wasn't very long ago (just a few years) that oil was around $20.

Time is about as alarmist as the news media come. Remember, this is the same publication that made much ado about the impending global ice age in the 1970's. Sensational articles sell magazines. Try to look beyond Time.

Finally, China and India are increasing their demand which is being felt by global markets, sure, but that growth is well-known and understood and tracks their economic growth. It's not like some huge spike that is happening that was not anticipated. People in that field are not naive, you know.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Ringold on 12/1/2007 4:09:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
People in that field are not naive, you know.


I'm glad someone finally said what underlies the error of these guys argument; belief that business is just entirely ignorant and all the billion dollar international conglomerations will just wake up one morning and really say "Woops! Oil's all done. Run for the hills!" That's so ignorant it's frightening.

Long, long before that, prices will, as you pointed out Tom, go up as the quantity supplied dwindles. At each additional price level, more and more alternative sources of generating electricity become viable. Even at current levels there's huge amounts of venture capital flying all over the place for alternative energy research.

As prices and technology make these sources viable, we'll see nat-gas fired plants turn off, get scrapped, and be replaced with 'Technology X'; perhaps a nuclear plant, perhaps something that an engineer is cooking up right now. China and India, which Rovemelt pointed out, is already undeniable evidence that this process is ongoing; they're building about as many nuclear plants as they can.

The free market is hard at work in China, and it would be here if not for a regulatory environment that slows down the process of change.

Not to mention, Rovemelt, what we're seeing now, if you care to research it, is the consequence of the 90s when oil flirted around with $10/barrel. It made no sense to start exploiting exotic new oil sources. Now the industry is scrambling. You'll also note, again if you care to look, that most all oil producers, even the small CANROY's, are expanding their proven reserves over time faster than they are depleting them. Clearly this wont last forever, but it may well last many more decades.

A bunch of people with no business experience, no working knowledge of economics, and most certainly no experience in the oil field all scare-mongering over impending oil crisis. Yeah, you're all a real credible source. :P


RE: Step in the right direction
By sinful on 12/1/2007 4:51:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It doesn't really work like that in the real world. In reality, the oil production will decline for a long period before it "runs out."


Well.... it's also in the best interests of the companies controlling production to lie about the amount they have left.
So it's less likely to decline gradually than it is to decline in abrupt, unforseen drops.

If available capacity suddenly drops 10% in a year, prices would absolutely skyrocket, unforseeably, and only the countries that have prepared in advance are going to have a buffer from these flucuations.

In other words, your statement would be true if the "other team" wasn't lying, and we could instantly ramp up alternative energy production at the drop of a hat.

Neither of those are true, so the "do nothing" approach means we'll basically be gouged for energy prices in the interim period while we ramp up production - probably paying a premium to do so in a short period rather than over a longer period of time.


RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 12/1/2007 4:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
So basically you're suggesting that we set our energy and economic policy based on a conspiracy theory that oil producers are all lying about their ability to supply? LOL, I'm sure not convinced.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Rovemelt on 12/1/07, Rating: 0
RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 12/1/07, Rating: 0
RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 12/1/2007 2:37:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The oil companies operate in their own self interest, not in the interest of Americans.

I agree - and that's what companies are supposed to do. If the oil companies did not do this, then the shareholders must insist that the management be replaced at once.
quote:
From this we'll get policies that don't benefit Americans and it will continue because WE DON'T HAVE ALTERNATIVES.

Who do you expect to provide those alternatives? Answer: the same kinds of energy companies that you are bitching about already. And guess how much you'll pay for the "alternative" energy? Answer: Probably more, since it costs more to produce, more than you're paying now for energy.

Of course the exception to the above is nuclear power, but I don't think that's what you mean by "alternative." But the environmentalists have made damn sure that, at least in the US, increasing our energy production from nuclear power is going to be a steep uphill battle to say the least.


RE: Step in the right direction
By JonnyDough on 11/30/2007 10:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Technically, the earth is finite - as long as we don't have 7 billion people like we do now.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Hellfire27 on 11/30/2007 4:31:47 PM , Rating: 3
The problem with global warming is that the wonderful Al Gore is always spouting off about how global warming is our fault and that if you don't drive a Prius you're going to hell. Global warming is a NATURAL PHENOMENON which may have been slightly augmented by human activity. History proves this; and so do non bias, non paid off scientists. Al Gore had his cronies find evidence to help his theory, not to find the actual answer. That is a huge researching flaw in my opinion.


RE: Step in the right direction
By wordsworm on 11/30/2007 11:13:47 PM , Rating: 1
The irony is that the same people who claim that the sun is the reason for global warming are the ones who not too long ago claimed that global warming was an imaginary creation set up by idiot leftists. Now that data has come in that the sun is heating up the earth, the people who claimed global warming didn't exist now agree that it is happening, but that it's the sun's fault.

