Iceland: Polution-free, renewable, clean energy... oil-free in less than 50 years

[jAZ]

How the heck is Iceland able to do this and we can't?

http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage4338.html

Publication Date:18-January-2006
09:00 PM US Eastern Timezone
Source:ABC News

REYKJAVIK, Iceland— Iceland has energy to spare, and the small country has found a cutting-edge way to reduce its oil dependency. Volcanoes formed the island nation out of ash and lava, and molten rock heats huge underground lakes to the boiling point.

The hot water — energy sizzling beneath the surface — is piped into cities and stored in giant tanks, providing heat for homes, businesses and even swimming pools.

The volcanoes melted ice, which formed rivers. The water runs through turbines, providing virtually all the country's electricity.

Iceland wants to make a full conversion and plans to modify its cars, buses and trucks to run on renewable energy — with no dependence on oil.

Water Turned Into Fuel

Iceland has already started by turning water into fuel — hydrogen fuel.

Here's how it works: Electrodes split the water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Hydrogen electrons pass through a conductor that creates the current to power an electric engine.

Hydrogen fuel now costs two to three times as much as gasoline, but gets up to three times the mileage of gas, making the overall cost about the same.

As an added benefit, there are no carbon emissions — only water vapor.

In the capital, Reykjavik, they are already testing three hydrogen-powered electric buses. The drivers are impressed.

"I like these buses better because with hydrogen you get no pollution," said bus driver Rognvaldur Jonatanlson.

By the middle of this century, all Icelanders will be required to run their cars only on hydrogen fuel, meaning no more gasoline.

"If we make hydrogen and use that as a fuel for transportation then we can run the whole society on our own local renewable energy sources," said Marie Maack of the Hydrogen Research Project.

Icelanders say they're committed to showing the world that by making fuel from water, it is possible to kick the oil habit.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm all for it. Let's get more hydrogen fuel-cell cars in America.

 

[jAZ]

I'm all for it. Let's get more hydrogen fuel-cell cars in America.

Can you call up your party and your president and get them to pay attention to someone other than their oil lobbists? If more people in the GOP pressed for this (and balked at all the effort we are putting into securing oil resources), the world would be a very different and better place.

 

[theHawk]

I'm all for hydrogen/alternative fuel vehicels too. Especially for beater cars, buses and trucks ect. But they better not ever make gasoline outlawed. I need for the power! Hydrogen engines suck powerwise.

 

[Avatar4321]

Can you call up your party and your president and get them to pay attention to someone other than their oil lobbists? If more people in the GOP pressed for this (and balked at all the effort we are putting into securing oil resources), the world would be a very different and better place.

Are you going to be saying this tomorrow night when he advocates building up the nuclear power industry to alleviate the demand for oil?

BTW Iceland is unique in that it is a small island that has alot of Geothermal heat and natural gas sources.

 

[Mr. P]

How the heck is Iceland able to do this and we can't?

...

We can do it too, they have been working on this for years.
Nice they did the leg work for us. :halo:

 

[MtnBiker]

Good for Iceland, I am all for additional sources of energy that do not include Middle East oil. I saw a program on the History Channel to showed Brazil in now about 40% ethanol consumption for the automobile fuel needs. The farmers of America would be great at providing grain our fuel needs.

I wonder what the GNP output of Iceland compared to USA is? And how many cross country commerce miles are driven in Iceland as compared to USA?

 

[jAZ]

Are you going to be saying this tomorrow night when he advocates building up the nuclear power industry to alleviate the demand for oil?

BTW Iceland is unique in that it is a small island that has alot of Geothermal heat and natural gas sources.

Nuclear <> Hydrogen.

Nuclear isn't the long-term solution we need. It's comes with TONS of pollution and TONS of risk.

 

[jAZ]

Good for Iceland, I am all for additional sources of energy that do not include Middle East oil. I saw a program on the History Channel to showed Brazil in now about 40% ethanol consumption for the automobile fuel needs. The farmers of America would be great at providing grain our fuel needs.

I wonder what the GNP output of Iceland compared to USA is? And how many cross country comerce miles are driven in Iceland as compared to USA?

biodiesel.

