Iceland to Voluntarily Go Oil Free in 30-40 Years

scottennis writes "Yahoo is carrying a story about Iceland's plan to wean itself from fossil fuels. The article states that Iceland is giving itself 30-40 years to kick the oil habit completely. Of course some researchers estimate that in 30-40 years we won't have much of a choice."

Comments

Hydrogen Fuel Cells+Geothermal

[Limburgher]

We could stand to take a page from Iceland's book on this one. They need to now to end heavy energy dependance, and we should to the same for that reason alone, to say nothing of the stacks of environmental benefits.

Re:Hydrogen Fuel Cells+Geothermal

[-brazil-]

Geothermal won't produce enough power.

In Iceland, it will. That's why it's easy for them to do this.

I believe that the only way to go is nuclear.

Unfortunately, fissionable stuff is running out just as quickly as burnable. Pray that we get fusion to work soon.

personally would love to see the middle east die when all their cash cows dry up. I hope to live that
long. I would imagine that most of the fighting would soon stop also, becuase of lack of funds.

Um.. you DO realize that fighting will only get much, MUCH worse when oil-dependant countries like the US duke it out for the last reserves?

Re:Hydrogen Fuel Cells+Geothermal

[Dexx]

Um.. you DO realize that fighting will only get much, MUCH worse when oil-dependant countries like the US duke it out for the last reserves?


Maybe this explains some of the US involvement in middle-east politics. Maybe they are looking as far ahead as Iceland is. Too bad they're doing it through gun sights.

Voluntarily? HAH!

[Bouncings]

Let's see... oil reserves are supposed to RUN OUT in 30, 40 years. And Iceland is going to voluntarily stop using oil. I guess that means the rest of us are going to be forced when it runs out? Go iceland. Being out of soda, I'm "voluntarily" going stop drinking soda until I find some more.

Now the IRS's "voluntary" tax system makes more sense anyway.

Re:Voluntarily? HAH!

[El_Nofx]

Typical Environmental B.S.

Environmentalist have been saying that we were going to run out of Oil for years, yet right now in the Gulf of Mexico drilling sites that were previously out of oil are re-filling themselves, allowing us to pump out more for next to nothing.
Every time the price of oil goes up more becomes available because it is economically feasable to drill it and sell it. There are HUNDREDS of capped oil lines where I live (North Dakota) because it isn't feasible to pump it up unless oil is around $25 a barrel, if oil was to go up that high you can bet they would be outthere sucking it up.

Many of you probobly don't know that during WWII Nazi Germany found a way to make Oil from Coal at around $40 a barrel (changed for inflation) we have enough coal in the ground to last 500 years.

Now this really isn't that big of a deal, because in 30 years it is predicted that most cars were be electric/fuel cell driven, we won't need gasoline for our cars/trucks. In their homes they can use electric heat, they have numerous geo-thermal plants that generate an enourmous amount of electricity cheaply.

Infact the entire theory of where oil comes from is under attack, Hyrdocarbons were thought to come from decaying plant matter in the ground but some scientist now think they come from methane deposits in the earth, methane is one of the most abundant gasses in the earth's mantle.

Don't take this for much, it is just crap.
Just like the rest of the environmental jibberish

Re:Voluntarily? HAH!

[letxa2000]

there are significant undeveloped oil prospects in the middle east (Afghanistan! ... makes me wonder about the real purpose of the war on terrorism

Couldn't resist the obligatory "Every war the U.S. fights is for money and oil." Think about what you're saying. Could it be that we're fighting the war on terror because we're hopping mad about some camel-jockeys wrecking three buildings with 4 of our airplanes and killing thousands in the process? Nah, it's all a hidden agenda to get at Afghanistan's oil...

Also, if you do more research, you will find that the United States has more oil than any other country on the planet. But they do not tap it. They are saving it in case it is needed later and buying up the oil from Saudi and such instead.

