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.

[mlyonsd]

Bush is an idiot for not pushing hydrogen in passenger cars.

[redbrian]

If you want a serious answer, it’s quite simple.

Geology, population and scale of country.

They are about the only country capable of this right now.

[go bowe]

bush is da debil...

[Chiefs Express]

If you want a serious answer, it’s quite simple.

Geology, population and scale of country.

They are about the only country capable of this right now.

I think that your first comment would have been sufficient. Facts that indicate that whoever thinks the U.S. could do that would only confuse their confusion with reality.

[Cochise]

That sounds great.... if you have a built-in active volcano/ice melting system and a country with a population the size of Colorado Springs. I think it might be harder to implement here though...

[Bowser]

They'll be the first country to get nuked.

[DenverChief]

If you want a serious answer, it’s quite simple.

Geology, population and scale of country.

They are about the only country capable of this right now.

BRAZIL ESTIMATED 2000 POPULATION 175,891,100


Brazil fills up on ethanol, weans off energy imports

Thursday, January 12, 2006

By David Luhnow and Geraldo Samor, The Wall Street Journal

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- After nearly three decades of work, Brazil has succeeded where much of the industrialized world has failed: It has developed a cost-effective alternative to gasoline. Along with new offshore oil discoveries, that's a big reason Brazil expects to become energy independent this year.

To see how, take a look at Gildo Ferreira, a 39-year-old real-estate executive, who pulled his VW Fox into a filling station one recent afternoon. Instead of reaching for the gasoline, he spent $29 to fill up his car on ethanol made from sugar cane, an option that's available at 29,000 gas stations from Rio to the Amazon. A comparable tank of gasoline would have cost him $36. "It's cheaper and it's made here in Brazil," Mr. Ferreira says of ethanol. If the price of oil stays at current levels, he can expect to save about $350 a year.

At current prices, Brazil can make ethanol for about $1 a gallon, according to the World Bank. That compares with the international price of gasoline of about $1.50 a gallon. Even though ethanol gets less mileage than gasoline, in Brazil it's still cheaper per mile driven. As a result, ethanol now accounts for as much as 20 percent of Brazil's transport fuel market. The country's use of gasoline has actually declined since the late 1970s. The use of alternative fuels in the rest of the world is a scant 1 percent.

Yet countries wanting to follow Brazil's example may be leery about following its methods. Military and civilian leaders laid the groundwork by mandating ethanol use and dictating production levels. They bankrolled technology projects costing billions of dollars, despite criticism they were wasting money. Brazil ended most government support for its sugar industry in the late 1990s, forcing sugar producers to become more efficient and helping lower the cost of ethanol's raw material. That's something Western countries are loath to do, preferring to support domestic farmers.

With government support, sugar companies and auto makers' local units delivered cost-saving breakthroughs. "Flexible fuel" cars running ethanol, gasoline or a mixture of both, have become a hit. Car buyers no longer have to worry about fluctuating prices for either fuel because flex-fuel cars allow them to hedge their bets at the pump. Seven out of every 10 new cars sold in Brazil are flex-fuel.

Brazil is also fortunate that sugar is the cheapest way to make ethanol and Brazil has the right conditions for growing the crop -- plenty of land, rain and cheap labor.

Despite these unique circumstances, Brazil's efforts are being closely followed by countries with big fuel bills. India and China have sent a parade of top officials to see Brazil's program. India, the world's second-biggest sugar producer behind Brazil, mandated in 2003 that nine of its states add a 5 percent ethanol mixture to gas. The Brazilian unit of Germany's Volkswagen AG, the first car maker to introduce a flex-fuel model in Brazil, has received 38 delegations from more than a dozen countries in the past year alone, VW officials say.

Brazil says its ethanol exports will likely double to $1.3 billion in 2010 from $600 million in 2005, largely to Japan and Sweden. These countries hope using ethanol -- which releases less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels -- will help them meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to cut emissions.

The U.S., which currently imports 60 percent of its oil, is watching Brazil's progress, too. Three members of the Senate Energy Committee recently visited, and Sen. Hillary Clinton has cited Brazil as a role model in cutting dependence on imported oil. When President Bush made a recent stop-over in Brasilia, Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva hosted a barbecue and described to Mr. Bush how the country has reduced its oil import bill, according to Brazilian officials at the meeting.

