magics for nothing, face it kid you're hooked
February 8, 2006 11:19 AM Subscribe
Sweden to break oil addiction? (BBC article): Released in a in a public statement the Swedish Minister for Sustainable Development (!), Mona Sahlin, sets forth the goal of a Sweden free from the dependence of oil by 2020.
As this Altnews article says, this is essentially just a reaffirmation of a stated goal. Still 2020, is not far off.
So, I guess they're aiming to eliminate oil as a fuel by then, but not all petroleum products (which would include pretty much every product there is). Still, that would mean no more Volvos or Saabs, right? Hybrids still use gasoline, so unless Volvo and Saab go all-electric or all-biodiesel, they'll have to be eliminated altogether.
It would mean that every non-diesel automobile and truck in Sweden would have to be eliminated or put in permanent storage, and the diesel ones would all have to be converted to biodiesel.
And their proposal is to cut down their forests in order to make biofuel? O. M. G.
How will Ikea operate if they're not allowed to use any petroleum-based fuels in their manufacturing process or supply chain?
What's interesting is seeing a 1st world country other than the U.S. make a statement that's so obviously full of crap.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:29 AM on February 8, 2006
It would mean that every non-diesel automobile and truck in Sweden would have to be eliminated or put in permanent storage, and the diesel ones would all have to be converted to biodiesel.
And their proposal is to cut down their forests in order to make biofuel? O. M. G.
How will Ikea operate if they're not allowed to use any petroleum-based fuels in their manufacturing process or supply chain?
What's interesting is seeing a 1st world country other than the U.S. make a statement that's so obviously full of crap.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:29 AM on February 8, 2006
I wish articles like this would get more in depth about the amount of fossil fuels it is trying to cut, the price of these new technologies and the environmental drawbacks. I mean saying they're moving from x% to x+10% as renewable is great, but if it costs more economically and environmentally to put in place these renewable energy sources it's just dumping oil to get away from the stigma. I think we've seen the effects of going to so-called pollution free alternatives that we shouldn't so quickly move away from the well understood effects of oil.
posted by geoff. at 11:39 AM on February 8, 2006
posted by geoff. at 11:39 AM on February 8, 2006
What's interesting is seeing a 1st world country other than the U.S. make a statement that's so obviously full of crap.
The Axis of Evil just gained a new member.
That would be the axis of stupidity.
Mona Sahlin is struggling to get her name in the paper. A few years ago, she was expected to be PM and then a little "scandal" with government issued credit cards...
This IS a joke. Sahlin is part of the government of Social Democrats who - along with their partners in crime the Environmental party - shut down the Barseback nuclear power station. Now Sweden buys it's replacement energy from coal-fired plants in Denmark and Poland. Brilliant stupidity. No one does it like Sweden's Social Democrats.
Sahlin is a dim-witted career politician.
Fortunately, the Moderates seem set to defeat the Social Democrats in the upcoming elections. Inshallah.
posted by three blind mice at 11:58 AM on February 8, 2006
The Axis of Evil just gained a new member.
That would be the axis of stupidity.
Mona Sahlin is struggling to get her name in the paper. A few years ago, she was expected to be PM and then a little "scandal" with government issued credit cards...
This IS a joke. Sahlin is part of the government of Social Democrats who - along with their partners in crime the Environmental party - shut down the Barseback nuclear power station. Now Sweden buys it's replacement energy from coal-fired plants in Denmark and Poland. Brilliant stupidity. No one does it like Sweden's Social Democrats.
Sahlin is a dim-witted career politician.
Fortunately, the Moderates seem set to defeat the Social Democrats in the upcoming elections. Inshallah.
posted by three blind mice at 11:58 AM on February 8, 2006
JekPorkins writes "Still, that would mean no more Volvos or Saabs, right? Hybrids still use gasoline, so unless Volvo and Saab go all-electric or all-biodiesel, they'll have to be eliminated altogether."
Interestingly Sweden poured millions of dollars into Volvo for research into wood-gas transportation during the crunch in the 70s. They haven't released their research (which would be quite dated now) as it was considered to be of strategic importance. Lots of cars during both wars were outfitted with wood gasifiers, especially in oil scarce Axis countries.
Wood Gas war time VW type 82.
Tractor
posted by Mitheral at 12:01 PM on February 8, 2006
Interestingly Sweden poured millions of dollars into Volvo for research into wood-gas transportation during the crunch in the 70s. They haven't released their research (which would be quite dated now) as it was considered to be of strategic importance. Lots of cars during both wars were outfitted with wood gasifiers, especially in oil scarce Axis countries.
Wood Gas war time VW type 82.
