If Iceland can do it....

[BigSqwert]

Iceland phasing out fossil fuels for clean energy

REYKJAVIK, Iceland (CNN) -- Iceland may be best known for world-famous musical export Bjork but there's a new star quickly gaining this island nation worldwide acclaim -- clean energy.

 

For more than 50 years Iceland has been decreasing its dependence on fossil fuels by tapping the natural power all around this rainy, windswept rock of fire.

 

Waterfalls, volcanoes, geysers and hot springs provide Icelanders with abundant electricity and hot water.

 

Virtually all of the country's electricity and heating comes from domestic renewable energy sources -- hydroelectric power and geothermal springs.

 

It's pollution-free and cheap.

 

Yet these energy pioneers are still dependent on imported oil to operate their vehicles and thriving fishing industry.

 

Iceland's geographic isolation in the North Atlantic makes it expensive to ship in gasoline -- it costs almost $8 a gallon (around $2 a liter).

 

Iceland ranks 53rd in the world in greenhouse gas emissions per capita, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center -- the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy.

 

Retired University of Iceland Professor Bragi Arnason has come up with a solution: Use hydrogen to power transportation. Hydrogen is produced with water and electricity, and Iceland has lots of both.

 

"Iceland is the ideal country to create the world's first hydrogen economy," Arnason explains. His big idea has earned him the nickname "Professor Hydrogen."

 

Arnason has caught the attention of General Motors, Toyota and DaimlerChrysler, who are using the island-nation as a test market for their hydrogen fuel cell prototypes.

 

One car getting put through its paces is the Mercedes Benz A-class F-cell -- an electric car powered by a DaimlerChrysler fuel cell. Fuel cells generate electricity by converting hydrogen and oxygen into water. And fuel cell technology is clean -- the only by-product is water. Video Watch the F-cell navigate through Reykjavik »

 

"It's just like a normal car," says Asdis Kritinsdottir, project manager for Reykjavik Energy. Except the only pollution coming out of the exhaust pipe is water vapor. It can go about 100 miles on a full tank. When it runs out of fuel the electric battery kicks in, giving the driver another 18 miles -- hopefully enough time to get to a refueling station. Filling the tank is similar to today's cars -- attach a hose to the car's fueling port, hit "start" on the pump and stand back. The process takes about five to six minutes. Photo See some of the F-cell's unique features »

 

In 2003, Reykjavik opened a hydrogen fueling station to test three hydrogen fuel cell buses. The station was integrated into an existing gasoline and diesel station. The hydrogen gas is produced by electrolysis -- sending a current through water to split it into hydrogen and oxygen. The public buses could run all day before needing refueling.

 

The bus project lasted three years and cost around $10 million.

 

The city will need five refueling stations in addition to the one the city already has to support its busy ring road, according to Arnason. The entire nation could get by on 15 refueling stations -- a minimum requirement.

 

Within the year, 30-40 hydrogen fuel-cell cars will hit Reykjavik streets. Local energy company employees will do most of the test-driving but three cars will be made available to The Hertz Corp., giving Icelanders a chance to get behind the wheel.

 

"I need a car," says Petra Svenisdottir, an intern at Reykjavik Energy. Svenisdottir, 28, commutes to work from her home in Hafnarfjorour to Reykjavik. The journey takes her about 15 minutes if she can beat traffic. "If I didn't have a car I would have to take two or three buses and wait at each bus stop to arrive at work more than an hour later, cold and wet!"

 

Most Icelanders drive cars, says Arnason. Around 300,000 people live in a place about the size of the U.S. state of Kentucky. Transportation is limited to cars, buses and boats. "Everyone has a car here," Arnason says. And it's very typical for an Icelandic family to own two cars. Arnason drives a small SUV.

 

Fuel cell cars are expected to go on sale to the public in 2010. Carmakers have promised Arnason they will keep costs down and the government has said it will offer citizens tax breaks.

 

He figures it will take an additional 4 percent of power to produce the hydrogen Iceland would need to meet its transportation requirements.

