Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iceland to Voluntarily Go Oil Free in 30-40 Years

Posted by chrisd on from the one-less-country-that-is-beholden-to-the-middle-east dept.

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."

9 of 723 comments (clear)

  1. Hydrogen Fuel Cells+Geothermal by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    You are not the customer.

  2. Long term goals by cat_jesus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Long term goals by Silverhammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Long term goals by cat_jesus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

  3. Oil Free? Right.... by elmegil · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  4. Oil supply runs dry! Story at 11! by ergo98 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Oh those silly Greens... by TGK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  6. Re:We're not going to run out of oil by Sodium+Attack · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.

  7. Can't POSSIBLY be "voluntary"... by MoNsTeR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.