Slashdot Mirror
Sweden To Be Oil-Free By 2020
Philoneist.com writes "Treehugger is reporting that the 'Minister for Sustainable Development Mona Sahlin has declared that Sweden is going to become the first country in the world to break the dependence on fossil energy.'" Sweden's hope is to have all of the country's energy supplied by only renewable resources, ridding the country of cars that run on gasoline and oil-heated homes.
... how tough is the immigration process?
It will only be free of oil in 2020. Other renewable energy sources will first be fased out later. Which also makes more sense considering Swedens large dependancy of Nuclear Energy.
(Stupid subject length restriction)
Why are they still building houses with oil heating?
Similarly why build power stations that burn oil or gas?
They seem horribly short sighted developments to me.
Sweden should be applauded for trying to dump fossil fuels, but it will be a lot to ask for in only 14 years. However if it means the development of alternatives (where there's a market there's a will) then by the time the rest of the world starts realising they need to do it as well the technology should be a lot cheaper.
Britain is looking at generating 20% of its power needs from tidal/wave power, however I think the more sensible nuclear power station route will be taken eventually.
Iceland said the same, but aimed for 2050.
-- Ne me laissez pas tellement triste: écrivez-moi vite qu'il est revenu...
Shouldn't this be in 'Politics', not "Hardware'?
The whole world will be oil free by 2020, because oil will be too expensive to use as a fuel. Do not forget, the peak is near.
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
I thought Iceland was going to "be the first"?
So, in 14 years, every car currently on the road in Sweden will be obsolete? Illegal? Will they be making outlaws of classic car collectors? The Swedish automobile industry must be much larger and more advanced than I had ever dreamed, to pull this off. They're going to have to develop affordable new cars with a completely different architecture, since used cars won't be usable. Is the government going to reimburse people whose vehicles are unusable and unsellable? And can every single driver in the country afford a brand new car? A brand new domestically made car, even?
Somehow I don't think they thought this through.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
"Characteristically, they have actually thought this out and have some mechanisms in mind. Here's the list so far proposed or partially implemented."
RTFA.
-kgj
-kgj
Their words are back with nucle.... renewable energy weapons!
May the Maths Be with you!
I wonder what their plans are for non-resident gasoline-powered vehicles, such as delivery trucks and tourists. If they actually make the switch, they'll almost instantly create a booming black market in gasoline sales to stranded motorists, FedEx drivers, and the like.
To quote my grandmother, don't believe everything you read in newspapers. And to that I would like to add: don't believe everything you hear from politicians. Of course, I agree that we can't continue our dependency on oil and it's nice when people have visions. But will it happen by 2020? Sadly, I don't think so. (Bias: I'm a Swede.)
All it takes to break the dependence on oil is for a cabinet minister to make a proclamation?
I mean, Sweden is going to do away with plastics, cars, home heating...
Heck, they already managed to change from driving on the left to driving on the right--that's more than most countries could pull off!
Let's see them get imports and exports without oil... MAYBE by 2020, but I think they'll use enough oil in the transition to no oil to make up for themselves. Then there is the question of if their oil useage on imports (external oil useage) goes up to maintain their internal no-oil status.
No, they won't make petrol-based cars illegal. They simply move to close all gas stations or convert them to stations that supply other sources of sustainable energy.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
...but it's easy for a country covered in trees with a population of 27 people to eliminate it's dependency on fossil fuels - you just burn trees instead (or use a couple of wind turbines). The situation is quite a bit different in more densily populated countries like the UK (383 people / sq Km, Sweeded is 20 people / sq Km) or places like the US where the bulk of the population is very much concentrated in one or two general areas. In the case of the UK I doubt we have the land mass to derive all our power from renewable sources _and_ produce enough food to feed ourselves. In the case of the US I'm sure they have the space but it's a long way from where the power is needed and therefore transmission losses are going to be huge.
