Iceland the First Country to Try Abandoning Gasoline

[ieani]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1518556&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Looks like a great time to move to the home of my favorite band: Sigur Rós

[joepunk]

I hope it works out for the residents of Iceland.

[clayj]

The obvious advantage that the Icelanders have is that there's something like 350,000 people in the whole country, and the number of gas stations numbers maybe 100. So it's easy for Iceland to install hydrogen pumps at every gas station and a hydrogen-distribution infrastructure.

I hope it does work. Maybe it'll give folks here proof that it can work.

[Macaddicttt]

I think this is great. Iceland has a huge source of energy (volcanos, etc.), but that needs to be converted into something useful first.

I came across this little theory for converting the US in a similar way. The problem with hydrogen is that you need to make it using electricity. Right now we make our electricity with things like gas, oil, and nuclear power. That doesn't help much. But we have a huge, untapped source of energy: wind.

The problem with wind energy now is 1) the things that produce it are ugly and take up space, and 2) the wind isn't always blowing when you need it to be. The solution then is to have a whole bunch of wind power generators in the middle of nowhere that just create hydrogen. That way you have plenty of hydrogen created from a clean, renewable source that can power just about anything.

I think this is a very smart plan, but I'm afraid I don't think it'll ever happen because of the huge changes to the infrastructure that would be necessary.

[clayj]

I think this is a very smart plan, but I'm afraid I don't think it'll ever happen because of the huge changes to the infrastructure that would be necessary.Not to mention that the very same environmentalists who complain about how we're wrecking the environment with oil ALSO complain about how the giant windmills (which make electricity from air) kill birds.

Iceland has a lot more open space, a lot LESS birds, and people with a lot more common sense than we have here.

[Chundles]

Good, the quicker we move away from petrol, the better off we'll be. Keep all that oil for making plastic so we can still have Macs.

Solar is the most abundant form of energy we have, it's just a matter of getting the high efficiency that is available now for lower cost. The cheap stuff at the moment isn't efficient enough and the really efficient stuff is waaay too expensive.

Congrats to Iceland for having the guts to be the first to try and wean us off our gas-guzzling ways. It's now time for the car manufacturers to follow suit with more aerodynamic, less fuel-thirsty, lighter, smaller good looking cars. The sooner we stop buying those huge trucks the better.

[MacAztec]

But we have a huge, untapped source of energy: wind.

The problem with wind energy now is 1) the things that produce it are ugly and take up space, and 2) the wind isn't always blowing when you need it to be. The solution then is to have a whole bunch of wind power generators in the middle of nowhere that just create hydrogen. That way you have plenty of hydrogen created from a clean, renewable source that can power just about anything.

We DO have Wind Farms in teh U.S., I live in Palm Springs, CA, and there is about 10 miles of them down here. They only put them in spots where the wind is ALWAYS blowing, and they did station the ones they have perfectly. They are between a mountain pass, about 20 miles wide, and cooler pacific air blows in to the hot desert, and the wind is ALWAYS blowing out there, no matter what. There are TONS of the wind generators.

[Abstract]

I think this is a very smart plan, but I'm afraid I don't think it'll ever happen because of the huge changes to the infrastructure that would be necessary.

That, plus the US oil companies would never allow it to happen. Your government would also not let that happen so easily, although they'll try to make it appear as though they're trying.

Maybe in the future when Bush isn't in power.

[jakochampolska]

yay for iceland, I love that place!
our science teacher was talking about this today, well not about iceland going all hydro but just about the future and how we should all be learning how to start using different sources instead of gas/oil.
But I heard in iceland a couple guys use vegetable oil to keep their motors running. haha cool idea.. :)

[clayj]

That, plus the US oil companies would never allow it to happen. Your government would also not let that happen so easily, although they'll try to make it appear as though they're trying.

Maybe in the future when Bush isn't in power.I think you overestimate the influence of ANY president. The US oil industry has been around for more than 100 years... you could have Ralph Nader in office and he STILL wouldn't be able to rein in the oil industry.

What will make hydrogen succeed in this country is a few things:

1. Installation of hydrogen pumps at gas stations.
2. Development of an effective hydrogen-generation process that doesn't consume more energy than it produces.
3. Availability of hydrogen-powered vehicles.