The most recent U.S. energy bill, signed into law in August, calls for more than doubling ethanol use by 2012. But U.S. ethanol, which is made from corn, costs at least 30 percent more than Brazil's product, in part because the starch in corn must be first turned into sugar before being distilled into alcohol. It may take the U.S. a few more decades to bring the cost of ethanol down to 80 cents a gallon -- equivalent to Brazil's most efficient producers -- according to the U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. trade barriers make Brazilian ethanol and its sugar expensive to buy.

Using carbohydrates instead of fossil-fuels to run cars is not a new idea. Henry Ford's first car was made to run on ethanol. So was the first spark-ignition car engine, developed by German Nicolas Otto in the second half of the 19th century. During World War II, the U.S., Brazil and other nations relied on ethanol to extend gasoline supplies. In the postwar period, however, gasoline was so plentiful and cheap that ethanol lost its allure.

The first oil shock in 1973, sparked by an oil embargo amid war in the Middle East, rekindled interest. Months after Syrian and Egyptian tanks rolled into Israeli-held territory, the price of oil quadrupled. Few places were hit harder than Brazil, which imported 80 percent of its fuel at the time. Within months, Brazil's economy slid into recession. About 40 percent of its foreign-exchange income was used to import oil.

"We faced a clear strategic challenge: How would we develop without oil?" recalls Eduardo Pereira de Carvalho, a finance ministry official at the time who now heads the Sao Paulo state sugar-growers' federation.

In 1975, Brazil's military leader, Gen. Ernesto Geisel, ordered that the country's gasoline supply be mixed with 10 percent ethanol, a level Brazil steadily raised to 25 percent over the next five years. That meant the same amount of gasoline would last longer. It also allowed Brazil to pay for fuel with local currency, in the form of payments to farmers.

To help the nascent industry, the government gave sugar companies cut-rate loans to build ethanol plants and guaranteed prices for their product. Sugar companies were delighted with the new market, which helped when prices were low. The government also funded Urbano Ernesto Stumpf, an ethanol researcher at a Brazilian Air Force laboratory, who was developing a car that would run on ethanol alone.

In November 1976, three ethanol-powered cars created by Mr. Stumpf -- a Beetle, a Dodge and a Brazilian car called a Gurgel -- embarked on a 5,000 mile trip from the air force's research lab in the southeastern state of Sao Paulo to the northern city of Manaus in the heart of the Amazon. The trip, christened "The National Integration Rally," aimed to demonstrate to Brazilians that ethanol really worked. When the government ordered state-owned companies to test ethanol engines in their fleet, the Sao Paulo state telephone company converted 400 gasoline cars into ethanol ones. They displayed the logo: "Powered by Alcohol."

After the 1979 Iranian revolution caused the world's second oil-price shock, Brazil sped up its efforts, initiating what became known as the Proalcool program. In Brazil, ethanol is called "alcool" (pronounced OWL-coal).

Brazil's new leader, Gen. Joao Baptista Figueiredo, ordered sugar companies to ramp up production. He also required state-run oil giant Petrobras to make the fuel available at filling stations. Car companies received tax breaks to get ethanol-powered vehicles into showrooms. By the end of the year, Italian car maker Fiat SpA was offering an ethanol-only car for sale. Within a year, every foreign and domestic auto company in Brazil had followed suit.

The cars were hard to start on cold mornings because ethanol burns at a higher temperature than gasoline. Creating a fuel with 10 percent ethanol makes little difference to a car's performance, but anything above that, researchers have found, can cause problems. The mixture can corrode metal engine parts because of its high water content, for example.

Nonetheless, the cars were big hits with consumers, largely because government price supports made the fuel 35 percent cheaper than gasoline at the pump. Ethanol also helps acceleration, an advantage in a country where Formula One racing is a national passion. By 1983, nine out of every 10 new cars sold in Brazil ran on ethanol alone.

While motorists grew fond of the made-in-Brazil fuel, there was a cost in the form of hefty government subsidies. Consulting firm Datagro, which counts Brazil's biggest sugar companies as its clients, estimates that Brazil spent at least $16 billion in 2005 dollars from 1979 to the mid-1990s on loans to sugar companies and price supports. The Datagro estimate doesn't include foregone revenue from tax breaks as well as other costs to consumers.

In 1986, after civilians replaced generals in Brazilian politics, the world price of oil plunged, endangering the government's pledge to keep the price of ethanol below that of gasoline. In the following years, the country was battered by hyperinflation, prompting the International Monetary Fund and other creditors to urge Brasilia to rein in spending. In 1989, President Jose Sarney started cutting ethanol price supports. Sales of ethanol cars plummeted and some Brazilians felt the entire experiment had been a waste.