The sun may in fact be heating up the earth more than before. However, dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere will only exasperate the situation. Furthermore, we need to preserve the natural ecosystem of the earth. We already feel the consequences of mankind's presence on earth in terms of how badly damaged nature is.

This is the real crux of the argument: There are many who think the earth was put here by God for man's use, and that we shouldn't worry about exhausting its resources. After all, Jesus will come back before then and the whole earth will be one nation under God.

Then there are those of us who tend to be skeptical of such nonsense.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Spacy on 12/1/2007 4:45:35 AM , Rating: 3
I do not normally try to make a strong statement on global warming, but in this case I would like to say something here about CO2 production. One volcano eruption can produce more CO2 and other harmful green house gases then all the worlds industry x10 (I think that is year 2000 states). The earth has always been able to deal with CO2 in the past, but the problem is now we have hurt the earths ability to use CO2. Oil spills in the ocean, Deforestations, and destruction of river water quality for shipping. this makes it much harder to deal with CO2 and to me a greater threat then our industry production levels. What ever hapend to save our rainforest's or clean up our oceans? We are getting more sunlight, but should this not mean growing more trees instead of use more AC?
just a thought


RE: Step in the right direction
By Rovemelt on 12/1/2007 1:40:28 PM , Rating: 1
The idea that solar activity changes alone are responsible for the recent warming trend has been debunked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 12/1/2007 1:58:24 PM , Rating: 1
Im not a cosmetologist, but I would also bet that those figures are also ones conducted by the scientist who say that man is responsible for global warming. Definately not an idependant study w/o political pressure or biases.

After all, the BBC has been nicknamed the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Rovemelt on 12/2/2007 12:05:36 AM , Rating: 1
The world must look like a truly magical place to someone who thinks like you.


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 11:20:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The world must look like a truly magical place to someone who thinks like you.

Actually, the world is a truly magical place to someone like me who thinks.

One who does not accept envronmentalist politcal propaganda as being fact. One who does not bow down to the hypocrisy of Al Gore.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Rampage on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 4:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes you will be rated down for it, because in no way have we actually stolen or taken control of any oil.

Id like for you to bring up cold hard facts to back up your statement before bashing your country for something thats false.


RE: Step in the right direction
By clovell on 11/30/2007 4:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
You'll get rated down for failing to have a critical thought on the subject.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Muirgheasa on 11/30/2007 7:41:09 PM , Rating: 1
OK, to those who rated this post down:

Why did the US invade Iraq?

Why does George W Bush refuse to answer the question "why did you invade Iraq"?

Why is it that when the US did invade Iraq, among the first targets for capture were oil wells?

Why is it that the US are (it seems) gearing up to invade Iran? Or at least, certainly threatening to go that way, despite the fact that their nuclear enrichment program is perfectly within international law. (On that point, the US ensuring no-one else gets nuclear weapons? In case, I dunno, they might use them? Funny, as far as I can recall only one country has ever used nuclear weapons to destroy life on a vast scale...).

I know this post seems as if I'm viciously anti-american; I assure you, I'm not. What I am, however, is an independent observer (I'm Irish, with no foreign roots that I know of, East or West), and I snort with derision every time someone says that there isn't any sort of energy crisis going on. We are, without a shadow of a doubt, going to run out of oil at some stage. Without oil we can't drive our cars, can't make plastic like we do now, can't make roads, can't make a huge number of other things either, without even talking about the number of oil-fired power stations.

I don't mind being modded down, but it would be extremely nice if "mdogs444" could tell me what exactly he means when he says that the US "hasn't stolen or taken control of any oil". What the hell was Iraq all about then?


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 9:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Id be happy to answer your questions with the facts that are widely available:

quote:
Why did the US invade Iraq?

The United States decision to go to war with Iraq stems back to the Clinton administration when the Iraqi regime refused to cooperate with UN Weapons Inspectors - they were refusing the handover of documents, refusing access to buildings, and actively relocating convoys from one place to another in a method of ongoing determent to hide weapons, although we don't know for sure the severity of the weapons. Clinton himself acknowledged to the American people, and the world, that Iraq had used WMD's (evidence of the gassing of the Kurds, in which the gas was manufactured by the Germans) and was actively rebuilding WMD's since the Gulf War and targeting Nuclear warheads for purchase. War itself was declared in 2003 by the United States Congress on the basis that Iraq possessed &/OR were actively pursuing WMD's in violation of the 1991 treaty. The Congress also voted to go to war on the basis that we could tackle a ruthless dictators regime, establish democracy, and eliminate the threat of Iraq ever attempting to attack our eastern seaboard, as well as eliminate the threat of attack to our Eurpoean allies. This is also why the inital declaration of war was also back by Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK, and Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain. Some cite a reason for war was because the US believed that Iraq had ties to Al Quaeda, which has never been proven, but what has been proven and was known prior to the delcaration were the ties to other terrist harboring countries in the Middle East (Iran and the Taliban Regine) and the collaboration of them together in exchanging weapons and money. Although we havent found the WMD's that many were expecting to find - although we as citizens do not know what we were expecting to find either, and anyone who says other wise doesnt know the difference between their head and a hole in their ass, its not out of the realm of possibility that there were in fact WMD's. We did give way too much notice to the Saddam regime in warning that we were coming and to get out...since we do know that many of the weapons convoys were mobile, its possible that the weapons may have been relocated to Syria before we got there. No one knows for sure...but what is certain is that at one point the weapons were there, as they were used on the Kurds.

quote:
Why does George W Bush refuse to answer the question "why did you invade Iraq"?