Tractor
posted by Mitheral at 12:01 PM on February 8, 2006
That VW type 82 looks suspiciously like a VW thing.
posted by three blind mice at 12:05 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by three blind mice at 12:05 PM on February 8, 2006
SAAB and Volvo are both still manufactured in Sweden, notwithstanding their U.S. ownership. SAAB is probably going to be gone in the next 20 years, anyway (and maybe GM with it).
But there is also the SAAB-Scania aircraft company, which is not owned by GM. Is Sweden going to tell them they can't use any fossil fuels in building or testing their aircraft?
Don't forget Volvo Penta (marine engines, etc) and Volvo Aero.
SKF, Telia, Tetra Laval, Ericsson, etc.
80% of Sweden's workforce is unionized, so imagine the difficulty of going to a no-oil-whatsoever country when you have to negotiate with all of them.
In 2001, Sweden exported 203,700 bbl/day in oil. Shutting off the tap on that revenue source alone would devastate the country.
Sweden's 2004 exports totalled $121.7 billion f.o.b., and their exports are 35% machinery, plus motor vehicles, paper products, pulp and wood, iron and steel products, and chemicals.
They can't do that without oil. Period. With zero oil, Sweden dies.
And imagine the environmentalists' response to an auto company that introduced a car that runs on trees.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:08 PM on February 8, 2006
But there is also the SAAB-Scania aircraft company, which is not owned by GM. Is Sweden going to tell them they can't use any fossil fuels in building or testing their aircraft?
Don't forget Volvo Penta (marine engines, etc) and Volvo Aero.
SKF, Telia, Tetra Laval, Ericsson, etc.
80% of Sweden's workforce is unionized, so imagine the difficulty of going to a no-oil-whatsoever country when you have to negotiate with all of them.
In 2001, Sweden exported 203,700 bbl/day in oil. Shutting off the tap on that revenue source alone would devastate the country.
Sweden's 2004 exports totalled $121.7 billion f.o.b., and their exports are 35% machinery, plus motor vehicles, paper products, pulp and wood, iron and steel products, and chemicals.
They can't do that without oil. Period. With zero oil, Sweden dies.
And imagine the environmentalists' response to an auto company that introduced a car that runs on trees.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:08 PM on February 8, 2006
and biofuel is not clearcutting forests
Most of the time, it is.
posted by jefgodesky at 12:09 PM on February 8, 2006
Most of the time, it is.
posted by jefgodesky at 12:09 PM on February 8, 2006
I live in Sweden and I find it kinda funny that I've never heard one word about this until I read about it on Metafilter. It really is true that reading the 'Filter keeps you informed!
In case you are wondering how we're doing so far, I can report that it's still business as usual over here (with a -15C/-49F winter I'm grateful that my landlord keeps the heat cranked up). Hopefully, this is more than the usual politicians' talk, but I have my doubts. Mona Sahlin is a "talker", not a "doer". It is true that we need to stop using oil. We can either choose to stop using it now, because we know that it would be a good idea, or wait until things turn ugly and we are forced to stop.
posted by Termite at 12:11 PM on February 8, 2006
In case you are wondering how we're doing so far, I can report that it's still business as usual over here (with a -15C/-49F winter I'm grateful that my landlord keeps the heat cranked up). Hopefully, this is more than the usual politicians' talk, but I have my doubts. Mona Sahlin is a "talker", not a "doer". It is true that we need to stop using oil. We can either choose to stop using it now, because we know that it would be a good idea, or wait until things turn ugly and we are forced to stop.
posted by Termite at 12:11 PM on February 8, 2006
Wood Gas Bike.
three blind mice writes "That VW type 82 looks suspiciously like a VW thing."
Ah the Thing. I've never been a VW guy but if I win 10 million in a lottery or something a Thing will be in my stable.
Stolen from the net somewhere:
I am indeed chuckling over the DART. They are silly cars.
At least the THING lives up to it's name! Chicks dig the Thing.
VW THING: RIBBED, FOR HER PLEASURE.
posted by Mitheral at 12:14 PM on February 8, 2006
three blind mice writes "That VW type 82 looks suspiciously like a VW thing."
Ah the Thing. I've never been a VW guy but if I win 10 million in a lottery or something a Thing will be in my stable.
Stolen from the net somewhere:
I am indeed chuckling over the DART. They are silly cars.
At least the THING lives up to it's name! Chicks dig the Thing.
VW THING: RIBBED, FOR HER PLEASURE.
posted by Mitheral at 12:14 PM on February 8, 2006
I wish Sweden all the luck. But. However a nation even the size of Sweden would be extremely lucky to eliminate petro-fuels by 2050.
posted by tkchrist at 12:14 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by tkchrist at 12:14 PM on February 8, 2006
JekPorkins: In 2001, Sweden exported 203,700 bbl/day in oil. Shutting off the tap on that revenue source alone would devastate the country.