Sorry to any Swedish reading this I know you have more than 27 people but you have got to admit you have a lot of space per person.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
... to be "oil free," wouldn't they need to stop using/producing petrochemicals as well?
Get free of all the other items made using fossil fuels as well. Otherwise what are you really doing? There are many items made with fossil fuels that could be made with alternatives, provided someone would want to pay for it.
This whole idea sounds more like a "feel good" program. All those "tax benefits" to encourage the switch look good but are only to bait the hook but as with any tax used to change behaviour it will not generate the income necessary long term and new sources will be needed. Look at the "congestion tax" - do they expect vehicle use to drop so much as the original reason behind the tax is no longer applicable?
Oh well, best of luck. I think the time table is ludicrous but if they can pull it off then maybe the rest of the world can learn. If not at least one country will be slightly better off.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
These are the same people who are shutting down perfectly good and safe nuclear reactors in favor of importing electric power from dirty Danish and Polish coal plants and (oh the irony) old Soviet graphite reactors in the Baltics. Oh, and did I mention that this has led to the country not having enough power to support peak demand during winter (politicians seem to be unable to grasp the difference between electric power and energy)? The only good thing in the whole mess is that their previous pipe dream goal ("nuclear free Sweden by 2010") has no chance of being met...
They are also the same people who have set the goal of "0 traffic deaths" - and honestly believe that they'll reach it.
There's truly nothing to see here. Move along.
Oh, really... This is the same country which is saying that it is going to shut down all their nuclear power plants (which is not going to happen).
Most people's vision is 20/20. Why should the Swedes be any different?
20 mil and I will! Learn Esperanto with 20M others.
Why are they still building houses with oil heating?
Because it's friggin cold in Scandinavia in the winter, maybe...?
While I do applaud initiatives to limit oil use, both for environmental and economical reasons, this timetable is just too optimistic. Attempts to do this politically is really not feasible, though it might happen anyway (and on a global level) if the predictions about peak oil is true.
:-)
Few analysts in Sweden believed that this was anything else than political hot air when this was announced a couple of months ago. Anyway, if you want to get the announcement from the source, it is here. The minister's own homepage is here.
Mona Sahlin was very popular a couple of years ago and was predicted to be the successor to Göran Persson and become the first female prime minister in Sweden, but she fell from grace when it turned out that she had bought some private articles such as diapers and a chocolate bar with a government credit card. At least, that is the way I remember it, perhaps some more politically astute Swede can fill in the details.
One hopes that this is a sign that we hold our politicians to higher standards and that they are less corrupt than most countries, but it wouldn't surprise the slightest if some pretty nasty scandals have been covered up quietly.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=572&a=468 440&previousRenderType=6Original article in Swedish, from the swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter.l article translated, on Goverment offices of Swedens official site.
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3212/a/51058Origina
Now take it with a grain of salt. The article was written for the political debate section of a newspaper, during an election year.
Nothing quite inspires terror like the Green Weapons program.
So it is a great way to combine this with other renewable energy sources like wind/sun/water ( they produce electricity). Imagine a hybrid car with bio-diesel engines and electricity engines. Could be a smooth transition into the post peak-oil age. I just have to wonder where in Sweden you could grow so much plants (colza), but maybe this could also be a chance for other countries to produce and export it.
Unfortunately the German government decided to raise a tax for plant oil in the near future, so the times when you could go to the local plant oil supplier to get your diesel car rolling for about half the price of regular diesel are almost gone. More and more people do this, so it is a welcome additional source for the government to get money. It will get about 20% (not sure) more expensive, but it will still be cheaper than diesel. Sad times for the local farmers though, was a good way to to regain independence, but there is big business again.
Regards,
Dakna
I think it is an excellent idea/mistake to put it under hardware. It looks like Sweden has found the political will to at least set a deadline. I know Sweden only by their reputation for precision and independece so I am assuming it is now a matter of national pride to be the first modern economy to shake off oil dependence.