There is no reason for President Bush to answer such a question, becuase he himself, could never "invade Iraq" on his own. The President does not have the power to declare war, the United State Congress does - which was voted on by both Republicans and Democrats in an overwhelming fashion: The House of Representatives voted yes 296-133, and the Senate 77-23.
What most people fail to realize is that the knowledge of Iraq prior to declaration of war has gone back to before the Gulf War - the previous Bush and Clinton presidencies. The President himself does not conduct the research and intelligence on reasons to go to war, he is given the intelligence & documentation and has to take a stance on that intel, then pass it on to Congress for a vote to go to war. Congress themselves obtained the same information as the President did to make their decisions. So in short, President Bush did not "invade Iraq", the United States government system did. Now, whether you want believe or dispute the intel that was available to the government (which was also passed down from the Clinton administration) is up to you.

quote:
Why is it that when the US did invade Iraq, among the first targets for capture were oil wells?

The oil fields were not the first target for "capture". They were the first targets for defending. Big difference. When one wages war, the biggest leverage the opposition has is to take away the natural resources that effect the other side. The United States does not make a habit of attacking natural resources or civilian buildings, but rather military complexes and items of interest to the oppositions military in order to set them back - for example, radar systems, communications towers, etc. In short, we were not taking the oil fields, we were protecting the oil fields. And good thing too, because just as recent as a few days ago, islamic extremists attempted to plant bombs and small arms on one of the largest Saudi Arabian oil refineries.

quote:
Why is it that the US are (it seems) gearing up to invade Iran?

One of the biggest phrases out there is: What is the exit strategy for Iraq? Answer: Turn Right.
Turn "right" meaning head east directly into Iran. Iran is by no means an Ally of the United States, or most other European countries. In fact, Irans ties are closest with China and Russia - both of which are extremely not trustworthy. China has a contract to build new age fighter planes for Iran (courtesy of the Israeli design), and Russia is in ties to help Iran build their Nuclear facilities. Countries that have dictatorships and communism for government are not to be trusted - evidence of Russia, and the new age Venezuela & Hugo Chavez - and when they are trying to obtain massively destructive weapons to use as leverage for their own power in an unstable region, makes it even worse. Now, lets not go on too much because war on Iran has not been declared...but make no mistake, there nuclear enrichment program is not within law. Actually, there is no law allowing them to have one in the first place. The US is not even close to the only country to have nuclear weapons - the rest are: Russian, France, Great Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan, and China. Iran does not even acknowledge that the holocaust ever happened, and has commented that they want to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face of the map. They are not a democratic regime, but more like a Hitler--esque regime. And lets not bring in the debate on whether you or I think it was right to drop the atom bomb on Japan - it was well deserved, the right choice, and the exact event that deterred Japan from furthering itself in attacking Americans. In fact, it was that event that gave us enough power to disarm Japan from ever being able to have an organized military ever again.


RE: Step in the right direction
By MandrakeQ on 11/30/2007 9:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
I've never understood why the U.S. would invade Iraq on the basis of violating U.N. resolutions, when they did not in fact care that the U.N. was against an invasion in the first place.
I remember the most compelling reasons to go to war back then were based on overly optimistic military estimates and faulty intelligence that has now been debunked.


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 9:45:17 PM , Rating: 1
Not to mention that UN Resolutions are nothing more than mother who threatens her child with love.

The problem with the UN Resolutions are that if the opposition violates the resolve, there are no military actions as a backup plan. What is the point of threatening somone if you really arent going to do something anyway?

The UN has lost much of its credit and power over the years, and to some, has even become completely irrelevant. One reason is because they are allowing communist countries in the UN, such as Hugo Chavez & Venezuela.

Even their humanitarian welfare section has been recently questioned in that they are using the funds for their own agenda, as opposed to what the funds are supposed to be fore.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Rovemelt on 12/1/2007 12:46:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
One reason is because they are allowing communist countries in the UN, such as Hugo Chavez & Venezuela.


Venezuela is not a communist country, idiot. Did you pick up more of these facts from Faux News?


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 12/1/2007 1:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well if you havent noticed, or dont know what differences there are in governmental policies - socialism and communism are actually almost one and the same. Chavez is pushing for an "socialist" reform that he compares to Cuba. Not communism? He is trying right now to alter 69 parts of the Venzuelan constitution, to allow him to stay in power indefinately. So again, how is this not communism?


RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 12/1/2007 3:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree, especially to the average citizen, living under an extreme socialist regime is not much different than living under communist rule, even if academically the two forms of government are technically different.

I feel bad for the citizens of Venezuela who are tossing out their personal liberties until they have nothing left. The result is almost certainly Chavez turning into a brutal dictator. You just have to look at his idol (Castro) to see what his ideal is. Venezuela has some tough times ahead of it.


RE: Step in the right direction
By sinful on 12/1/2007 4:19:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
feel bad for the citizens of Venezuela who are tossing out their personal liberties until they have nothing left.


True, but the US isn't far behind.
Only our erosion of rights comes in the guise of protecting us from terrorists.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Muirgheasa on 12/1/07, Rating: 0
RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 12/1/2007 10:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1)There was, and remains, no justifiable reason to invade Iraq. That's why the UN attempted to stop the war going on.

Although I just explained the entire situation in laman's terms, you can choose to believe it or no. Doesn't matter, but the facts have all been laid out. As for the UN - we allow them to try and do things their way first, but if it doesn't work, we take matters into our own hands. As I've already explained, the UN is a corrupt agency. The UN didn't want war, because they feared the reporcussions of extremist opposition would hit Europe before it would hit American. Evidence by the bombings all over europe in recent years.

quote:
2)It is utter hypocrisy to site anything to do with the UN (weapons inspectors, for example) as a reason for going to war, given the US' extremely contemptuous attitude to the UN in general.

The US does not much care for the UN, and that much is blatently true. But we still allow them to try and do things their way first. The UN are a bunch of liberal pantywaist, in which if they try to talk to the opposition and it doesnt work, they just say oh well.

quote:
3)If there is, or ever was, any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, I've yet to see it. Please provide links, if such things exist.

Were you sleeping during the 80's and 90's? In which Saddam himself acknowledged his use of gas on the Kurds?

quote:
4)You not trusting communism is not sufficient reason for invading a country. I don't trust you either, to be brutally honest.

Seeing as how I dont really care if you trust me or not, as Ireland is just another dot on the map in Europe and not a major player to begin with. I guess after Hitler, the Russian Cold War, and the Cuban Missle Crisis, we still don't have a reason not to trust Communist countries. Sigh.

quote:
5)Bush refusing to justify the invasion of Iraq (to an Irish journalist, if you must know. The name escapes me just now, but she was thrown out of the press briefing for daring to mention such a thing) is extremely relevant. He may not have made the decision single-handedly, but he is president, and as such has overall responsibility - if he can't justify it, then there's something very seriously wrong. Killing tens of thousands of people is something you need to be extremely sure about; not having answers at this stage just isn't good enough.

As said before, Bush is not solely responsible, and the president himself does not address everyone's questions, and shouldnt. The question itself, if you actually find it valid, should be asked to the several hundred people in Congress on why they voted to go to war. After all, all the war itself and all the continued funding for the war is given to the President from them. You can make an attempt to question 1 person, when the fact is that over 400+ people are really the ones making a joint decision.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Muirgheasa on 12/2/2007 10:14:15 AM , Rating: 1
1)Not in order of your own post, but the most blatant example of how uninformed you are: in response to my point about trust, you said

quote:
Seeing as how I dont really care if you trust me or not, as Ireland is just another dot on the map in Europe and not a major player to begin with. I guess after Hitler, the Russian Cold War, and the Cuban Missle Crisis, we still don't have a reason not to trust Communist countries. Sigh.


I thought it was particularly interesting how you put a sigh in there at the end, as if to say that I'm the idiot in this situation. What you actually did there was site Hitler as an example. He was a fascist, and almost as militantly anti-communist as he was anti-semitic. You then said "the Russian Cold War". Guess you're not familiar with the phrase "it takes two to tango" then, no? And finally the Cuban missile crisis. Yet another example of utter American hypocrisy (just in case anyone's wondering at this point, I have visited the US, and really liked both the place and the people. Just not the government policies). I don't suppose the Russians might have felt a little bit threatened by the American missiles in Turkey then, no? Given your ignorance of European affairs (see Hitler comment above) I wouldn't expect you to know how close Turkey is the Russia, but check it out on a map. You might be surprised.

Back to the chronological order of your post:
2) You may have thought you explained it in layman's terms, but I'm afraid all you actually did was say that there actually were WMDs. I suppose if you count anyy sort of gas weapon then yes, you're right. Most people, however, think WMDs= large scale nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Of which, I think I'm right in saying, Iraq had none. Interestingly, you also say that the Germans sold weapons to the Iraqis; possibly true, I don't know, but what I do know is that the American arms manufacturers sold vast quantities of weapons to Hussein's government (also, I can only assume you know that Hussein received huge support from the US government for quite a number of years). Internationally, there are few who now claim that the Iraq war was not started under false pretenses. All you've done is site reasons given at the time, without any consideration of the fact that a)there actually weren't any WMDs found, b)there has been an utter failure to establish democracy and c)when was there ever a suggestion that Iraq would invade the US? Even in his most wildly inaccurate statements Bush has never stated that as a reason for going to war, nor has anyone else (as far as I'm aware, anyway. Please do quote if I'm wrong).