One of the things I've found in reading internationally is the debates about fossil fuel use are really different in mainstream media outside of the U.S.. The growing assumption is that that tap will be either be shut off, or become prohibitively expensive sometime in the next century, and probably in the next half-century. So investment in alternative energy now is often justified based on perceived long-term trends.
And imagine the environmentalists' response to an auto company that introduced a car that runs on trees.
Well this environmentalist would need more detail about how it is produced. Or are you again making knee-jerk assumptions about how members of a group will respond based on stereotypes?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:21 PM on February 8, 2006
One of the things I've found in reading internationally is the debates about fossil fuel use are really different in mainstream media outside of the U.S.. The growing assumption is that that tap will be either be shut off, or become prohibitively expensive sometime in the next century, and probably in the next half-century. So investment in alternative energy now is often justified based on perceived long-term trends.
And imagine the environmentalists' response to an auto company that introduced a car that runs on trees.
Well this environmentalist would need more detail about how it is produced. Or are you again making knee-jerk assumptions about how members of a group will respond based on stereotypes?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:21 PM on February 8, 2006
Get a bike.
posted by MarshallPoe at 12:29 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by MarshallPoe at 12:29 PM on February 8, 2006
Nah. VW Thing comes with too much extra baggage.
If you own a VW Thing you have to also have a long black leather trench coat, round smoked glass spectacles, and a dueling scar.
Lastly you must ALWAYS emerge from the Thing with a dramatic flourish as you drape the trench coat over your shoulders while smoking a cigarette from a long holder like an SS officer.
posted by tkchrist at 12:32 PM on February 8, 2006
If you own a VW Thing you have to also have a long black leather trench coat, round smoked glass spectacles, and a dueling scar.
Lastly you must ALWAYS emerge from the Thing with a dramatic flourish as you drape the trench coat over your shoulders while smoking a cigarette from a long holder like an SS officer.
posted by tkchrist at 12:32 PM on February 8, 2006
Speaking of Nordic places and petroleum aversion, how's Iceland's ambitious plan for a hydrogen economy coming along? Anyone...? Bragi...? Anyone...?
posted by deCadmus at 12:33 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by deCadmus at 12:33 PM on February 8, 2006
I don't thnk they're going to be able to pull it off. I doubt very much that Sweden is large enough or fertile enough to sustain their energy needs through biological sources; the forests might do it for a while, but I think they will be too slow to grow back to make it sustainable. Wind power will help, but it's expensive and there's only so much you can get in any given area. I'm not sure wave generators are even sufficiently developed to deploy. Sweden is too far north for solar power to ever work well.
It's really too bad they refuse to use nuclear power for this, because it could really help them in the transitional period by providing cheap power which they could use, sell, or use to make hydrogen for vehicles. But, like a lot of environmentalists, they seem to have an unreasoning fear of it, which is too bad.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:34 PM on February 8, 2006
It's really too bad they refuse to use nuclear power for this, because it could really help them in the transitional period by providing cheap power which they could use, sell, or use to make hydrogen for vehicles. But, like a lot of environmentalists, they seem to have an unreasoning fear of it, which is too bad.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:34 PM on February 8, 2006
Or are you again making knee-jerk assumptions about how members of a group will respond based on stereotypes?
Yes, my knee-jerk assumption is that members of the group "environmentalists" will dislike the idea of fueling hundreds of millions of vehicles by cutting down forests. That assumption is based on the stereotype that "environmentalists" don't like the idea of clearcutting millions of acres of forest in order to fuel industry.
Is that stereotype wrong? Is my assumption incorrect?
posted by JekPorkins at 12:46 PM on February 8, 2006
Yes, my knee-jerk assumption is that members of the group "environmentalists" will dislike the idea of fueling hundreds of millions of vehicles by cutting down forests. That assumption is based on the stereotype that "environmentalists" don't like the idea of clearcutting millions of acres of forest in order to fuel industry.
Is that stereotype wrong? Is my assumption incorrect?
posted by JekPorkins at 12:46 PM on February 8, 2006
JekPorkins: I am absolutely baffled by how the minds of people like you work. You are so blinded by your own idealogy that you couldn't bother to pay attention to the central issue. What gets me is, whence comes this obvious anger at Sahlin? Why on earth would you be upset with the suggestion of weaning off of a *non*-renewable resource?