It's going to be a VERY incremental process... but eventually H will be cheaper than gasoline, and the see-saw will tip over.

[joepunk]

In the central US they have been using their left over crops of corn to fuel vehicles, make environmental friendly containers, edible packaging peanuts, etc. One of my teachers grew up popping those edible peanuts in his mouth and letting them dissolve. When he moved to teach here in WA he found out the hard way that packaging peanuts are not edible and do not dissolve in the PNW.

[Macaddicttt]

I think the trick to converting a country as large as the US to hydrogen would be producing cars that could use both gasoline and hydrogen. That way, whenever the hydrogen infrastructure reaches some place new, the people will be ready for it without restricting the people in those places that don't have hydrogen yet to older cars.

[MacAztec]

That, plus the US oil companies would never allow it to happen. Your government would also not let that happen so easily, although they'll try to make it appear as though they're trying.

Maybe in the future when Bush isn't in power.

Haha, you really hate Bush don't you? Whenever something turns political, you always say "With Bush as President, this will NEVER happen...", or something along those lines. You don't even live in the U.S. do you?

[maya]

I think the trick to converting a country as large as the US to hydrogen would be producing cars that could use both gasoline and hydrogen. That way, whenever the hydrogen infrastructure reaches some place new, the people will be ready for it without restricting the people in those places that don't have hydrogen yet to older cars.

Cost of the vehicle would be too high.

[ibook30]

In the central US they have been using their left over crops of corn to fuel vehicles, .

Don't forget abot Willie's Bio Diesel !
Willy Nelson has been promoting Bio Diesel for a few years now. They sell it at a couple of places around me. Unfortunately my vehicle does not drink it.

Iceland is doing a great thing. I hope more follow and show the rest of the world alternatives - after all - having choices is good. And the current energy situation in the US is very bad.

[Thomas Veil]

Haha, you really hate Bush don't you? Whenever something turns political, you always say "With Bush as President, this will NEVER happen...", or something along those lines. You don't even live in the U.S. do you?Since when is that a prerequisite? ;)

[combatcolin]

Hating Bush is a global thing.

One thing the rest of the world can agree on, loathingthe Toxic Texan.

Now, back to energy, after Russia's little "spat" with Ukriane about gas (NOT the stuff Americans put in there cars!) prices the whole of Europe has gone into panic overdrive as they get a huge % of there gas from them.

If something bad happens to the pipeline we would all have a bad, and cold, day

[solvs]

Not to mention that the very same environmentalists who complain about how we're wrecking the environment with oil ALSO complain about how the giant windmills (which make electricity from air) kill birds.
You know, I've never heard that... but I could totally see something like that happening. Just know that not everyone who cares about the environment is that bad. We had windfarms in Tehachapi when I lived there, and except for the whole Enron thing, they are quite nice.

On topic, my car runs on CNG as well as gas, but this sounds much better. Get with it US!

[skunk]

Haha, you really hate Bush don't you? Whenever something turns political, you always say "With Bush as President, this will NEVER happen...", or something along those lines. You don't even live in the U.S. do you?Thank God for small mercies....

[Kernow]

Iceland has always been one of the more environmentally friendly countries (in terms of pollution/fossil fuels at least), and it is good to see they are experimenting with ways to reduce this further.

As was pointed out above, it is a lot easier to try this with a country of only a few hundred thousand people, but hopefully if this works then it can be adopted by other countries.

[pseudobrit]

I think this is great. Iceland has a huge source of energy (volcanos, etc.), but that needs to be converted into something useful first.

I came across this little theory for converting the US in a similar way. The problem with hydrogen is that you need to make it using electricity. Right now we make our electricity with things like gas, oil, and nuclear power.

The US generates a plurality (I'd venture a majority but I'm too lazy to look it up) of its energy from coal. Gas (that's natural gas; gasoline isn't used for electricity generation) is used sparingly to fill in during peaks and unexpected spikes.

Liquid fuels account for a very small fraction of generation. Nearly all the power comes from coal, nuclear and hyrdoelectric stations.

That doesn't help much. But we have a huge, untapped source of energy: wind.

The problem with wind energy now is 1) the things that produce it are ugly and take up space, and 2) the wind isn't always blowing when you need it to be. The solution then is to have a whole bunch of wind power generators in the middle of nowhere that just create hydrogen. That way you have plenty of hydrogen created from a clean, renewable source that can power just about anything.