3)You didn't address the US hypocrisy about the UN. You just said, essentially, if we don't like what they're doing we'll ignore them. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is one of the main reasons given for invading Iraq. Why is it OK for the US to ignore UN inspectors yet the US invades other countries willy-nilly for the same thing? I put that in bold, so hopefully you'll try and defend Guantanamo bay and the we'll all know you're an idiot and I can get back to doing some more important stuff then debating the merits of a war everyone else acknowledges to be indefensible (you might notice that you're posts are being rated down while mine are going up? Goes to show the tide of general opinion, I think).

4) I've addressed this already, but I suppose it just comes down to a differing definition of WMDs. Whatever floats your boat.

5)Already addressed. This point alone makes me think that most of your other "facts", which I haven't bothered to verify, are very shaky indeed. Draw your own conclusions.

6)The president is the head of state, and has ultimate responsibility. He was holding a press conference, and had a journalist thrown out and permanently banned from all future press briefings for daring to ask for a solid reason for the war. You seem to be suggesting that ignoring a question like that is perfectly reasonable. I'd suggest that it shows that he has something to hide. Much like you ignoring my point about UN inspectors in Guantanamo, really.

I hope I've addressed all your points there. Oh, except for the one about me being form Ireland, therefore my opinion not being valid. I guess that doesn't strike you as a somewhat racist view? As you yourself would say(type), sigh.

Or *sigh*, which I personally prefer, but whatever.


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 11:15:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I thought it was particularly interesting how you put a sigh in there at the end, as if to say that I'm the idiot in this situation.

Id say that's a given.

quote:
I suppose if you count anyy sort of gas weapon then yes, you're right. Most people, however, think WMDs= large scale nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

That is true - everyone thinks we would find nuclear warheads - again, a worst case, hyped up argument. I have not once defended the government for not finding any WMD's per say. What I have defended is that the intel that was given to the president and congress, that stems down from Clinton's administration, gave them the decision to go to war. There wasn't anyone at the time who disagreed with the reasons. Its much easier to criticize a decision after the outcome, than it is to do so before the events have taken place.

quote:
there has been an utter failure to establish democracy

I beg to differ. Even the democratic party in congress in the US, who is anti-war, have confirmed the established democracy in the country - what is being criticized is the speed in which democracy is taking place. Even the head anti-war speaker on the democratic side, John Murtha, who is blantantly against the war said last week that the surge is in fact working.

quote:
when was there ever a suggestion that Iraq would invade the US?

I dont even remember that as being a reason to go to war, or even a threat told to the american people in regards to the war on Iraq. The point of going to war in the middle east is to fight the extremist on their own land, before they can make an attempt to have more terrorist actions on our soil - such as the 9/11 events, as well as the several other foiled events that have been disrupted before they took place.

quote:
You just said, essentially, if we don't like what they're doing we'll ignore them. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is one of the main reasons given for invading Iraq.

Well, in a partial way to what I said, yes thats true. But I didnt exactly put it that way. The United Nations is a nanny organization that threatens, but does not punish - even you can admit that. Throwing out sanctions to a country, without the threat of military force is not going to make that country agree to the sanctions. However, in this case, and at that time, the country was still in a pissed off mood after the 9/11 tragedy, and wanted to take out all forms of terrorism - even those not directly linked to 9/11 out of fear that it may happen again. I personally do not care for the UN, nor do I care if we went against their wishes. Im not saying you are wrong for having a different opinion - but then again, being from opposite ends of the globe, and you not being directly affected by the 9/11 events, I wouldnt expect you to carry the same opinion.

quote:
so hopefully you'll try and defend Guantanamo bay

What is there to defend about Guantanamo? Are you pissed that we are accused of not being civil with the oppositions forces that were detained in military action? I could care less. In fact, I could care less if we just executed them on spot. War is war to me. I dont see the point of being civil with war criminals caught during war.

quote:
Goes to show the tide of general opinion, I think).

I could care less about popular opinion on the internet. But there enough people on this post also voicing the same views as myself.

quote:
The president is the head of state, and has ultimate responsibility.

The President has the ultimate responsibility AFTER war has been declared. You need to brush on your US governmental policies. As stated before, the members of congress voted to go to war, the President does not have the ability to declare war. Now, if you want to pose a question of why we are still at war, then thats a different story, and a pertinent question. Regardless of your view on the war, and I dont care whether people agree with the war or not, you do not go to war, and then back out. The problem is that is its shows you are soft, and lets people walk all over you. When you make a military threat, it needs to be backed up at all costs. This goes for all nations, not just the US.

quote:
He was holding a press conference, and had a journalist thrown out and permanently banned from all future press briefings for daring to ask for a solid reason for the war.