 

Once Iceland's vehicles are converted over to hydrogen, the fishing fleet will follow. It won't be easy because of current technological limits and the high cost of storing large amounts of hydrogen, but Arnason feels confident it can happen. He predicts Iceland will be fossil fuel free by 2050.

 

"We are a very small country but we have all the same infrastructure of big nations," he said. "We will be the prototype for the rest of the world."

 

 

 

 

[southsideirish71]

Sure fancy hydrogen fuel sources, pretty impressive. Yet those supposed scientists can't stop a real threat to the world. Wake me when they solve the Bjork problem they are responsible for.

 

 

[Texsox]

I just watched a Discovery Channel show on this. A big factor was all the volcanoes that are in the country. But they are a great example of what can be done.

[southsider2k5]

Miles of road in Iceland= about 8000, under 3000 of which are actually paved.

 

Miles of road in the USA= about 4,000,000

 

I can see how that would be pretty easy to do here...

[NorthSideSox72]

That's good to hear, glad they did it, but I have to agree that for the U.S. to do it is a much, much, much larger and more complex undertaking. Not impossible mind you, but even with considerate effort, it would take a long time. I'd be happy if we just made significant reductions each year.

 

Sure fancy hydrogen fuel sources, pretty impressive. Yet those supposed scientists can't stop a real threat to the world. Wake me when they solve the Bjork problem they are responsible for.

 

 

She is a weird one. I heard an interview once years ago, where she came in wearing a big battery on her belt, with wires leading into her clothing. They asked what it was, and she said she was feeling a little down and needed the energy boost.

 

[BigSqwert]

Miles of road in Iceland= about 8000, under 3000 of which are actually paved.

 

Miles of road in the USA= about 4,000,000

 

I can see how that would be pretty easy to do here...

Why the defeatist attitude? We wanted to put a man on the moon and we did. Now we can't match the ingenuity of Iceland?

[Texsox]

Why the defeatist attitude? We wanted to put a man on the moon and we did. Now we can't match the ingenuity of Iceland?

 

And I think we have more resources . . .

[southsider2k5]

Why the defeatist attitude? We wanted to put a man on the moon and we did. Now we can't match the ingenuity of Iceland?

 

Defeatist attitude? Are we talking about Iraq or Iceland?

 

Out of curiousity, how much of a tax hike are you willing to pay for right now to fund this? We can't afford the infrastructure that we have in this country right now, and you want to change all of our energy transportation and utilization? Its not ingenuity, its ability to pay for it. Personally I am not really in favor of forcing every person in the country to pay an incredible amount of money to do this, which is exactly what it would take.

[NorthSideSox72]

Defeatist attitude? Are we talking about Iraq or Iceland?

 

Out of curiousity, how much of a tax hike are you willing to pay for right now to fund this? We can't afford the infrastructure that we have in this country right now, and you want to change all of our energy transportation and utilization? Its not ingenuity, its ability to pay for it. Personally I am not really in favor of forcing every person in the country to pay an incredible amount of money to do this, which is exactly what it would take.

Well, it would be a heck of a lot better thing to spend money on than Iraq. Numerous articles have pointed out that for all the money we've spent on Iraq, we could have made so many strides in alternative energy and energy reduction that we would be on the brink of being energy-independent. Not off oil entirely of course, but off it enough to go on just the US and Canadian resources we have access to.

 

Can you really say that wouldn't have been a better idea?

 

[southsider2k5]

Well, it would be a heck of a lot better thing to spend money on than Iraq. Numerous articles have pointed out that for all the money we've spent on Iraq, we could have made so many strides in alternative energy and energy reduction that we would be on the brink of being energy-independent. Not off oil entirely of course, but off it enough to go on just the US and Canadian resources we have access to.

 

Can you really say that wouldn't have been a better idea?

 

You want an honest answer?

 

If it would have been done right, it would have been worth it. I believe that we should be trying to save people from persecution and genocide all over the world. Its a cause I believe in. The Bush admin was stupid and was too worried about trying to make the war seem as small as possible, that they didn't fight the war the way they should have. They didn't send enough troops, equiptment, or anything of that nature. If they actually take control of the country from the beginning, instead of hoping that nothing would happen, things would have been different. Instead the Bush admin was too worried public opinion, and it cost them in the end.