The central issue that appears to be completely lost on you is that the world is running out of oil. Sahlin seems to be acknowledging this fact, not going on an environmental crusade. I'm not one to dismiss environmental issues, but in this case it's beside the point. The world is either already past, or at least very near peak production, something that happened to the US individually in the early '70s. To deny this is to bury your head in the (oil) sand. The media likes to make this out to be a controversial issue, because they take the oil company pronouncements at face value, but the majority of the folks in the trenches of the oil industry understand this quite well. (while I'm not a petroleum expert, I am a geophysicist, and I work with these folks from time to time)
So people like you can throw all the tantrums you want, but soon enough the world will be in short supply, whether or not anyone has adequately prepared themselves. A politician who brings this up should be praised, not denigrated.
"Yes, my knee-jerk assumption is that members of the group "environmentalists" will dislike the idea of fueling hundreds of millions of vehicles by cutting down forests."
I got a kick out of that. Hundreds of millions of vehicles? Um, we're talking about Sweden here, with a population of just over 9million (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html). Knee-jerk indeed.
posted by Kaigiron at 1:20 PM on February 8, 2006
The central issue that appears to be completely lost on you is that the world is running out of oil. Sahlin seems to be acknowledging this fact, not going on an environmental crusade. I'm not one to dismiss environmental issues, but in this case it's beside the point. The world is either already past, or at least very near peak production, something that happened to the US individually in the early '70s. To deny this is to bury your head in the (oil) sand. The media likes to make this out to be a controversial issue, because they take the oil company pronouncements at face value, but the majority of the folks in the trenches of the oil industry understand this quite well. (while I'm not a petroleum expert, I am a geophysicist, and I work with these folks from time to time)
So people like you can throw all the tantrums you want, but soon enough the world will be in short supply, whether or not anyone has adequately prepared themselves. A politician who brings this up should be praised, not denigrated.
"Yes, my knee-jerk assumption is that members of the group "environmentalists" will dislike the idea of fueling hundreds of millions of vehicles by cutting down forests."
I got a kick out of that. Hundreds of millions of vehicles? Um, we're talking about Sweden here, with a population of just over 9million (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html). Knee-jerk indeed.
posted by Kaigiron at 1:20 PM on February 8, 2006
Well, this might be a goal that is ultimately unattainable, but that does not mean it is not a worthy goal. Setting lofty goals and then doing the very best to achieve them is the modus operandi of the Swedish government, as evidenced by their zero road-deaths goal. Real steps are being made towards this goal, mostly in the field of biofuel, both Saab and Volvo being forerunners in developing flex-fuel cars. You are right however, that using trees as biomass is not going to account for much of the energy. Currently Swedish forests grow at a rate of about 100 million m^3 per annum and are being felled at a rate of about 75 million m^3 per annum so there is not much room for growth, even though improved use of currently wasted products and increased growth from growing trees better suited for biomass production is going to increase those numbers.
posted by insomnus at 1:22 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by insomnus at 1:22 PM on February 8, 2006
How about airplanes landing, taking off, and flying overhead?
posted by baklavabaklava at 1:33 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by baklavabaklava at 1:33 PM on February 8, 2006
With regards the goals she said
"no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline."
Which sounds completely reasonable..
posted by zeoslap at 1:38 PM on February 8, 2006
"no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline."
Which sounds completely reasonable..
posted by zeoslap at 1:38 PM on February 8, 2006
Kaigiron:
"People like me?" I assume that by that you mean "people who know that you can't eliminate oil use entirely without causing the entire global economy to collapse."
this obvious anger at Sahlin? Anger? How did you get anger from my post about how full of crap Sahlin is? I'm not angry, I'm calling crap crap. B.S. is par for the political course.
Hundreds of millions of vehicles? Um, we're talking about Sweden here, with a population of just over 9million
Sorry, I also assumed that, once Sweden invented fuel-efficient tree-powered Volvos and Saabs (not to mention tree-powered military aircraft), maybe other people in the world would buy them, too. My bad.
So people like you can throw all the tantrums you want, but soon enough the world will be in short supply, whether or not anyone has adequately prepared themselves.
Perhaps "people like me" are throwing tantrums when stupid politicians make dumbass promises that make conservation look completely stupid, but I'm not throwing a tantrum. I'm living close to work, using as little gas as possible, and hoping that other people do the same. I'm not in denial about the reality of the world running out of oil.
Why on earth would you be upset with the suggestion of weaning off of a *non*-renewable resource?
I'm not upset about anything. I'm annoyed with the proposal that a 1st world country intentionally collapse its entire economy. And do you think that forests are really a renewable source of industrial fuel?
posted by JekPorkins at 1:41 PM on February 8, 2006
"People like me?" I assume that by that you mean "people who know that you can't eliminate oil use entirely without causing the entire global economy to collapse."
this obvious anger at Sahlin? Anger? How did you get anger from my post about how full of crap Sahlin is? I'm not angry, I'm calling crap crap. B.S. is par for the political course.