In other words, if the political argument has been won in Sweden, it really does boil down to a question of hardware.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
> Why are they still building houses with oil heating?
Are they? They use geothermical heating quite a lot.
> Similarly why build power stations that burn oil or gas?
Gas is not oil. I'd guess most of their power stations runs on coal anyway (actually water and nuclear power are probably the foundation). Does anyone still run (or even build) oil based power plants?
> Sweden should be applauded for trying to dump fossil fuels,
> but it will be a lot to ask for in only 14 years.
They didn't say fossil fuel in 14 years, just oil. Fossil fuels was "eventually".
Largest problem with oil dependence is old oil based heating, which needs to be changes anyway, and gasolin for cars. I don't believe they can switch their car park in 14 years.
Going to Biodiesel would be relatively cheap & can use existing infrastructure (a gas pump is a gas pump).
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Canola thrives in the climate of southern Sweden and does poorly further north. Maybe we'll hear soon of a break through in making biodiesel from lichens, mosquitos and large boulders.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Ok, so I guess Volvo and Saab will be the first car manufacturers to go completely fossil free too then, huh?
I find it interesting that Mona Sahlin who is from a "center party" is making this statement. I guess it has a lot to do with the swedish greens being part of the government.
No matter how progressive our past government in Denmark were on the enviromental area I don't think Svend Auken would ever have made such a statement in his time as prime minister. So in this way it is nice to see that the green party of sweden actually makes a difference.
If the brits learned to insulate their houses properly.. they probably would save a lot of cold feet.. and probably energy too.. but then again.. their landlords probably don't care as long as they don't pay for the heating
Almost everything is nuclear and water. They make up more than 85% of total electricity output. The rest is a mixture of oil, gas, wind and others.
Loads of information over at http://www.svenskenergi.se/ but unfortunately only in Swedish.
... which is why the Swedes, the Germans, the Chinese, the Americans and everyone else have to get over their reluctance to embrace nuclear power. As oil gets more scarce, it will get more expensive. After our fourth or fifth hideously expensive war to secure, yet again, access to "our" oil, the politicians will finally run a cost-benefit analysis. The oil will be so expensive that it's just better to let Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or some other OPEC country go to hell and redirect our time and effort into energy independence. Not short-term BS like ANWR or LNG, but the only viable long-term energy option, nuclear fission.
"But what about all the waste?", cry the environmentalists, "don't despoil Yucca Mountain with those mountains of radioactive waste!" Sooner or later, somebody is going to wake up to the fact that breeder reactors that use fuel recycing produce less than 3% of that high level waste that would go into Yucca. When the volumes are that low, you can just glassify it, sink the glass pieces in an ingot of lead and encase the ingots in 5-ton concrete casks and put them in neat rows in a parking lot somewhere. Put up a razor wire fence and that's that. No chance of anyone stealing it for dirty bombs because the casks are so damned heavy ("physical security"), even if the concrete cracks in 30 years the glass won't go anywhere, and the local town will welcome the jobs for Buford and Billy Joe to walk around the fence thirty times a night at $17.50/hr.
Don't want a permanent radioactive waste dump on the outskirts of your town? Call it a "Temporary Cask Transit Facility" and shuffle the casks around every now and again to make it look like they aren't there permanently. "Renew the lease" on the land every 10 years to give you an opportunity to re-bribe the new set of elected officials in town, and make sure you paint the casks every year as part of "safety inspections" to keep them looking neat and safe... that will give jobs to Jim Bob and Cyrus, too.
In the end, you can spend $10,000,000 a year on each of 100 different "Temporary Cask Transit Facilities" for 100 years and still end up cheaper than Yucca Mountain, while offering 1000x the storage capacity.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
Britain is a small island (yes, that's island) on which no point is further inland than 70 miles.
We have billions upon billions of tonnes of seawater surrounding us, seawater that gets shifted up and down by a foot twice a day every day. That is, by my reckoning, a metric shitload of energy that we could be using.