But the ethanol market never dried up entirely, thanks largely to the decades of groundwork. Sugar companies continued to make the fuel and learned how to cut costs, encouraged by a state requirement that all gasoline be mixed with ethanol. Gas stations still offered the fuel, which is taxed at just nine cents a liter compared with about 42 cents a liter for gasoline, according to World Bank estimates.

While other countries were busy mapping the human genome, Brazilian scientists at the Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira, a research lab funded by sugar growers, were decoding the DNA of sugar cane. That helped them select varieties that were more resistant to drought and pests and yielded more sugar content.

The center is located in the heart of Brazil's sugar country, about two hours drive from Sao Paulo. Giant satellite images of sugar fields help researchers identify which variety will grow best in which part of the country, where to locate new fields and the best time to harvest. Over the past 20 years, the center has developed some 140 varieties of sugar, which has helped lower growing costs by more than 1 percent a year, according to Jaime Finguerut, the center's director of ethanol research.

Other improvements include using remains of processed cane to power sugar and ethanol plants, and using industrial waste from ethanol production to fertilize sugar fields. As a result, the productivity of Brazil's ethanol producers has steadily increased. In 1975, Brazil squeezed 2,000 liters, or about 520 gallons, of ethanol from a hectare, or nearly 2.5 acres, of sugar cane. Today, it's nearly 6,000 liters.

As gasoline prices soared in recent years, ethanol rebounded. By 2002, its price was again competitive with gasoline and old ethanol-only cars started recovering their prestige. Last year, thieves stole an ethanol-only, 1994 Ford Royale, owned by Francisco Baccaro Nigro, one of the engineers who helped develop ethanol-only cars. "I'm sure it's because ethanol is cheaper," Mr. Nigro says. "Thieves know this."

One last step remained. Some consumers were leery of buying ethanol cars because they weren't convinced the fuel would remain cheaper than gasoline.

Fernando Damasceno, chief engineer at the Brazilian unit of Italian car parts company Magneti Marelli, thought the solution was to create cars that ran on either fuel equally well. Ford Motor Co. had offered flex-fuel cars in the U.S. since 1991 but the Brazilians thought its flex-fuel device expensive and cumbersome.

Mr. Damasceno created a cheaper device by programming a standard car computer to constantly calculate the mixture of ethanol versus gasoline in the tank and adjust the engine accordingly. In 2002, the team sold the device to Volkswagen, which introduced its flex-fuel Gol the next year. Mr. Damasceno's black box is now sold by five major car makers in Brazil. Even Ford's Brazil unit uses the Damasceno device.

In Ford's newest ad in Brazil, an indecisive young boy can't decide between a pair of brown and red shoes. As a teenager, he can't pick between a blonde and a brunette at a party. The ad ends with the young man pulling up to a gas station in his Ford Ecosport. The attendant asks: "Alcohol or gasoline?" The man, happy he doesn't have to choose, raises two fingers, signifying both.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06012/637006.stm

[banyon]

I would just like to point out that Iceland's energy source is not techncally renewable. Once glaciers have melted, then an additional engery source would be needed to re-freeze the glaciers. Unless, of course, Mother Nature decides to help out and reverse the trend of increasing temperatures.

Still, I would long for leadership in this country that wasn't so blindingly tied to short-term profit maximization at the expense of all else.

[patteeu]

I would just like to point out that Iceland's energy source is not techncally renewable. Once glaciers have melted, then an additional engery source would be needed to re-freeze the glaciers. Unless, of course, Mother Nature decides to help out and reverse the trend of increasing temperatures.

Still, I would long for leadership in this country that wasn't so blindingly tied to short-term profit maximization at the expense of all else.

You mean kind of like leadership that would defy the short-term focus of lobby groups like the AARP to propose dramatic Social Security reform which would, for the first time ever, begin to move us away from an unsustainable fixed-benefit, pay-as-you-go, ponzi-scheme model toward an investment-based model that would be sustainable in the long term?

Or the kind of leadership that wouldn't respond to the 9/11 attacks by narrowly focusing on the group that had direct, operational ties to the 9/11 attack, but would instead strive to address the movement that spawned the attack (islamofacism) and the underlying issues that feed that movement (e.g. rogue nations who exploit islamofacist terrorists and the ongoing palestinian/Israeli conflict that impassions the islamofascists)?