Again, not the entire story...just one side of it. You should also post the attitude in which the question was asked, as well as the outbursts of the reporter. Asking a question is fine..but if you cannot act accordingly in the presence of the President, as well as on during a conference like that, then you do not deserve to be there. Same as the kid who got tazed and kicked out of the speech in Florida several months ago.

quote:
Much like you ignoring my point about UN inspectors in Guantanamo, really.

I dont really see the point in this question. Its already widely known that the US does not promote the UN, nor does it follow the UN actions. So what would the US care about what the UN says about its military compounds or the actions it takes?

quote:
Oh, except for the one about me being form Ireland, therefore my opinion not being valid. I guess that doesn't strike you as a somewhat racist view?

Racist? yeah, it must be racist since im of Irish heritage. Also, making a statement about a country, is not making a statement about the heritage of its people, thus has nothing to do with racism. It does however have to do with a person making blanket statements about the US, who is not even from the US, nor is he directly involved in the war by any means. Where do you get your information, the BBC? Oh wait - the "biased broadcasting corporation" which is what its referred to as by people of the UK?

quote:
Or *sigh*, which I personally prefer, but whatever.

Im sure you would prefer "whatever", as its typically a statement used by blonde valley girls who have no sense of intelligence.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Muirgheasa on 12/2/2007 1:02:22 PM , Rating: 1
The reasons I'm not willing to continue this debate (asides from my having better things to do with my time):

1)You haven't given a reason for the war - in one post you say that it was because of the Iraqis having WMDs, then you say that that was only ever a worst case scenario in another post, completely contradicting yourself.

2)It's stopped being a debate, and become an argument. Once we start calling each other idiots the intellectual merits of the conversation start to disintegrate.

3)You sited communism as a reason, followed quickly by "the Russian Cold War", as if the US wasn't every bit as in the wrong as the USSR (it wasn't Russia at the time).

4)You fail to realise that the Cuban missile crisis was only ever a crisis because the US didn't want to let the USSR onto an even footing (the US having had missiles in Turkey). I made this point and you ignored it, because in your view the US can do no wrong.

5)You sited 9/11 as a reason for a war, despite the fact that it was an act of a group of individuals, many of whom lived in the US, and waging a war was in no way going to defend against a similar attack in the future.

6)You seem to think that as I'm from Ireland I couldn't possibly have a valid opinion on anything, because of course I couldn't possibly have any news source other than the BBC (of course, you don't know that Ireland not only has its own state broadcaster (RTÉ), but also receives news channels from all around the world, as well as print media. But you really don't care how well informed I am, do you? Just because I'm not American my opinion isn't valid in your eyes).

7)You contradicted yourself on Iraq invading the US - first you said that it could be avoided by invading Iraq, then you said it wasn't an issue. You keep changing your tack.

8)Every point I've made that I think "Well that's conclusive. What can he say to that?" you've ignored.

9)You seem to accept that Iraq, in the state it's in now, is categorically better than it was before. You refuse to accept that the US was wrong to invade, and especially wrong to invade without an exit strategy .

10)You are a complete hypocrite, who believes that Guantanamo bay is quite OK because, for some reason, you think it's only enemy combatants that go there. It's even been admitted that many of those in Guantanamo have never been convicted "of a specific crime". I mean, how the hell can anyone in their right mind defend that? Even the enemy troops surely shouldn't be subjected to such utter depredation and humiliation. What would the US public say if US personnel were put in such inhumane conditions after being captured? Vietnam springs to mind. If the US is really the leader of the free-world, why the hell are they still partaking in such utter barbarism. (On that point, you still haven't said anything about the US "re-defining torture" - is that OK? Or would I not understand because all my media sources must be biased?)

11)And finally, you think Hitler was bad, so he must have been a Communist. Anyone with even a basic grasp of 20th Century knows that Communism and Fascism are two completely seperate and distinct modes of Government.

Oh, and also I get irritated every time I read one of your posts because of you lack of basic spelling, grammar and syntax (and that's even allowing for the fact that I don't know every American spelling of words, so I had to give you the benefit of the doubt in some cases). I learned English as my second language and I'm still more accurate than you are (I suppose you didn't know that about Ireland either? You assumed everyone here speaks English as a first language. Although you blatantly don't care, so I don't know why I'm bothering to make the point).

And also, "whatever" may have certain connotations in the US, but when you're speaking to someone from another country you might try to accept that words like that have subtly different meanings in different countries.

Good day.


RE: Step in the right direction
By masher2 (blog) on 12/2/2007 2:57:45 PM , Rating: 3
> "You sited [sic] communism as a reason, followed quickly by "the Russian Cold War", as if the US wasn't every bit as in the wrong as the USSR..."

Whoa, whoa...what sort of revisionist nonsense is this? The US was "just as guilty" as the USSR? Has knowledge of any history prior to 1980 truly degenerated to this state?