I think this is a very smart plan, but I'm afraid I don't think it'll ever happen because of the huge changes to the infrastructure that would be necessary.

No, it'll never happen because the amount of energy it would take to build enough windmills to generate power that is transmitted (and lost) to hydrogen separation plants (which lose lots more) which is shipped to fueling stations (still losing more) and put into hydrogen cars (also wasteful) would be more energy than they make.

Hell, to just build the windmills themselves would be require more natural resources and energy than we have. The amount of materiel in each one of those puppies is mindboggling.

People have thought of this stuff before. Even oil companies, who have no doubt looked ahead in efforts to outpace their competition in the future. Yet they stick with oil. Is this because they're stupid? No, it's because there is no alternative to oil in the US model.

Like it or not, we're stuck. Until we are forced to change. By which time it may be too late to change.

[Lazyhound]

the giant windmills (which make electricity from air) kill birds.
Stop spreading this, please.

[skunk]

Stop spreading this, please.Why? Is it wrong?
Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
ALTAMONT PASS, Calif. — The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects.

But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.

After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy.

The size of the annual body count — conservatively put at 4,700 birds — is unique to this sprawling, 50-square-mile site in the Diablo Mountains between San Francisco and the agricultural Central Valley because it spans an international migratory bird route regulated by the federal government. The low mountains are home to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm

[Ugg]

Why? Is it wrong?


Altamont was unfortunately sited on a migration route, even more unfortunately, many of the birds in danger are endangered species. What the article fails to mention however, is that:

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) estimates that at least 4 million to 5 million birds are killed annually in communication tower collisions in the United States" Add this to the estimated 98 million birds killed annually by collisions with glass windows, especially those of tall office buildings, and it becomes clear that tall structures pose a very real threat to bird populations. (1)

The Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP), a Toronto-based group studying bird and building collisions since 1993, estimates that 100 million to 1 billion birds die each year due to collisions with human-built structures across North America alone. You can visit the FLAP website at www.flap.org for more information.

Currently, companies seeking appropriate places to locate commercial wind turbines take the existing bird populations and migratory routes into account before they permanently site a facility. Brian Kilkelley of Green Mountain Energy, reports no documented bird kills at the Garrett, PA facility since they went on-line in May 2000.


Link (http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageID=116)

One has to wonder whether articles like the USA Today's are merely propaganda.

PCBs, commonly used in transmissioin lines are still found in the environment due to their bioaccumulation effect even though they were banned in 1978. Emissions from coal fired power plants put tons of mercury into the environment every year. The harm to birds is much greater form mercury than it is from windmills once again due to its bioaccumulation. There is no bird safe solution, there are ways to minimize the impact on birds. In the US though, I'm convinced that much of the anti wind lobby is backed by property owners and birds are used as the strawman.

Windpower keeps jobs in the country instead of importing them to corrupt regimes punch drunk with power from their oil receipts. Wind is no panacea but it can provide a clean alternative to fossil based fuels.

[zimv20]

nice post, ugg. i'd also like to add wavefarms to the list of energy technologies we need to invest in.

[skunk]

Altamont was unfortunately sited on a migration route, even more unfortunately, many of the birds in danger are endangered species.

One has to wonder whether articles like the USA Today's are merely propaganda.

PCBs, commonly used in transmissioin lines are still found in the environment due to their bioaccumulation effect even though they were banned in 1978. Emissions from coal fired power plants put tons of mercury into the environment every year. The harm to birds is much greater form mercury than it is from windmills once again due to its bioaccumulation. There is no bird safe solution, there are ways to minimize the impact on birds. In the US though, I'm convinced that much of the anti wind lobby is backed by property owners and birds are used as the strawman.