I can say one thing for certain, as someone who just moved from a house heated by forced air natural gas to oil -- its a LOT cheaper to use oil. My heating costs have been cut in half because of how expensive natural gas is in the northeast.
When it gets as cold as it does up here, you don't want your heat to rely on the gas company, regardless of cost, or the electric company, regardless of cost -- especially the latter. Electric isn't an option because the times you most need the heat are the times you're most likely to lose power.
It may sound low-tech but I've been using a tried and true mix of wood and oil to heat my house this winter. The wood stove runs in the evening and until it burns out overnight, and 24/7 over the weekend. That heats the two or three rooms I'm most frequently in to short-sleeve temperatures and the oil-fired baseboard heat takes care of the rest of the house. Its efficient, very comfortable and with a generator to power the blower on the furnace, it stays nice and toasty even if I ended up with a bad storm and had no power for days.
I'm a huge supporter of nuclear -- when it comes down to it, I don't realistically think there are any long-term alternatives, and its so much safer for the environment than coal and options like that. But even if we had 1 cent / kilowatt hour electricity and it was affordable to heat a house with electricity in the colder parts of the country, I'd still want oil or some secondary fuel source to provide heat because the odds are higher we'll get fusion working in the next twenty years than someone figures out how to keep the damn power from ever going out.
Ok Guys. There are elections in Sweden this autumn. The government have no idea how to get rid of oil. NO IDEA. The following three decisions are made:
1. Dont invest in more hydro plants
2. Get rid of nuclear power
3. Dont increase CO2-emissions
On top of this the government now says that Sweden will be independent of oil in 2020. They say so because there are elections this year, and the government is afraid of the communist party and the green party!
Apparently, the US doesn't take kindly to other countries going cold-turkey on oil.
//I try to get out, and they just puullllll me back in...
MySQL error? Editor's error?
So what about considering bio diesel? http://www.biodiesel.org/
Not only does it reduce emissions but you don't have to replace your core transportation infrastructure and you increase your need for farmers.
seriously i would hate to live there.
always mosh clockwise
It's not going to be as bad as you think. The Free Market is an amazing thing. Gasoline prices are on the rise, and eventually, OilPeek or not, we are going to see $3/gal again. At $3/gal the economics of fuel start to change.
A car that gets 28 mpg on $3/gal gas costs 10.7 cents per mile, or $1286 per year in fuel (assuming 12k miles).
An electric car that gets 6 m/KWh on $0.10/KWh costs 1.7 cents per mile, or $200 per year in fuel costs. The $1086 saved per year would be $3,000-$5,000 over the life of the batteries (currently averaging 3-5 years). Battery pack prices vary (elcheapo's can be built for ~$1000, high end li packs can go for $10,000 but have much longer life spans) So the money saved would go right back into the car.
And they break even. At $3/gal (Currently $2.45 here) and $0.10/KWh (Currently 8.5 cents here). The electric system will likely have lower maintainence costs as well, but it's harder to measure that at this point with the limited market segment and history.
Katrina was a good thing in that respect, it created a huge boom in alt energy companies and funding in the US.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
OTOH, we are currently net importing from, among others, Denmark. As far as I know, they rely quite heavily on coal, so a margin increase/decrease in consumption will relate more to coal usage.
Fleet Vehicles are easier to switch over and maintain to alternative fuels. They get changed out more often,and they have professional maintenance that the driver doesn't have to worry about. As soon as it is just a fraction more economical and practical, you'll see it happening there first in large scales, and it is BTW if you follow that industry and the alternative industry news in general. You have hard nosed bean counters running the show there, not people who base their decisions on style, "sporty looks", what sound system is installed, fancy wheels, etc. Priuses get the press, but the real work and interest is at the fleet level now for the next big wave of changes.