 

Also we aren't going to achieve energy independence until the crude oil and other stocks run out. We as American's don't have the care to change our lifestyles enough for it to actually matter. We have gone from $1 to $3 gas in shorttime, and we STILL have had an increase in demand. Our behavior tells me that we don't care enough to change.

[NorthSideSox72]

You want an honest answer?

Always.

 

If it would have been done right, it would have been worth it. I believe that we should be trying to save people from persecution and genocide all over the world. Its a cause I believe in. The Bush admin was stupid and was too worried about trying to make the war seem as small as possible, that they didn't fight the war the way they should have. They didn't send enough troops, equiptment, or anything of that nature. If they actually take control of the country from the beginning, instead of hoping that nothing would happen, things would have been different. Instead the Bush admin was too worried public opinion, and it cost them in the end.

If that were the case, then we should probably have picked one of at least a dozen places in the world that were much worse off than Iraq. Starting with Darfur. Iraq was never about helping Iraqis - I wish it was. But that was way, way down the list of concerns for the administration.

 

Also we aren't going to achieve energy independence until the crude oil and other stocks run out. We as American's don't have the care to change our lifestyles enough for it to actually matter. We have gone from $1 to $3 gas in shorttime, and we STILL have had an increase in demand. Our behavior tells me that we don't care enough to change.

I don't necessarily agree - I think two factors will push us that direction (albeit slowly) well before we see oil start to really dwindle in supply. First, people are starting to do energy-reducing things on their own because it saves them money. And that is the key - money will drive people. Many technologies, such as solar, are now getting to the point where (for individuals and families) they pay for themselves in a pretty short timeframe, and then start saving people money. As that continues, the power companies will employ net energy programs that then save them money too, and pretty soon, you have a distributed model of alternative energy. There are other examples too, but the point is, we are headed that direction.

 

The second thing is environmental. In the coming decade or two, as we see ocean levels rise, air quality decline, etc., there will be more and more interest in being more responsible with our environment. That will push the government to invest more in systems that are not yet cost-efficient, but will be eventually.

 

I don't think these two things will happen quickly, or get us off oil entirely - but they will push us the right direction.

 

[Texsox]

I'm puzzled by the not enough troops. Haven't we run out of Troops as it is?

[Gregory Pratt]

That's good to hear, glad they did it, but I have to agree that for the U.S. to do it is a much, much, much larger and more complex undertaking. Not impossible mind you, but even with considerate effort, it would take a long time. I'd be happy if we just made significant reductions each year.

She is a weird one. I heard an interview once years ago, where she came in wearing a big battery on her belt, with wires leading into her clothing. They asked what it was, and she said she was feeling a little down and needed the energy boost.

 

I love it. Better that she have some color than not.

[Rex Kickass]

Iceland is a neat place. Their hot water stinks of sulfur and you have to test it before you step in the shower. Because its piped in from geothermal springs, it can be scalding hot sometimes. You just don't know.

 

I actually went there to see Bjork. She seemed normal there, perhaps because the opening bands were much weirder.

[Chet Lemon]

Also we aren't going to achieve energy independence until the crude oil and other stocks run out. We as American's don't have the care to change our lifestyles enough for it to actually matter. We have gone from $1 to $3 gas in shorttime, and we STILL have had an increase in demand. Our behavior tells me that we don't care enough to change.

 

Exactly

 

[Balta1701]

Also we aren't going to achieve energy independence until the crude oil and other stocks run out. We as American's don't have the care to change our lifestyles enough for it to actually matter. We have gone from $1 to $3 gas in shorttime, and we STILL have had an increase in demand. Our behavior tells me that we don't care enough to change.

Many, many of the people who know the petroleum market will tell you...it's not when our stocks run out that's the problem...it's when production starts to decline...which may well be in the process of happening right now.

 

It will take us decades to draw the last few drops of oil out of the ground. But there passes a point in the production curve beyond which no matter what demand does...it is simply impossible to draw oil out of the ground faster. Right now, this point has been passed for every country in the world outside of OPEC.