Hundreds of millions of vehicles? Um, we're talking about Sweden here, with a population of just over 9million
Sorry, I also assumed that, once Sweden invented fuel-efficient tree-powered Volvos and Saabs (not to mention tree-powered military aircraft), maybe other people in the world would buy them, too. My bad.
So people like you can throw all the tantrums you want, but soon enough the world will be in short supply, whether or not anyone has adequately prepared themselves.
Perhaps "people like me" are throwing tantrums when stupid politicians make dumbass promises that make conservation look completely stupid, but I'm not throwing a tantrum. I'm living close to work, using as little gas as possible, and hoping that other people do the same. I'm not in denial about the reality of the world running out of oil.
Why on earth would you be upset with the suggestion of weaning off of a *non*-renewable resource?
I'm not upset about anything. I'm annoyed with the proposal that a 1st world country intentionally collapse its entire economy. And do you think that forests are really a renewable source of industrial fuel?
posted by JekPorkins at 1:41 PM on February 8, 2006
I'm not sure that this is even remotely feasible. Still, it's a nice goal to aspire to, and even going part of the way away from oil is a good thing.
posted by unreason at 1:41 PM on February 8, 2006
posted by unreason at 1:41 PM on February 8, 2006
And do you think that forests are really a renewable source of industrial fuel?
Most resources are renewable, over some timescale. Oil is renewable, over a timescale of millions of years. Forests are renewable on a timescale of centuries. So, there are two salient questions, and neither of them use the word "renewable":
1. What is d(R)/r(R) (where d(R) is the depletion rate of resource R, and r(R) is the replenishment rate of resource R)?
2. What is the EROEI of resource R?
If the answer to #1 is greater than 1, then the resource is not being used in a sustainable manner--otherwise, it is. If the answer to #2 is negative, then it's not worth pursuing.
posted by jefgodesky at 1:52 PM on February 8, 2006
Most resources are renewable, over some timescale. Oil is renewable, over a timescale of millions of years. Forests are renewable on a timescale of centuries. So, there are two salient questions, and neither of them use the word "renewable":
1. What is d(R)/r(R) (where d(R) is the depletion rate of resource R, and r(R) is the replenishment rate of resource R)?
2. What is the EROEI of resource R?
If the answer to #1 is greater than 1, then the resource is not being used in a sustainable manner--otherwise, it is. If the answer to #2 is negative, then it's not worth pursuing.
posted by jefgodesky at 1:52 PM on February 8, 2006
A little over 100 years ago, cars didn't exist at all.
I'm just saying.
posted by dobie at 1:56 PM on February 8, 2006
I'm just saying.
posted by dobie at 1:56 PM on February 8, 2006
JekPorkins:
I would argue just the opposite of you, in that investing in alternative fuels would not only be beneficail to the economies of the world, that it's the only way to avoid the economic collapse. If we don't invest heavily in the change now, all the cheap energy we get from oil will be wasted and not used to develop any new infrastructure. Once we've passed peak production and the price starts going up due to supply (rather than geo-politics), then it's too late to *start* investing in alternatives. The world economy is entirely dependent on the incredibly cheap energy that oil provides. When it's no longer so cheap, we're screwed if we don't already have an alternative. The switch needs to be made now.
I was saying nothing whatsoever about the particular method that Sweden would use to wean themselves off the oil teat. With such a slow rate of growth of trees, I would assume that forests would not be a good source of energy, however you might derive it. But there are many other renewable energy sources, and I figure Sweden would learn pretty quickly how little energy their forests would really provide them. Regardless, my point was that no matter what we do or don't do to find a solution, the oil will run out. We have to do something, even if it seems drastic. It'll only get worse if we wait until the oil prices skyrocket.
posted by Kaigiron at 2:02 PM on February 8, 2006
I would argue just the opposite of you, in that investing in alternative fuels would not only be beneficail to the economies of the world, that it's the only way to avoid the economic collapse. If we don't invest heavily in the change now, all the cheap energy we get from oil will be wasted and not used to develop any new infrastructure. Once we've passed peak production and the price starts going up due to supply (rather than geo-politics), then it's too late to *start* investing in alternatives. The world economy is entirely dependent on the incredibly cheap energy that oil provides. When it's no longer so cheap, we're screwed if we don't already have an alternative. The switch needs to be made now.