We don't use it mostly because, as high as gas prices are, they are cheaper than what we ourselves would produce it for. Why spend $3/gallon extracting and refining our own gas when we can import it for $1.50? We'll start using our own oil reserves as soon as other sources want to charge more for their oil than we can produce for ourselves. Simple economics.

That we will have oil when the world has sucked the Middle East dry is just an additional strategic benefit. :)

and in the arctic above Canada.

Re:Voluntarily? HAH!

[overunderunderdone]

As other posters have pointed out we are NOT going to run out of oil. It's very unlikely we will EVER run out of oil. The world is not static, it's dynamic. As one variable changes (the availablitly of oil) the system responds to that change naturally. As oil gets more scarce the price will go up. As the price goes up new reserves of oil that are more expensive to access become economically feasible and will be exploited (stabilizing the price at a new plateau). Worst case scenario converting coal to synthetic petrol becomes economically viable, and we have LOTS of coal. At the same time other methods of obtaining energy that are currently uncompetitive compared to oil will become competitive. Long before we "run out" the price will be high enough that those alternatives will be used as a matter of course and the comparatively expensive oil will be used as a fuel only in applications where it has some unique advantage that makes it worth the price. To some degree this has already happened. We used to use a lot more oil to generate electicity, today we use very little for that purpose. Most of our oil consumption is for transportation because oil has unique advantages for that purpose. Technology may change that - as the price of oil goes up it will almost certainly change that.

Until we actually DO start "running out" of oil we will continue to use it and only play around with alternative fuels at the margins because oil is plentiful and cheap and the alternatives aren't.

Long term goals

[cat_jesus]

It would be nice if the U.S. started making some long term goals. I think one of the biggest problems the government has is its band-aid approach to everything. We should be setting long term goals. Where should we be 20 years from now, 100 years from now, 1000 years from now? Much of who you are derives from the direction you take and the goals you set. How do you view someone who has no long term goals and no clear direction?

Cat

Re:Long term goals

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you view someone who has no long term goals and no clear direction?

..as a politician, stoking the whims of the public, who's willing to believe any politician on any statement, as long as it serves their perceived interests.

Some countries count it as a point of pride to have a culture that's largely: 1) reasonable; 2) stable; 3) fair; and 4) practical.

On no count can Americans really see themselves as such, and neither do they want to.

The American "dream" is wealth creation, to the exclusion of all other considerations. "Common wealth" can rot.

Re:Long term goals

[Silverhammer]

The US federal government is supposed to be merely a custodial bureacracy overseeing the day-to-day administration of national defense and infrastructure. That's why we have a constitution, to restrict the government's power to "plan" the lives of the people or the direction of the economy. That's why we have elections, to keep any single group or ideology from becoming entrenched. That's why we have a (mostly) free market, to give us the speed and flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and technologies.

I don't think you'd like it very much if the government actually had the power you ascribe to it.

Re:Long term goals

[cat_jesus]

There is no conflict with a custodial bureacracy overseeing the day-to-day administration of national defense and infrastructure and planning ahead. Certainly national energy policy falls within the parameters you define, why cannot long term energy policy fall within those parameters as well? I submit that it can(as can other things within the parameters you defined). Unfortunately our leaders and the average Joe are simply too myopic to consider the future.

This is the main reason I am against things like drilling for oil in Alaska. Shouldn't we be saving some of our finite resources for our grandchildren? Drilling in Alaska shows a complete lack of planning for the future generations at best, a complete disregard for them at worst.

Cat

Oil Free? Right....

[elmegil]

So they'll stop using direct oil products.

Are they going to stop using plastics? Other products made as further generation processing of oil? Products transported to iceland with the use of oil or derived products? What are they going to run their planes on?

Don't get me wrong, reducing oil dependance is a good idea, even if I don't believe the people saying we're running out in 30-40 years (in case you weren't paying attention, they've been saying that for...oh...30-40 years). But is it practical to say they will outright stop? I don't think so.

Oil supply runs dry! Story at 11!