Windpower keeps jobs in the country instead of importing them to corrupt regimes punch drunk with power from their oil receipts. Wind is no panacea but it can provide a clean alternative to fossil based fuels.Fair enough. Should have done my homework.:o

[takao]

actually together with wind, sun and _water_ a lot of alternative power can be produced... especially with the last one

why are ordinary river power plants always ignored/forgotten ? i mean they are hardly new tech.. more like centuries old (just like wind power)

and with wave power generators coming up it gets even more important for the future

[Ugg]

actually together with wind, sun and _water_ a lot of alternative power can be produced... especially with the last one

why are ordinary river power plants always ignored/forgotten ? i mean they are hardly new tech.. more like centuries old (just like wind power)

and with wave power generators coming up it gets even more important for the future

Here in the US there is a big push to tear down dams, some of them hydro-electric producers some of them not, due to declining fish stocks. Hydro is a good source of electricity but can be interrupted due to low water levels. I like the idea of wave generators, there's a lot of coastline out there just waiting to be tapped.

[solvs]

Stop spreading this, please.
I believe he was reffering to the fact that environmentalists say this to argue against using windmills. As pointed above, it does kill birds, but with better measures, it's a lot safer than other things that harm them even more. Unless you mean he shouldn't be saying environmentalists claim this, because some do. As noted above though, that may just be an excuse for people with other motives.

[cslewis]

Windpower keeps jobs in the country

That is, of course, until the windmill maker outsources and the service jobs are snapped up by illegals. :)

[Ugg]

That is, of course, until the windmill maker outsources and the service jobs are snapped up by illegals. :)

Yeah, well there's always a dark side to worry about. I 'spose even the land rent could be exported if some multi-national bought up land in proposed windmill sites.

[Lazyhound]

I believe he was reffering to the fact that environmentalists say this to argue against using windmills. As pointed above, it does kill birds, but with better measures, it's a lot safer than other things that harm them even more.
The number of birdkills from windmills isn't much higher than other structures of similar height; this whole meme started from the one site someone mentioned above where the farm was installed in a valley along a migration route, more or less funnelling the birds into the blades.

EDIT: i read gud. http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9448/emotdowns2od.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[cslewis]

Yeah, well there's always a dark side to worry about. I 'spose even the land rent could be exported if some multi-national bought up land in proposed windmill sites.

Of course, if those peak-oilers are right, we have a hell of a lot more things to worry about than outsourcing, multinational corporations and birdkills.

And after reading this (http://www.energybulletin.net/12242.html) and this (http://www.energybulletin.net/12226.html) I'm pretty sure those peak-oilers are right.

[Ugg]

An interesting article (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article340398.ece) in the Independent about how the UK government is trying to hamstring vegetable oil as a source of fuel. I didn't realize that it was such popular alternative, nor that the cost was so low, until the blairites moved in and started taxing it outrageously. Will non-fossil fuels ever see the light of day if the oil companies have their say?

[Lazyhound]

An interesting article (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article340398.ece) in the Independent about how the UK government is trying to hamstring vegetable oil as a source of fuel. I didn't realize that it was such popular alternative, nor that the cost was so low, until the blairites moved in and started taxing it outrageously. Will non-fossil fuels ever see the light of day if the oil companies have their say?Vegetable oil is actually a pretty terrible energy source (think of all the energy involved in farming and processing it, as well as soil depletion, etc).

[Ugg]

Vegetable oil is actually a pretty terrible energy source (think of all the energy involved in farming and processing it, as well as soil depletion, etc).

I agree but it is a good short term solution. Minimal modifiications are necessary for existing diesel vehicles.

Brazil has been selling cars that run on ethanol for years now, with the increase in oil prices, it has stepped up production. Most of Brazil's ethanol comes from sugar cane. The result has been an increase in sugar prices around the world as Brazil was a significant sugar producer. This means that sugar producers in developing countries get better prices for their harvests. Not a bad thing IMO.

Vegetable oil is cheap to produce and could also reduce US exports of oil producing grains, therefore allowing developing countries a fair share in the world commodity markets. It would be better if the US, the EU and Japan simply eliminated price supports for agriculture but that's a ways down the road I think.

Of course, the very real scenario of millions of people dying because crops are being used to produce vegetable oil or ethanol is possible.

There's no easy answer but the more that can be done to wean the world from fossil fuels, the better. I'm in favor of the shotgun approach; try out as many options as possible until the right one comes along. Solar, wind, vegetable oil and ethanol can only ever provide a portion of our energy needs but it would be a travesty not to look at all possibilities.

[solvs]

The number of birdkills from windmills isn't much higher than other structures of similar height
We know, that was our point. ;)

[pseudobrit]

I agree but it is a good short term solution. Minimal modifiications are necessary for existing diesel vehicles.