Nah, you probably don't mean that. ;)

[jAZ]

You mean kind of like leadership that would defy the short-term focus of lobby groups like the AARP to propose dramatic Social Security reform which would, for the first time ever, begin to move us away from an unsustainable fixed-benefit, pay-as-you-go, ponzi-scheme model toward an investment-based model that would be sustainable in the long term?

Or the kind of leadership that wouldn't respond to the 9/11 attacks by narrowly focusing on the group that had direct, operational ties to the 9/11 attack, but would instead strive to address the movement that spawned the attack (islamofacism) and the underlying issues that feed that movement (e.g. rogue nations who exploit islamofacist terrorists and the ongoing palestinian/Israeli conflict that impassions the islamofascists)?

Nah, you probably don't mean that. ;)
No, definately not that kind of agenda-driven, lobbist-hand-in-their-pocket, faux-long-term kind of "leadership".

[Iowanian]

...that currently has given tax incentives that have sparked multiple wind, ethynol and biodeisel plants in the midwest, and just killed the asshole responsible for the death of 17 sailors on the USS Cole?

[jAZ]

...that currently has given tax incentives that have sparked multiple wind, ethynol and biodeisel plants in the midwest, and just killed the asshole responsible for the death of 17 sailors on the USS Cole?
Shoulda tried to do that in the 9 months before 9/11, huh?

[Iowanian]

Imagine the shitfit your crowd would have thrown if he'd dropped a few dozen tomahawks in a preemptive and retribution strike the first week in office........

I saw the documentary on Iceland, and am familiar with Brazil's bio program somewhat....More and more American farmers are forging relationships and business ventures in Brazil.

I'm all for putting 85% ethynol in every gas station in the country.

[Baby Lee]

Brazil fills up on ethanol, weans off energy imports
Guess that whole 'destroying the rain forest' crisis is as outdated a dreaming of blue turtles, eh?

[NewPhin]

Guess that whole 'destroying the rain forest' crisis is as outdated a dreaming of blue turtles, eh?

Screw the rainforest. We've gotta have somewhere to grow the palm trees for biodiesel!

[jAZ]

Imagine the shitfit your crowd would have thrown if he'd dropped a few dozen tomahawks in a preemptive and retribution strike the first week in office........
Acutally I don't think that would have been a problem at all. We had just been attacked and he had just received the report from recently completed investigation into the USS Cole.

He had every justification in the world to do something ... ... ... anything.

[mlyonsd]

Acutally I don't think that would have been a problem at all. We had just been attacked and he had just received the report from recently completed investigation into the USS Cole.

He had every justification in the world to do something ... ... ... anything.

So you would have openly agreed with the decision to invade Afghanistan before 9/11? Cause that's just about our only option for a remedy at that time.

[jAZ]

So you would have openly agreed with the decision to invade Afghanistan before 9/11? Cause that's just about our only option for a remedy at that time.
No, I didn't say that. I don't think ANYONE could have justified overthrowing the Taliban prior to 9/11 or something similarly major. Not Clinton, not Bush, not anyone, IMO.

But bombing isn't the same level of commitment (ground troops) as invasion. Lower bar, less resistance, easier to justify.

I believe with 100% confidence that if Clinton had had 1 more year as President, he would have ordered further attacks on bin Laden, and Afganistan. And I'm guessing there's a slightly less than 50-50 chance 9/11 would have been avoided.

Bush spent his energy in ways that he felt (or his advisors had him believe) were of great urgency. Things like Iraq and National Missle Defense. A guy in a tent in the desert wasn't a major threat, so he racheted down the urgency in the WH on the issue, and demoted his terrorism guy without actually replacing him with anyone.

None of that would have happened had Clinton been President another year, and we would have had at least a chance of averting 9/11.

[mlyonsd]

No, I didn't say that. I don't think ANYONE could have justified overthrowing the Taliban prior to 9/11 or something similarly major. Not Clinton, not Bush, not anyone, IMO.

But bombing isn't the same level of commitment (ground troops) as invasion. Lower bar, less resistance, easier to justify.

I believe with 100% confidence that if Clinton had had 1 more year as President, he would have ordered further attacks on bin Laden, and Afganistan. And I'm guessing there's a slightly less than 50-50 chance 9/11 would have been avoided.

Bush spent his energy in ways that he felt (or his advisors had him believe) were of great urgency. Things like Iraq and National Missle Defense. A guy in a tent in the desert wasn't a major threat, so he racheted down the urgency in the WH on the issue, and demoted his terrorism guy without actually replacing him with anyone.