I was saying nothing whatsoever about the particular method that Sweden would use to wean themselves off the oil teat. With such a slow rate of growth of trees, I would assume that forests would not be a good source of energy, however you might derive it. But there are many other renewable energy sources, and I figure Sweden would learn pretty quickly how little energy their forests would really provide them. Regardless, my point was that no matter what we do or don't do to find a solution, the oil will run out. We have to do something, even if it seems drastic. It'll only get worse if we wait until the oil prices skyrocket.
posted by Kaigiron at 2:02 PM on February 8, 2006
with a -15C/-49F winter
-15C is about 0F. -49F would be about -45C.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:19 PM on February 8, 2006
-15C is about 0F. -49F would be about -45C.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:19 PM on February 8, 2006
With regards the goals she said
"no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline."
Which sounds completely reasonable..
Indeed. The idea of breaking "oil addiction" shouldn't be "eliminate all use of oil" -- it should be "discover and develop alternatives to oil".
I'd love to get in a reasonably-priced electric vehicle, or heat and cool my house with reasonably-priced solar -- and the technology is more or less there, it's just not cost-effective yet. Getting such technologies cost-effective by 2020 seems, well...not insane.
posted by davejay at 2:20 PM on February 8, 2006
"no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline."
Which sounds completely reasonable..
Indeed. The idea of breaking "oil addiction" shouldn't be "eliminate all use of oil" -- it should be "discover and develop alternatives to oil".
I'd love to get in a reasonably-priced electric vehicle, or heat and cool my house with reasonably-priced solar -- and the technology is more or less there, it's just not cost-effective yet. Getting such technologies cost-effective by 2020 seems, well...not insane.
posted by davejay at 2:20 PM on February 8, 2006
See, the problem here, Kaigiron, is that you and I actually completely agree with respect to the need for alternative fuels and the escalating oil crisis. You say "that investing in alternative fuels would not only be beneficail to the economies of the world, that it's the only way to avoid the economic collapse." I agree 100% with that assessment, and it is wholly consistent with my earlier comments.
Part of the problem with Sweden's alleged plan is that it ignores the fact that, while there are and will be alternatives, none is a 100% alternative. I suspect that will always be so.
I suspect that the real (and only) solution is not to find an alternative way to continue mankind's growth and technological advancement, but to curtail it and even regress significantly. Nobody is ever going to actively seek a way that we can get rid of our tech toys, transportation, communications and other modern niceties, but that is ultimately what it will come down to. A little more than 100 years ago, there were no cars, and there was no "alternative" to cars, either. Perhaps 100 years from now, there will be no more cars, and no way to get from point A to point B easily anymore, either. Will that cause economic collapse? Of course it will. And it will cause wars, pestilence, and all kinds of bad stuff. Is it avoidable? Probably not. Can it be mitigated? Probably. We should certainly try. One thing's for sure: As oil is replaced by more expensive alternatives, the disparity between the lifestyle of the rich and the poor will grow much larger.
A good portion of this world already lives in conditions not unlike those of the 19th century. As oil becomes more scarce and expensive "alternative" sources become the norm for those with 21st century lifestyles, more and more people will be priced out of high-tech existence, communications, transportation, sanitation, health care etc.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:23 PM on February 8, 2006
Part of the problem with Sweden's alleged plan is that it ignores the fact that, while there are and will be alternatives, none is a 100% alternative. I suspect that will always be so.
I suspect that the real (and only) solution is not to find an alternative way to continue mankind's growth and technological advancement, but to curtail it and even regress significantly. Nobody is ever going to actively seek a way that we can get rid of our tech toys, transportation, communications and other modern niceties, but that is ultimately what it will come down to. A little more than 100 years ago, there were no cars, and there was no "alternative" to cars, either. Perhaps 100 years from now, there will be no more cars, and no way to get from point A to point B easily anymore, either. Will that cause economic collapse? Of course it will. And it will cause wars, pestilence, and all kinds of bad stuff. Is it avoidable? Probably not. Can it be mitigated? Probably. We should certainly try. One thing's for sure: As oil is replaced by more expensive alternatives, the disparity between the lifestyle of the rich and the poor will grow much larger.
A good portion of this world already lives in conditions not unlike those of the 19th century. As oil becomes more scarce and expensive "alternative" sources become the norm for those with 21st century lifestyles, more and more people will be priced out of high-tech existence, communications, transportation, sanitation, health care etc.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:23 PM on February 8, 2006
Well, JekPorkins, we do seem to be in much greater agreement than it at first appeared to me. I do agree with most of what you just said.
But I don't think a complete economic collapse is inevitable. Times will get tough, to be sure, but we do have the ability to lessen the damage a great deal.