Brazil has been selling cars that run on ethanol for years now, with the increase in oil prices, it has stepped up production. Most of Brazil's ethanol comes from sugar cane. The result has been an increase in sugar prices around the world as Brazil was a significant sugar producer. This means that sugar producers in developing countries get better prices for their harvests. Not a bad thing IMO.

Vegetable oil is cheap to produce and could also reduce US exports of oil producing grains, therefore allowing developing countries a fair share in the world commodity markets. It would be better if the US, the EU and Japan simply eliminated price supports for agriculture but that's a ways down the road I think.

Of course, the very real scenario of millions of people dying because crops are being used to produce vegetable oil or ethanol is possible.

There's no easy answer but the more that can be done to wean the world from fossil fuels, the better. I'm in favor of the shotgun approach; try out as many options as possible until the right one comes along. Solar, wind, vegetable oil and ethanol can only ever provide a portion of our energy needs but it would be a travesty not to look at all possibilities.

What we need for biofuels is a model where a 100% renewable fuel source is being produced.

It does no good if we're growing soy for biodiesel by enriching the soil with natural gas-derived fertilizer and spraying petroleum oil-derived pesticides. And then we use petrodiesel-fueled implements of husbandry to work the soil.

The agricultural model that exists today, while very economical for making food and very intense with the density of production per acre, does so by sacrificing massive amounts of energy and is horribly wasteful in that regard.

That is the huge barrier to trying to grow our way out of petroleum dependence. And it's terribly ironic that we'd try to get more energy independent by relying on one of the most energy hungry industries.

It's a bit like trying to get more independent by moving back with your parents to save money.

[Ugg]

What we need for biofuels is a model where a 100% renewable fuel source is being produced.

It does no good if we're growing soy for biodiesel by enriching the soil with natural gas-derived fertilizer and spraying petroleum oil-derived pesticides. And then we use petrodiesel-fueled implements of husbandry to work the soil.

The agricultural model that exists today, while very economical for making food and very intense with the density of production per acre, does so by sacrificing massive amounts of energy and is horribly wasteful in that regard.


I agree. In Brazil's case, thousands of acres of forest are being cleared every year to provide more land for sugar cane. Sugar cane, like corn, is a very greedy plant and can rapidly deplete soils. Much less the fact that the burning of cane fields is highly destructive of air quality and local diversity. Much of the soybean crop is genetically modified.

I don't think that biofuels are a long term answer to our problems but I do believe that it is important to explore every possible option.

[pseudobrit]

I don't think that biofuels are a long term answer to our problems but I do believe that it is important to explore every possible option.

I think naturally safe and stable (as opposed to hydrogen) and highly portable (as opposed to battery) power of liquid hydrocarbons is something that will never be replaced altogether. There are some applications where nothing else will fit the bill.

It's a shame we aren't looking at it in a more renewable flavour, because if you think about it, biofuels are a roundabout form of solar energy.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I will provide a US point of view on Iceland and the European POV as I have read in prep of my first overseas trip.

We are a nation of consumers here in the US. We are use to leaving many lights on, even when we are not in the room. We are used to daily and long showers. We want 100 watt bulbs in each of lamps. I looked at hertz.com for a car rental for upcoming trip to Iceland, and most did not have AC. Not that it it is needed in Iceland at nay time of the year. But we Americans are spoiled.

The geothermal energy that Iceland has so far shown the ability to tap, shows that they are willing to be a solution to a problem. As opposed to the US stance of a problem looking for a solution.

[Sedulous]

The obvious advantage that the Icelanders have is that there's something like 350,000 people in the whole country, and the number of gas stations numbers maybe 100. So it's easy for Iceland to install hydrogen pumps at every gas station and a hydrogen-distribution infrastructure.

I hope it does work. Maybe it'll give folks here proof that it can work.

You may be right that the population of Iceland is small, but that isn't what matters. They have a relatively similar proportion of cars/people and economy. So what if it costs the U.S. $5 billion to add/convert fuel stations to carry alternative fuels. A: That is only a fraction of the profit they will make, and B: This cost represents only a fraction of the cost oil damage does yearly; and that isn't even considering peripheral costs, like war.