None of that would have happened had Clinton been President another year, and we would have had at least a chance of averting 9/11.

You forgot IMHO. Cause 90% of that is pure speculation.

[patteeu]

No, I didn't say that. I don't think ANYONE could have justified overthrowing the Taliban prior to 9/11 or something similarly major. Not Clinton, not Bush, not anyone, IMO.

But bombing isn't the same level of commitment (ground troops) as invasion. Lower bar, less resistance, easier to justify.

You forgot "far less likely to be effective." Even after invading Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban, it took us 4 years to get this guy. But you think a few cruise missiles during the first months of the Bush administration would have done the trick? haha

I believe with 100% confidence that if Clinton had had 1 more year as President, he would have ordered further attacks on bin Laden, and Afganistan. And I'm guessing there's a slightly less than 50-50 chance 9/11 would have been avoided.

Does "I'm guessing" rank above or below "I'd imagine" when it comes to the likelihood of the things you say actually having a basis in reality? ;)

[banyon]

Guess that whole 'destroying the rain forest' crisis is as outdated a dreaming of blue turtles, eh?

Biodiversity and energy alternatives both involve sustainability. Sometimes you are going to have to make choices. Hopefully, the land being used to generate bioenergy sources haven't compromised too much of the virgin rainforest. Biodiversity is important for humanity's future in trems of understanding the food cycle, harvesting new sources of medicine, and expanding our scientific knowledge base. Needless to say, we (humans) come first. But we probably shouldn't cut it all down, for instance, to make Big Mac boxes or something. Painting all of environmentalism as the irrational extreme (PETA, for instance) is like saying all Christians are like Pat Robertson.

[banyon]

You mean kind of like leadership that would defy the short-term focus of lobby groups like the AARP to propose dramatic Social Security reform which would, for the first time ever, begin to move us away from an unsustainable fixed-benefit, pay-as-you-go, ponzi-scheme model toward an investment-based model that would be sustainable in the long term?

Or the kind of leadership that wouldn't respond to the 9/11 attacks by narrowly focusing on the group that had direct, operational ties to the 9/11 attack, but would instead strive to address the movement that spawned the attack (islamofacism) and the underlying issues that feed that movement (e.g. rogue nations who exploit islamofacist terrorists and the ongoing palestinian/Israeli conflict that impassions the islamofascists)?

Nah, you probably don't mean that. ;)

A long term fiscal policy that make Social Security solvent without compromising its structure or integrity. Sure. I'm for that. Bush didn't convince anyone that he was doing that.

And attacking Iraq to address Islamo-fascism is like attacking Norway to address 1930's fascism. The majority of 9/11 attackers and non-Afghani Al-Qaeda were in Saudi Arabia. Iraq was a secularist dictatorship. So, no. that's not long-term thinking, it's the wrong target. 10 years from now or 100 years from now.

[Loki]

You forgot IMHO. Cause 90% of that is pure speculation.

heh heh...

[patteeu]

A long term fiscal policy that make Social Security solvent without compromising its structure or integrity. Sure. I'm for that. Bush didn't convince anyone that he was doing that.

And attacking Iraq to address Islamo-fascism is like attacking Norway to address 1930's fascism. The majority of 9/11 attackers and non-Afghani Al-Qaeda were in Saudi Arabia. Iraq was a secularist dictatorship. So, no. that's not long-term thinking, it's the wrong target. 10 years from now or 100 years from now.

So what you really mean is that you want leadership that thinks like you. Big surprise. Don't we all?

[Donger]

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


Because our country is not as geo-thermally active as Iceland.

[Donger]

I believe with 100% confidence that if Clinton had had 1 more year as President, he would have ordered further attacks on bin Laden, and Afganistan. And I'm guessing there's a slightly less than 50-50 chance 9/11 would have been avoided.

Sure. Because he was so effective in the previous seven.

[CHIEF4EVER]

I'd like to see Biodiesel pushed here in the states. It is a renewable resource made from crops that we have an abundance of growing area for. Also would like to see Hydrogen pushed as an eventual replacement for all current fuels but good luck getting big oil and the big 3 to go along with that.

[banyon]

So what you really mean is that you want leadership that thinks like you. Big surprise. Don't we all?

Funny. :p I just want leadership that is concerned about our long term future and I'm not sure our political system allows that.