I sold used cars for awhile. People would always choose a snappier looking car over one that was better mechanically given a roughly similar budget when they are shopping. I saw this all the time. People buy book covers, even if it is a major purchase like a car or even a house. How many people choose a house based on R-value in the walls and ceiling over how well it is laid out or how fancy it looks? You can't *see* efficiency,so it's harder to sell.
This is changing, but slowly. In the US, this latest round of tax credits will go a long ways to getting the "one on every block" needed for hybrid cars, rooftop solar, etc. That's the breakthrough needed, once one guy on a block has something really cool, it gets talked up.
And speaking of "taxes", humans respond well to an incentive-a carrot- over the stick. Offer a tax credit-carrot where they get something back and they'll jump at it. Try to wield the direct punishing tax stick and they get annoyed and resist. Taxing something you don't want to see doesn't work near as well as just making it cheaper for the better thing.. Basic psychology there at work.
That's far enough away that not only will the politicians who promised this be gone, but it will be forgotten by then.
Never trust any projection by a politician beyond the current term. If someone gives you a promise this far away, ask what the interim targets are. And watch the politicians avoid the answer.
Since treehugger.com was too greedy to publish the link, here is the original announcement http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3212/a/51058 from Mona Sahlin, Minister for Sustainable Development.
Worse? Swedes are proud of this. It creates a country they like and best of all a society everyone can fit in. The hard workers can work hard and make more money then the terminally lazy BUT they will also be funding the terminally lazy. Oh and the sick and or handicapped or people who are raising the next generation that in times to come will take care of the hard workers when they are old.
It is just that to americans the change might be to much. If you are an american who ever just once complained about any taxation, do not move to sweden. Sweden has changed a bit since it has undergone a financial crisis but by and large most swedes still believe that the working class benefits from supporting a large non-working group. The american attitude where people getting benefits are misfits to lazy to work who should only be given a few weeks/months of the most minimal income is alien to swedes. Sweden vs America is often used as an example when talking about extreme opposites in social security. If you wanna emigrate countries like england and ireland are closer to the american model. Mainland europe really is a bunch of pinko's.
Note that I am not taking sides, just that I did work for a truly international company and have had dealings with people emigrating and getting homesick. There are real changes between mainland europe and america that go far deeper then americans having bigger asses^H^H^H^H^H^Hcars. Europeans are often bitten hard by the fact that to afford the american way of live it often requires working weeks of 80 hours. To a european with max weeks of around 36 hours this is can some as a shock. Even england can be nasty with its 48 hour weeks. Emigrator beware.
As for this move? Well sweden is in a unique position, most of its population is in a small part of the country so it benefits that public transport can work like it can in dense countries/cities (holland/japan and New York/London) while it still has plenty of area to put renewable energie plants in especially considering its small population. I wonder if they can pull this off, they would still need oil for plastics but there own reserves would last a lot longer. They also got their own car industry to support wich may benefit if all the other car companies are unwilling to make the bet to go non-petrol.
Wasn't it the swedish volvo who first made seatbelts standard when american car companies resisted (patent for the 3point harness belonging to a swede)? Perhaps this might lead to a similar coop. Sometimes it pays to be first.
To those who argue against such a move, oil however much there is is needed for plastics wich are a lot harder to replace then petrol is. With current prices, this might be exactly the right moment to try it. Last time prices were so high we moved from the gass guzzlers to tiny cars. Who knows what this time might bring.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Need to use some kinda algae. More efficient and easier to feed as it is a much simpler plant. Algae can grow in vats, and need not deplete the soil like a traditional 'plant' would.
:)
I am concerned that short-sighted adoption of biodiesel will hasten the depletion of our farmlands begun by food crops...
What will we fertilize with if not the oil-based fertilizers? Do we have enough pig shit?
Blar.
BUT I do not want to tell americans that they are wrong. They can run their country the way they want to. In such a way I am not taking sides. I do think the swedish system makes a better system for ME, americans would in general feel different.