I assume that by "100% alternative" you meant 100% renewable... and while it's true enough that no energy source is entirely renewable (since we'll always have to build devices that convert available energy into usable form), you still get a net return of energy with any viable source, the EROEI (energy returned over energy invested) that Jefgodesky mentioned. So even if you're using a source that has a much lower EROEI than oil, as essentially everything else we know of does, the amount of energy you get back still just depends on how much infrastructure you build to utilize that resource. I do agree that the world will need to curb some of its voracious appetite for energy, but I still think the world, even one with all the modern niceties we're accustomed to, could get along just fine if we adequately utilize "renewable" energy sources. We just have to invest a lot in building up the infrastructure/industries. Hence my worry about starting that investment now. We still have cheap oil. We won't for long. The last thing we should be doing is burning away the last drops of cheap energy. We should be spending those last drops in developing the next source.
So I, for one, would prefer to rally around politicians like Sahlin (even if she is just blowing smoke -- I have no idea how serious she is) because she is saying things that need to be said, and discussing possible solutions. The sooner we start moving in the right direction, the less the damage to the economy when the well runs dry.
posted by Kaigiron at 3:01 PM on February 8, 2006
But I don't think a complete economic collapse is inevitable. Times will get tough, to be sure, but we do have the ability to lessen the damage a great deal.
I assume that by "100% alternative" you meant 100% renewable... and while it's true enough that no energy source is entirely renewable (since we'll always have to build devices that convert available energy into usable form), you still get a net return of energy with any viable source, the EROEI (energy returned over energy invested) that Jefgodesky mentioned. So even if you're using a source that has a much lower EROEI than oil, as essentially everything else we know of does, the amount of energy you get back still just depends on how much infrastructure you build to utilize that resource. I do agree that the world will need to curb some of its voracious appetite for energy, but I still think the world, even one with all the modern niceties we're accustomed to, could get along just fine if we adequately utilize "renewable" energy sources. We just have to invest a lot in building up the infrastructure/industries. Hence my worry about starting that investment now. We still have cheap oil. We won't for long. The last thing we should be doing is burning away the last drops of cheap energy. We should be spending those last drops in developing the next source.
So I, for one, would prefer to rally around politicians like Sahlin (even if she is just blowing smoke -- I have no idea how serious she is) because she is saying things that need to be said, and discussing possible solutions. The sooner we start moving in the right direction, the less the damage to the economy when the well runs dry.
posted by Kaigiron at 3:01 PM on February 8, 2006
LordSludge writes "Mitheral: $10 million??? "
Well it wouldn't be the only or even the first car in my stable and I've already started sans $10mil. Among others I've got a '60s Chrysler, a 70's Fargo 4X4, an 80's Pontiac sports car, and an fairly rare 80's people hauler.
Even if you get the car itself for a few thousand you need at least a grand in tires/battery/exhaust/brakes. Plus more for at least some of: fixing rust, windshield, top, upholstery, engine tuneup, bulbs, repairing hacked wiring, paint etc, etc. You'll be spending more on the car than the capital purchase in the first place. Plus you have to keep it insured so there is that on going cost.
Next you need a good size garage to stop the sun from fading that $700 top and $1000 paint.
Then the next thing you know your busy body local goverment is writing you tickets because you have too many registered vehicles parked on your property (but I'm not bitter). So now your looking for 10 hectares in unincorpated areas so you don't have to worry about that foolishness. Perferably someplace where you don't have to pass smog checks 'cause the stroked 440 (472 cu. in) with the 3/4 cam in your 1 ton doesn't have a hope in hell of passing.
$10 million is about right. :)
posted by Mitheral at 3:07 PM on February 8, 2006
Well it wouldn't be the only or even the first car in my stable and I've already started sans $10mil. Among others I've got a '60s Chrysler, a 70's Fargo 4X4, an 80's Pontiac sports car, and an fairly rare 80's people hauler.
Even if you get the car itself for a few thousand you need at least a grand in tires/battery/exhaust/brakes. Plus more for at least some of: fixing rust, windshield, top, upholstery, engine tuneup, bulbs, repairing hacked wiring, paint etc, etc. You'll be spending more on the car than the capital purchase in the first place. Plus you have to keep it insured so there is that on going cost.
Next you need a good size garage to stop the sun from fading that $700 top and $1000 paint.
Then the next thing you know your busy body local goverment is writing you tickets because you have too many registered vehicles parked on your property (but I'm not bitter). So now your looking for 10 hectares in unincorpated areas so you don't have to worry about that foolishness. Perferably someplace where you don't have to pass smog checks 'cause the stroked 440 (472 cu. in) with the 3/4 cam in your 1 ton doesn't have a hope in hell of passing.
$10 million is about right. :)
posted by Mitheral at 3:07 PM on February 8, 2006
JekPorkins: Yes, my knee-jerk assumption is that members of the group "environmentalists" will dislike the idea of fueling hundreds of millions of vehicles by cutting down forests. That assumption is based on the stereotype that "environmentalists" don't like the idea of clearcutting millions of acres of forest in order to fuel industry.