[ergo98]

I find it humorous that oil supply graphs always show the supply peaking at the present, so it's not surprizing to see the including graph showing oil supply peaking in 2002, when suddenly it'll perilously start dropping as the world's supply of oil disappears. As much as I advocate and hope for advances in alternatives (or even just greatly increased efficiency), I find these graphs all to be universally a bunch of BS : Hell we're just starting to process the tar sands in Alberta, tar sands which have more oil than all of Saudi Arabia (interesting fact: The US gets more oil from Alberta than it gets from Saudi Arabia, yet watch the fascinating ass kissing the US plants on the asses of the Saudis. Very odd, and unjustifiable). When I was in Grade 4, some 20 years ago, I remember them showing us a similar graph perilously showing the drop that was imminent as the Earth's supply of oil was forseen to be gone within 10 years (no kidding).

Just a bit of pessimism about, well, pessimism.

Re:Oil supply runs dry! Story at 11!

[ergo98]

In 1973, the OPEC nations account for almost 75% of the world's oil production. Today it accounts for less then 40%, with countries like Russia, Canada, Mexico, etc, becoming big producers. My point is moreso that the US administration still treats the Middle East like it's 1973, treating the situation as if they have nothing to lose by shutting off the tap when the current situation is that they have everything to lose by shutting off the tap (hence, they no longer are in the driver's seat)

Well, this is easier for Iceland

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they benefit from incredible geothermal power reserves naturally - it's just a matter of converting their already overwhelming amount of energy into something to propel vehicles.

The U.S. will have a tougher time of it - but every day we wait, our long term stability becomes more dicey.

Re:Oh those silly Greens...

[TGK]

For those of you that care the editorial written by Mr Bartlett referenced above is the result of work done by the National Center for Policy Analysis. A rather conservitive group whos self proclaimed mission statement includes the following:

The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.

I think it's safe to say that any thinktank looking for a way to turn the worlds problems over to private corporations has a vested interest in demonstrating that there is no energy crisis.

Also please note that the theory upon which all of this argument is based is one put forth by a Mr Thomas Gold. An Astronomer. Not a geologist... an Astronomer.

Furthermore I should point out that no one said we were running out of fossil fuels at a frightening rate. There's lots of coal down there. It's a pain in the arse to get out and will cause more environmental problems than we know what to do with (coal has all kinds of fun trace elements in it) but it's there.

Finaly, in an attempt to address the issue of the ever peeking graph. Remember that the amount we can extract at a given level of economic benefit is changing as technology improves. But also, remember that as technology improves our desire for MORE oil has also increased (historicaly). The trend is inescapable. Oil CAN NOT be infinite. Not unless we start seriously rethinking the fundamental makeup of the earth ("The continents float on a layer of petrolium?")

Sooner or later we're going to run out of this stuff. It might be in 40 years or 100. Either way it will happen eventualy. We also know that burning this stuff puts all kinds of lovely chemicals into the air which kill people. Oil has so many more practical uses than burning it. We should be putting some money into energy sources like fusion (it's not as far off as we think) and saving this suff for future use as plastics etc.

Wrong!

[Banner]

Niether Oil nor Nuclear fissionable materials are 'running out'. This is just a complete lie.

There's far more oil in the USA then in all of the middle east, just a small group of luddites won't allow anyone to pump it out. Put you won't hear that on the news, as it isn't Politically Correct.

Fusion plants will be banned as soon as the green crowd see's them being built, as they ban -everything-.

Re:Wrong!

[Mark Pitman]

He was replying to a post that claimed:

Unfortunately, fissionable stuff is running out just as quickly as burnable.

without citing a source either, so why aren't you complaining about that too? Maybe because since you agree with it, it must be true?

Re:Wrong!

[Eccles]

Neither Oil nor Nuclear fissionable materials are 'running out'. This is just a complete lie.

No it isn't -- we're certainly using them faster than they are being created/redeposited -- but the 30-40 year estimate is also off.

For a reasonable write-up of how much oil there is, who has it, and how much is being used, see
this BBC News article.