 

[manu1959]

seems a reasonable comparison

size: iceland is slightly smaller than kentucky

Population: 296,737

Natural resources: fish, hydropower, geothermal power, diatomite

Environment-current issues: water pollution from fertilizer runoff; inadequate wastewater treatment

Religions: Lutheran Church of Iceland 85.5%, Reykjavik Free Church 2.1%, Roman Catholic Church 2%, Hafnarfjorour Free Church 1.5%, other Christian 2.7%, other or unspecified 3.8%, unaffiliated 2.4% (2004)

Political pressure groups and leaders:
NA

Economy - overview:
Iceland's Scandinavian-type economy is basically capitalistic, yet with an extensive welfare system (including generous housing subsidies), low unemployment, and remarkably even distribution of income. In the absence of other natural resources (except for abundant geothermal power), the economy depends heavily on the fishing industry, which provides 70% of export earnings and employs 8% of the work force. The economy remains sensitive to declining fish stocks as well as to fluctuations in world prices for its main exports: fish and fish products, aluminum, and ferrosilicon. Government policies include reducing the budget and current account deficits, limiting foreign borrowing, containing inflation, revising agricultural and fishing policies, diversifying the economy, and privatizing state-owned industries. The government remains opposed to EU membership, primarily because of Icelanders' concern about losing control over their fishing resources. Iceland's economy has been diversifying into manufacturing and service industries in the last decade, and new developments in software production, biotechnology, and financial services are taking place. The tourism sector is also expanding, with the recent trends in ecotourism and whale watching. Growth had been remarkably steady in 1996-2001 at 3%-5%, but could not be sustained in 2002 in an environment of global recession. Growth resumed in 2003, and estimates call for strong growth until 2007, slowly dropping until the end of the decade.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ic.html

 

[MtnBiker]

biodiesel.

Huh?

 

[5stringJeff]

Nuclear <> Hydrogen.

Nuclear isn't the long-term solution we need. It's comes with TONS of pollution and TONS of risk.

Tons of what pollution? Steam? Nuclear waste can easily be stored underground, away from population centers, and shielded sufficiently so that there is no radiation leakage.

As far as risk, it is minor at worst. Nuclear reactors are made to withstand a moderate earthquake while taking a direct hit with a 727 - or at least, the one I visited was built that strong.

 

[5stringJeff]

biodiesel.

Biodiesel is better than gas, but is still expensive, and still outputs the same type of waste.

 

[KarlMarx]

Can you call up your party and your president and get them to pay attention to someone other than their oil lobbists? If more people in the GOP pressed for this (and balked at all the effort we are putting into securing oil resources), the world would be a very different and better place.

If only the GOP had all the power you seem to think it does! And the oil companies aren't omnipotent either.

The government doesn't develop markets.... why does everyone think it should?

Alternative fuels will not be used until they are economically feasible to use. That means that the price of oil will have to become much more expensive, the price of alternative fuels e.g. Hydrogen, become much cheaper or both. Add to that the fact that there is no technology that can create Hydrogen gas efficiently and cheaply, hydrogen based cars are still in the development phase and there is no infrastructure to support hydrogen. By infrastructure, I mean filling stations, hydrogen generation plants and delivery systems.

Hydrogen has its problems, too. For one thing, it causes iron pipes to become brittle.

No, until the market decides that alternate fuels make sense, people won't switch.

Another alternate technology is LED lighting. LED lamps use a fraction of the power as incandescent lights, practically last forever. You've actually seen LED lights on traffic signals and on automobile, truck and bus signal lights. So why aren't they used more? Because the price of them is still too high. An LED light can cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-80 dollars, compared with a couple of dollars for an incandescent light. Plus the amount of light given off by LED lights still isn't quite as much as incandescents. However, the good news is that the technology is slowly becoming cheaper, and LED lights are becoming brighter. However, the estimate is that LED lighting will not be widely used for about 20 years or so. That is primarily because of the cost.

Note: no government intervention was needed, the private sector developed this technology and it is slowly starting to make its way into the economy. The same will happen with alternative fuels.

 

[jAZ]

Huh?

http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/

It's available today all over the country, and it's clean burning.

 

[jAZ]

Tons of what pollution? Steam? Nuclear waste can easily be stored underground, away from population centers, and shielded sufficiently so that there is no radiation leakage.

As far as risk, it is minor at worst. Nuclear reactors are made to withstand a moderate earthquake while taking a direct hit with a 727 - or at least, the one I visited was built that strong.

You have to transport it to Nevada somehow. It's a MAJOR weak link in your reasoning. I'm not against nuclear power over oil. It's just not an ultimate solution.

 

[jAZ]

Biodiesel is better than gas, but is still expensive, and still outputs the same type of waste.

http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/
How do biodiesel emissions compare to petroleum diesel?
Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine results in substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter compared to emissions from diesel fuel. In addition, the exhaust emissions of sulfur oxides and sulfates (major components of acid rain) from biodiesel are essentially eliminated compared to diesel.