Perhaps if you got of your high moral horse for a while you would be able to accept that different people prefer different societies.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I, for one, welcome our tall blonde petroleum free overladies! (There's always water-based.)
The changes should be gradual and better for the environment. Fuel prices will rise pretty consistently over the next 10 years, and as the production cost for fossil fuel derivatives increases, other options will become more viable and niche alternative fuel markets will emerge and begin to grow.
Even now, I see cars running around on bio-diesel which I had not seen at all 5 years ago. Solar is becoming more efficient and the electric companies will want to get on board with that rather than lose revenue to emerging players that will set up a self-sufficient home that is entirely off the grid.
Then there's pebble reactors which can supply enough electricity to meet our needs and which greenies will suddenly become less opposed to when the crunch is really on and they still want to travel around in the luxury of their own vehicle.
Anyway. There are many alternatives in the wings and most are actually in use by niche market consumers. It is just that the cost efficiency is not currently equivalent or better than oil right now...but they will be better soon. And soon is sooner than most think because oil demand is increasing at a far greater rate now than it was 10 years ago (due to industrialization in various nations).
I think what will happen is that as the technology to grow oil-bearing algae matures, we will get our oil-based products from the processing of these algae (e.g., diesel fuel, heating oil, kerosene, and possibly gasoline, with the "waster product" processed further into animal feed and ethanol fuel). Several companies are seriously looking at this process and the switchover to algae-based oil products could start happening by early the next decade.
So they're going to stop using plastics, and tires? No more asphalt on their roads? What is their entire merchant shipping and fishing fleet going to run on? Will KLM be flying solar powered airliners?
I think it is quite an exxageration to say that they will be free of fossil fuels by 2020. Perhaps by 2120.
TFA only mentions cars and homes, but I don't see hundreds of thousands of homes retrofitted to some other heating system within 14 years.
Proverbs 21:19
It will be a scolding hot day in Helheim before this will happen in this kind of puny fourteen year timeframe. Just because some airhead politician vents some far-fetched ideas about this does not mean it is going to happen. By 2050, perhaps. By 2020, very unlikely.
Especially combine this with the ambition to phase-out the nuclear power plants here and you have a receipe for disaster. Currently, nuclear power stands for about half of our electicity production. Where is that going to be replaced with when removing the nuclear power plants? More hydro plants is not really a feasible option since there are only two or so rivers left without any hydro power plants. And oil doesn't seem to be politically feasible either, nor is coal. And wind power is a joke - you'd have to stick those ugly things almost everywhere, and solar power is not very usable at these latitudes.
What Sweden needs is more nuclear power plants, lots of them, to cover up for the increasing needs of electricity. Nuclear power has much less of a footprint than other power sources, and has a very high efficiency, and has
And back to the getting rid of oil issue. Oil is used for so many things, one cannot possibly believe that all those uses can be replaced with alternatives in a mere fourteen years? And many detached houses are heated by oil too. Replacing those heaters is a very expensive undertaking (although given the prices that heating oil has had for the past few years, it would be economically sane to go over to something less hideously expensive, but it does require quite an investment at a time to overhaul the heating system of one's house). And cars. Sure there are cars that can run on alcohol but managing to phase out all petrol driven cars in this timeframe is unlikely to happen.
So no, this is just some unbacked political talk, nothing else.
while true; do eject; eject -t; done
This will be just one more reason to be attracted to Swedish teenagers!
Volvo is one of the few companies that manufacture passenger cars that run on diesel. To my knowledge all the others are also N.Euporean. Mr. Diesel, as you may recall, originally fueled his prototypes on peanut oil - Or so I've always been led to believe. Motor fuel is probably the easiest of the energy uses to replace with renewable resources...
You gotta start out by looking at transportation, how much of do we really need? Most of our trips are pretty pointless, flying marketeers out to prospective customers so that they can feel like the vendor values their business. Hauling our overweight asses to the grocery store to get more Snickers bars. Dragging ourselves to the office so that we can punch the clock when all the really good ideas come to us in the shower anyway.