Re:Uh... hold your horses there scottennis

[vantagec]

New discoveries are made, as are new, cheaper methods to extract oil that was previously thought to be uneconomical.

And you expect this trend to continue forever? Unless you think there is a cornucopia down there somewhere continuously pouring out hydrocarbons, you must realize the supply of fossil fuels is finite. Maybe you believe the hypernova will arrive before the supply runs out. I believe it makes a lot of sense to look for alternatives.

The most sober meditation I've seen on this was a Scientific American article archived at dieoff.com called The End of Cheap Oil. It doesn't attempt to forecast the day the wells run dry, just the year when gas prices finally rise to the point where the society that depends on them begins to break down.

It's an exercise in frog boiling. I think Iceland's leadership is wise to begin looking for ways out of the pot now.

Re:We're not going to run out of oil

[Sodium Attack]

How many times have we heard we are going to run out of oil? And guess what: it never happens. I'm sure it will happen eventually,

You're right. I honestly don't think we'll run out of oil in my lifetime. Therefore, I shouldn't do anything about it. Apres moi, le deluge.

America could have done the same...

[Zen Mastuh]

...but we created the CIA instead. Its inaugural mission (c.1954) was to depose the democratically elected leader of Iran because he nationalized American and British oil installations. In case you have been hiding in a box, the political instability in the region hasn't ceased since then. Just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Canary Islands may create a hurricane that wipes out Miami, a single act of nation wrecking can lead to the collapse of two skyscrapers 47 years later.

We built the atomic bomb in just a few years. Don't you think we also have the brain power to wean ourselves off of oil? Think about it: no Iran-Contra, no Gulf War, no 9/11 attacks, no coming world economic collapse when/if the oil supply suddenly runs out.

Re:The earth will never run out of oil

[CathedralRulz]

Here is a simple way to demonstrate that the earth will never run out of oil. Over time, it will become harder to find and substitutes/replacements will become more competetive. Oil will always be had - but at a very high price.

An analogy I read once was that think about being in a room full of peanuts - up to your knees. You will be able to eat peanuts for food but, over time, it will be harder and harder to find peanuts among all the empty shells. So you will gradually find substitutions - but you will never find all of the peanuts in the room, just the amount of time to find one will gradually increase.

Re:Good Start

[nullard]

Already farmers and heavy machinery is moving towards natural gas or propane.

LPG is made from ... oil!

Didn't someone figure out a way to make fule from soy beans? Why are we paying farmers NOT to grow soy beans?

Can't POSSIBLY be "voluntary"...

[MoNsTeR]

...unless decided unanimously by individuals.

If by "Iceland" we mean "Iceland's government", then this is the exact opposite of voluntary, because anything a government does is by nature and definition coercive.

It's never a bad thing

[Sprunkys]

I'm getting the silly feeling that the average slashdotter seems to be more worried about the fact that oil reserves might not run out than the fact that what the Icelanders intend to do is very applaudable because they are showing some initiative and are willing to develop different energy sources. And so what if there is enough oil for a long time, that doesn't mean that this isn't a good initiative that could be beneficial for others too.
Personally I really like "green" electricity, I think it makes my computer run much better (no, just kidding) I think it is a good initiative and could never be less good than the energy we are using nowadays. Maybe the effect of burning fossil fuels is not as bad as some would like us to believe, but it most likely has some negative effects which can be eliminated using green fuels.

So, kudos to Iceland!

(BTW, the Dutch (all, besides me) really like their ancient windmills which make our flat landscapes look oh so nice, but when you want to build a beautiful, modern energy providing windmill they (again all, besides me) say they're polluting the horizon! and that from a country that is as flat as a mirror and that wants to have 15% green fuels in just a few years)

Re:Are you insane

[ShavenYak]

Breeder reactors cannot be used until we have the Islamists eliminated.

And then we'll be perfectly safe, because white Christian Americans would never try to blow shit up. Oh, except that one in Oklahoma City. Oh, and that Unabomber guy.

By the way, the religion is Islam, and its practioners are called Muslims, not Islamists.