Did you forget the USSR's *stated* goal of world domination, their crushing control over their satellite states, the invasions of Hungary, Finland, Czechoslavakia, Afghanistan, and others, the Berlin Wall, the massive human rights violations, the murder of 20+ million of their own citizens and uncounted others? The massive slave-labor gulag camps? All those killed for no other crime than trying to escape the brutal repression? The reprisals taken against the families of those who did? How about the fact that Western Europe asked (begged, rather) the US to prevent Soviet takeover of the entire continent?

One doesn't expect today's youth to be fully conservant with past history, but this level of ignorance is truly inescusable.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Muirgheasa on 12/2/2007 4:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
I apologise, that was a throwaway comment without any real thought involved. What I really meant was that the Cold War itself, as a war, like any other war, had two sides to it; the arms buildup, space race etc. were all fought (if that's the right word) by both the USSR and the US.

I am perfectly aware that the USSR had, shall we say, less than noble goals throughout that time period? If we're talking about a cold war though, I wouldn't immediately consider any invasions as part of it. After all, if we're going to do that, then it's really not such a "cold" war at all, is it?

As for killing millions of their own population, while undoubtedly wrong in the extreme, again I wouldn't automatically think of it as part of the war. Even the holocaust in Nazi Germany (which I fully acknowledge as one of the worst atrocities in human history) I wouldn't necessarily think of automatically as part of WW2. I'm not denying it happened, and that it was the same people who were involved in both events (as in, the Nazis), but I just wouldn't necessarily immediately regard the two as one, but rather as two events which occurred side by side, you get me?

I'm not for one second suggesting that the USSR didn't commit atrocities, but the idea, to me, that it was a "Russian Cold War", quite outside of the fact that it was the USSR at the time, seems to me ridiculously simplistic, which is all I was really trying to say.

I hope that clears that up; I realise I'm coming across as quite anti-American in this thread, which really isn't the case, but I suppose ill-considered comments like that don't do me any good, do they?


RE: Step in the right direction
By JustTom on 12/1/2007 7:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, many are claiming that the Bush administration knew before the invasion that there were no WMDs


Come on, if the Bush Administration was positive there was NO WMD why wouldn't they just plant some? Special OPS forces were in Iraq for months before the invasion, there was plenty of opportunity. Whatever you might think of Bush's intelligence someone in the administration would have realized that finding no WMD would be seriously bad politically.


RE: Step in the right direction
By sviola on 12/3/2007 8:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
Well, as far as I know, Specs Ops usually work under cover, so, I would guess that it would be kind of difficult for Spec Ops to carry a continental nuclear missile (which is sort of huge) without anyone seeing it...


RE: Step in the right direction
By JustTom on 12/5/2007 12:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
Who needed a nuclear missile? All you needed was WMD. A few spare mustard gas or sarin canisters. Not to mention easily forgeable documents and records.
Bush never even implied Iraq had nuclear weapons, that they were pursuing yes but not that they currently were in possession of such weapons.
It amazes me that people believe a conspiracy so large as to include previous American administrations, French, German, British and Russian intelligence along with the current administration. Because Bush is so uber competent is the reason I suppose.


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Step in the right direction
By Muirgheasa on 12/1/2007 8:03:41 AM , Rating: 5
Ah now, come on. Who's actually discussing the possibility that we're not going to run out of oil? I have never, until now, heard a single person question that assertion. Oil is something that's taken thousands, if not millions of years to form. To suggest that there is an any way significant chance that oil might be forming faster than we are burning it is simply ludicrous.

As for us sitting on the largest oil reserves we ever have, the fact remains that oil prices are still consistently rising at a level much higher than inflation. When will we run out of oil? We don't know, but we will, and the sooner we develop more sustainable fuel sources the better.

Perhaps you're quite happy sitting in your 12 litre SUV belching fumes into the atmosphere, believing that the war in Iraq was about WMDs (of which there were none), or terrorists (of which you've created more), or removing a US approved dictator from power, or whatever else. In the meantime the rest of us will get on with trying to find a power source which won't cause any more otherwise pointless wars; then maybe we can all get along, right?

Of course, then the president's cronies would have to find some other hugely corrupt way of making their money; or maybe they'd go moral and get into the heroin business?


RE: Step in the right direction
By MrX8503 on 12/1/2007 9:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the big questions in response to your statemets are: when will it happen? and, is it worth altering our entire economy when we know it wont happen soon?


I can understand how doing something drastic over nothing may not be worth it, but it seems to me that it's in human nature that people only start taking action when something bad happens.

The best action to take is a preventive measure, but as a society we fail at this miserably because we often convince ourselves that nothing is wrong.

It may not be worth it to wait and see what happens when we actually run out of resources, whether it be the next 10 years or 10,000 years.


RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 12/1/2007 12:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can understand how doing something drastic over nothing may not be worth it, but it seems to me that it's in human nature that people only start taking action when something bad happens.

That's not true - most of the decisions people make are not made during or in reaction to a crisis, especially vehicle purchase decisions, home purchase decisions, etc. Many times people are already factoring in things like energy cost and environmental impact into their consumption decisions.