When I was a youngster very few families had two cars, at least not where one or more weren't up on blocks. It was common to see middle aged men in suits on city busses, and those city busses were run at a profit by private entities. Now even teenagers have to have cars to park at the neighborhood school all day (felines). And the local busses are subsidized in an attempt to the keep the riffraff off of the road and so that the domestics can get to work.
Internet technologies will certainly help to reduce our dependance on frivolous travel, or it should anyway - But I suspect that even as we speak some geek is traveling to the regional director's private residence to clear the cookies or update the virus signature file.
Yeah, I think I might like it in Sweden. Do they eat lefsa there or is that just next door?
This site claims to have a solution of sorts.
Then, no petroleum-based plastic products allowed by the year 2050. No rubber products, no products of any kinds that have ANY connection to fossil fuels. No airplanes from any country may take off or land...or even fly over.
All products to maintain our nucclear power plants and hydro plants must also be made from materials with no connection to fossil fuels.
We're in trouble...
The world will STILL get most of it's energy from nuclear power and fossil fuels. However, the source of the fuels needed to run the power plants will be imported from other planets.
We will have discovered a new method of transportation in space, which cannot be used on Earth, but can be used to travel great distances in order to plunder and pillage natural resources from distant galaxies.
Ahhhhh, yes. Our global air filters will keep our atmosphere free of excess pollutants, while we enjoy driving our gas powered vehicles, and making endless plastic products.
Oh yes, and the moon will be our landfill, as well as our global graveyard.
I don't see any compelling evidence that an increase in price will decrease consumption, it will only increase the level of violence used in obtaining the commodity.
Imagine/recall a fiend with a pile of coke, they don't slow down, as the pile gets smaller. Gasaholics ain't so different.
When gas hit $3/gal in the states did people start taking the bus to work, not just no but rather #&%% no. They commenced to bitching and moaning but they kept pumping and didn't slow down. Wasn't that the single best quarter ever for the petrol companies? I can't believe that in a time when the pres and the veep both has such close ties to the oil industry that we could let the price escalate so much and harm the poor oil companies like that, those nasty EPA regulations have pretty much posted the wolf at their door non-stop, as soon as we can suspend them so that they can build more refineries there will be more gas and the price will go back down - But I digress... back to my drug analogy.
And with thems handing out gas for free at the playground there will be even more fiends looking to score as the supply dries up.
That's right I must be stupid or something because I think that consumption is going to increase, and continue to increase in spite of the decreasing supply. More and more peoples becoming industrialized will drive this increased consumption. Various peoples will start warring over the dwindling supply and that will drive increased consumption (ok, maybe 'start' is a bad thing to say here). During these wars various groups will seek to weaken their adversaries by disrupting thier fuel supplies witch will further squander the resource.
And then just about the time the last drop of petrol is squeezed outta the big ball we all live on, some yahoo is gonna discover an elixir made from it that cures old age or aids or cancer or something like that.
The difference is that many Americans think that they personally can be more compassionate than the government. Americans are very compassionate, they give a lot of their time and money to good causes. Unfortunately as the government takes more and more of this role, people become less sensitive to the true needs of people and just figure the government will take care of the problem. To me, this is morally wrong. This is why I contribe personally to organizations that I think are worth contributing to.
Saab is owned by GM
Volvo is owned by Ford.
There really is no more native Saab auto industry.
http://www.photo2be.com/5935MonaS.htm
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
As a Swede, I can tell you that all this shows is that Swedish politicians lie just as much as the ones where you're reading this. Sorry, despite what you may have heard, we're not a utopian paradise. They don't really exist.
One habit they have is to announce grand plans that will be accomplished in some far off date. That way when you complain about how things are today, they can say "yeah, that's a problem, but we have a goal of fixing this by the year 20xx". It's also a way of building coalitions, "if you [crazy fringe party] support our goverment program today, well fulfil your grand insane plan in a decade or two, when conditions are right". When that year arrives, they declare that the goal wasn't met, blame something or someone, and announce a new goal.