Of the major exhaust pollutants, both unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are ozone or smog forming precursors. The use of biodiesel results in a substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are either slightly reduced or slightly increased depending on the duty cycle of the engine and testing methods used. Based on engine testing, using the most stringent emissions testing protocols
required by EPA for certification of fuels or fuel additives in the US, the overall ozone forming potential of the speciated hydrocarbon emissions from biodiesel was nearly 50 percent less than that measured for diesel fuel.

 

[jAZ]

If only the GOP had all the power you seem to think it does! And the oil companies aren't omnipotent either.

The government doesn't develop markets.... why does everyone think it should?

Alternative fuels will not be used until they are economically feasible to use. That means that the price of oil will have to become much more expensive, the price of alternative fuels e.g. Hydrogen, become much cheaper or both. Add to that the fact that there is no technology that can create Hydrogen gas efficiently and cheaply, hydrogen based cars are still in the development phase and there is no infrastructure to support hydrogen. By infrastructure, I mean filling stations, hydrogen generation plants and delivery systems.

Hydrogen has its problems, too. For one thing, it causes iron pipes to become brittle.

No, until the market decides that alternate fuels make sense, people won't switch.

Another alternate technology is LED lighting. LED lamps use a fraction of the power as incandescent lights, practically last forever. You've actually seen LED lights on traffic signals and on automobile, truck and bus signal lights. So why aren't they used more? Because the price of them is still too high. An LED light can cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-80 dollars, compared with a couple of dollars for an incandescent light. Plus the amount of light given off by LED lights still isn't quite as much as incandescents. However, the good news is that the technology is slowly becoming cheaper, and LED lights are becoming brighter. However, the estimate is that LED lighting will not be widely used for about 20 years or so. That is primarily because of the cost.

Note: no government intervention was needed, the private sector developed this technology and it is slowly starting to make its way into the economy. The same will happen with alternative fuels.

Actually, the government will almost certainly have to lead such a shift. Oil and our dependence on it is obviously a threat to our national security. It's a limited resource and most of it is kept in the least stable region in the world.

And we aren't looking at a totally "free-market" with the oil industry. There are no practical alternatives because of the network effects of:
* the automobile manufacturers having no financial incentive to produce new engines anytime soon
* the oil extracting and refining industries having spent trillions of dollars building out networks that would be threated by new technologies
* gasoline distributors stuck responding to the whims of the networks and buyers

I'm a big proponent of business, you'll have to trust me on this. However, not all actions in this world are wise to be left to the profit motive for direction. Profits are a good thing, and in many cases de-regulation has been helpful over the years. But there are times when increased regulations are necessary because without it, market forces won't respond effectively to long-term catastropic concerns. The market just doesn't do long-term real well.

It's acceptable in these cases, IMO to increase to regulations and force companies to work to meet certain technical goals and objectives. We could have left space travel up to the free market, but we didn't and we are 100+ years ahead of the curve because of the Apollo Project. Heck, nearly 50 years later, the private sector STILL hasn't fully succeeded in reaching into space. And multiple nations gave them decades of research and billion upon billions of dollars of background in the field.

 

[Hobbit]

You have to transport it to Nevada somehow. It's a MAJOR weak link in your reasoning. I'm not against nuclear power over oil. It's just not an ultimate solution.

Actually, there are multiple facilities in the U.S. (though Nevada probably has one, as a state the can be used to test nuclear weapons). Then there's the fact that nuclear waste is not very voluminous. It only takes a small amount of Uranium or Plutonium to run a full sized power plant, and the waste is just as small. In fact, the grocery store chain I work for probably uses more diesel in a single day delivering food than all the nuclear waste transport trucks in the country use in a month.

 

[jAZ]

Actually, there are multiple facilities in the U.S. (though Nevada probably has one, as a state the can be used to test nuclear weapons). Then there's the fact that nuclear waste is not very voluminous. It only takes a small amount of Uranium or Plutonium to run a full sized power plant, and the waste is just as small. In fact, the grocery store chain I work for probably uses more diesel in a single day delivering food than all the nuclear waste transport trucks in the country use in a month.

Search "Yucca Mountain".

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa011202a.htm

America's nuclear waste, now amounting to over 40,000 tons and growing by 2,000 tons a year, is currently being stored at nuclear power plants and industrial reactors in 39 states. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed by Congress in 1982, the waste should have been transferred to a single federally licensed repository by 1998.​