Since oil prices will rise as supplies become less plentiful, I fully expect that consumers reacting to market pressures will drive the solution of that problem. There's no need to get worked up about it or try to get idiot politicians to come up with a solution.


RE: Step in the right direction
By lco45 on 12/3/2007 7:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
It is a crisis, it's just happening in slow motion so it's a bit tricky to see.

Look harder...

Luke


RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 11/30/2007 3:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
The current energy situation is a "political crisis," as in something being touted by politicians as a real serious problem in order to use fear to cause the electorate to move into some specific direction.

Obviously rising gas and oil prices is bad for most of our economy, and for many individuals, but it's hardly a "crisis."

The housing credit crunch and foreclosures in the housing sector, now that's more in the direction of what I might consider a "crisis."


RE: Step in the right direction
By Gnoad on 11/30/2007 3:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sure. Gas costs $3.27 here, and oil is above $90 a barrel.


RE: Step in the right direction
By therealnickdanger on 11/30/2007 3:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
If I do my math correctly, that's still cheaper than gas should cost - given inflation.

I'd rather see Google build a oil refinery and a nuclear power plant... but whatever, it's their money.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Gnoad on 11/30/2007 3:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
Either way, it's not easy for lower income people to pay their bills. My father has his own business pouring concrete, and just the cost of gas for transporting his equipment can be hundreds of dollars a week. Certainly not everybody is hauling immensely heavy loads, but when he turns down jobs because of gas prices, something isn't right.


RE: Step in the right direction
By TomZ on 11/30/2007 3:51:56 PM , Rating: 1
I can sympathize, however, it's still not a crisis, since that situation doesn't seem to exist on any larger scale.

Anyway, it seems to me that your father should raise his prices the fuel costs, just as most other businesses have. His competitors face the same costs, so they have probably already done the same.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Spuke on 11/30/2007 4:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
There's a ton of money in concrete and I find it hard to believe that your dad has to turn away jobs because of gas costs. The money earned just pouring a friggin sidewalk going from the back to the front of my old house (1800 sq ft one story) on a 7000 sq ft lot equals about 83 fill ups of my truck (and it's not a diesel). I have to raise the BS flag on this.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Gnoad on 11/30/2007 4:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking small town stuff, mainly basements and foundations, and many times people live a good ways away from us. His truck is quite old, and forms are really heavy. I'm not saying he does this often, I just know of at least 1 or 2 occasions its happened, likely due to excessive travel.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Spuke on 11/30/2007 9:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
A foundation or a basement involves way more concrete than my crappy sidewalk. I still fail to see where he losing money here. Even a few hundred dollars a week in gas would pale in comparison to a foundation job. Unless he's not charging enough for the work. I would raise prices to compensate for the extra gas if it's really hitting the wallet.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Parhel on 12/1/2007 12:10:33 AM , Rating: 3
My dad owned his own concrete company as well which he inherited from his father. It was in Chicago. We did a lot of sidewalks, especially before my grandfather died, and there was a time where you couldn't walk for very long in the City without seeing one that we had done.

There was always plenty of business. But, it's not nearly as profitable as you seem to think. My father is a very smart businessman who has made a lot of money in his lifetime. But he closed the concrete company because he was making more working at his 9 - 5 job.

First of all, the equipment is expensive and takes a serious beating every day. Materials aren't all that cheap either. Also, pouring concrete is hard work. Believe me that skilled concrete workers aren't making minimum wage, and it takes quite a few guys to do most jobs.

Gas may not seem like a major cost in all that, but consider that you need a concrete mixer, a dump truck, a vehicle for your crew, and assorted gas powered tools and utility vehicles which you use all day long.

Now, subtract that money from the already small profit margin, and you could be in some trouble. Rising gas prices have had a huge effect over the last few years on the cost of running nearly any business. Concrete, I would imagine, more so. No BS.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Oregonian2 on 11/30/2007 6:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's a crisis when the solution takes longer to implement than the time you have left to have it done. Not proven, but I have a feeling that we're already in crisis mode but it just hasn't been declared yet. Or at least not grokked yet.

I think "the" solution even if going like gangbusters now would take at least 30 years to get into place.


RE: Step in the right direction
By Doormat on 11/30/2007 11:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
And according to inflation, my 3GHz PC should cost $1M compared to the 1950s. Technology reduces the price of goods - look the entire electronics industry. Just because inflation exists doesn't mean prices for everything goes up.

If anything the price of oil is one of the largest controling factors of inflation - with higher gas prices, the costs get passed on to you, the consumer. If gas prices were to stay below $2/gal, we'd see the prices retreat as competition takes over and companies can afford to undercut their competitors.


RE: Step in the right direction
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 3:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
The price of crude oil per barrel is a shell game, much of which can be attributed to Wall Street. The recent price increase of oil from $60-100 per barrel is really not because of supply & demand.