Also, reading the original article announcing this goal, reveals what it actually is. Let me translate the final paragraph:
The goal is that the dependency on fossil fuel should be broken by 2020. By then no house should need oil for heating. By then no driver should have to use only gasoline. By then there should always be better alternatives than oil.
So they're not at all saying that Sweden should use no oil by then, only that there should be alternative ("better") fuels available for those who wish to use them.
...and secure your place in the history books as one of the greatest leaders of your time.
Electric cars give you more torque at zero RPM than any internal combustion engine. If you want to talk about performance, you're talking about electric cars. If you want to talk about enjoyable driving, you're talking about electric. The sooner we get there, the better. And yet there's a place for mass transit; that's why I keep promoting the RUF dual-mode monorail system. Small batteries on streets, and power from the monorail otherwise.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Volvo is one of the few companies that manufacture passenger cars that run on diesel. To my knowledge all the others are also N.Euporean.
Uh, no. There are a couple more.
They just tend to not sell diesels in the US because of restrictions (like CARB).
Not really. Scandinavia is affected by the Atlantic ocean and most of population live in southern parts of Scandinavian countries.
Of course it depends on one's point of view, -20C may be "supercold" for you but here in Ural mountains we routinely have -40C.
"Best flood protection system"??? Never heard of any such beast...
You're probably referring to Holland, another foreign country located outside the US.
... the hard part is finding a non petroleum powered flight to get there...
America is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I guess that depends who you ask, those pulling the cart or the deadbeats riding in it.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
No, I am not a deadbeat who lives off of others, so I would prefer to live in the US.
It's very clear that you don't respect people who care more about others than themselves and prefer the selfish American me-first way of thinking. That's fine if you wish to think that way (and have no morals)...
What absolute bullshit. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor is not altruism. Robin Hood was no altruist. It is when people give THEIR OWN MONEY of THEIR OWN ACCORD, that is selfless. And Americans give in droves TO THE TRULY NEEDY. Also, the US capitalist system has allowed us to accumulate the massive wealth for real problems, such as bailing out other countries' disasters like the Indonesian tsunami. How much did Sweden give to that?
There is nothing altrustic about giving the able-bodied handouts for a lifetime. It makes them dependent and robs their souls of self-respect and self-reliance. America is, or is supposed to be about giving people the opportunity to help themselves.
We'll see where Sweden is in 25 years with all of those benefits and an aging and increasingly immigrant demographic. Cutting back on the handouts like economically-stagnant France and Germany, I'll bet.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Is this the same Sweden that decided to go nuclear-free by the year 2010 ?!
... No way can it be done.
So far they have shut down ONE of the (abt) twelve reactors.
Bioenergy, solar power, wind and water, and
Well, it may not be as hard a task as it may seem at first glance.
Swedens entire population is lower than that of a internationally big city.
One problem is that we are scattered thoughout a very large area, which means that alot of energy gets lost during transportation. Changing all the scattered, oil-heated houses into electrical-heating would require a massive rebuilding of the powergrid.
Cities are mostly centrally heated anyway, but then there's also the problem of how people are going to afford changing their cars to non-fossil-fuled in 14 years...
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
because 'ccording to it
"1963 the Swedish government passed legislation ordering the switch to right-hand traffic. The changeover took place at 5am on Sunday, September 3, 1967, which was known in Swedish as Dagen H (H-Day), the 'H' being for Högertrafik or right-hand traffic." which does not seem very gradually to me-
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Sweden is going to become the first country in the world to break the dependence on fossil energy
Perhaps they meant EXTERNAL fossil fuels....I mean, in this case they could just be planning to re-conquer Norway.
Helluvalot more believeable and doable in that timeframe.
-Styopa