That's a heck of a lot of assumptions about what a biofuel program might look like, assumptions that are not warranted by a set of articles that mentioned biofuels as one of multiple energy sources under development.
Is that stereotype wrong? Is my assumption incorrect?
Well, yes and yes. Especially considering that environmentalists are even discussing the nuclear option as a potentially less problematic alternative to continued carbon emissions. From my point of view, I'd say that I can't agree or disagree to a proposal for tree harvesting, without knowing more detail about which trees, for what purpose, using what methods. For example, are we talking about biofuels as a potential end-source for timber waste from other forms of forest harvesting, or just as you put it, clearcutting for fuel? Are we talking (as would be the case with the American Eastern Woodlands) mostly relatively young forest that has been farmed in the last century, or the vanishing sliver of old-growth habitat? These are assumptions that certainly I can't make as an environmentalist from a single sentence in a BBC summary.
I'm not upset about anything. I'm annoyed with the proposal that a 1st world country intentionally collapse its entire economy. And do you think that forests are really a renewable source of industrial fuel?
Pardon, but I'm finding the the tunnel vision here to be rather baffling. Ms. Sahlin's claims are also quite a bit more modest than discussed here, and don't amount to "intentionally collapsing an entire economy" or Her actual proposals are:
* Tax relief for owners of private housing for conversion of heating and electricity.
* Expanding renewable electricity production by another 10TWh by 2016. (Note that I did the math on the TWh claims.)
* Expanded tax benefits for renewable-fuel vehicles.
* Research in alternative energy sources and efficiency. "Special research projects in areas such as energy use in built environments, biofuels, gasification of biomass, and commercialisation and risk capital provision may also be called for."
* Continued investment in district heating.
As for what the actual goal is for 2020. The statement concludes: "The aim is to break dependence on fossil fuels by 2020. By then no home will need oil for heating. By then no motorist will be obliged to use petrol as the sole option available. By then there will always be better alternatives to oil." To me, this suggests that there is a realization that a complete transition is probably not going to happen.
Would you kindly take a deep breath and actually RTFA? Some of us would like to talk about the issues on the table.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:57 PM on February 8, 2006
That's a heck of a lot of assumptions about what a biofuel program might look like, assumptions that are not warranted by a set of articles that mentioned biofuels as one of multiple energy sources under development.
Is that stereotype wrong? Is my assumption incorrect?
Well, yes and yes. Especially considering that environmentalists are even discussing the nuclear option as a potentially less problematic alternative to continued carbon emissions. From my point of view, I'd say that I can't agree or disagree to a proposal for tree harvesting, without knowing more detail about which trees, for what purpose, using what methods. For example, are we talking about biofuels as a potential end-source for timber waste from other forms of forest harvesting, or just as you put it, clearcutting for fuel? Are we talking (as would be the case with the American Eastern Woodlands) mostly relatively young forest that has been farmed in the last century, or the vanishing sliver of old-growth habitat? These are assumptions that certainly I can't make as an environmentalist from a single sentence in a BBC summary.
I'm not upset about anything. I'm annoyed with the proposal that a 1st world country intentionally collapse its entire economy. And do you think that forests are really a renewable source of industrial fuel?
Pardon, but I'm finding the the tunnel vision here to be rather baffling. Ms. Sahlin's claims are also quite a bit more modest than discussed here, and don't amount to "intentionally collapsing an entire economy" or Her actual proposals are:
* Tax relief for owners of private housing for conversion of heating and electricity.
* Expanding renewable electricity production by another 10TWh by 2016. (Note that I did the math on the TWh claims.)
* Expanded tax benefits for renewable-fuel vehicles.
* Research in alternative energy sources and efficiency. "Special research projects in areas such as energy use in built environments, biofuels, gasification of biomass, and commercialisation and risk capital provision may also be called for."
* Continued investment in district heating.
As for what the actual goal is for 2020. The statement concludes: "The aim is to break dependence on fossil fuels by 2020. By then no home will need oil for heating. By then no motorist will be obliged to use petrol as the sole option available. By then there will always be better alternatives to oil." To me, this suggests that there is a realization that a complete transition is probably not going to happen.
Would you kindly take a deep breath and actually RTFA? Some of us would like to talk about the issues on the table.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:57 PM on February 8, 2006
I would also argue that given the history of technologies, there is no reason to assume that the current costs and efficiencies of alternative technologies will remain as they are today. Arguing about the costs of biomass production in 2020, or 2050 based on current costs is rather like arguing about the costs of computing power based on the early stagnant niche markets of Bell and IBM in 1950.
Increasing adoption could mean a more competitive market, which will translate into innovation in both the end product and fabrication technologies.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:15 PM on February 8, 2006
Increasing adoption could mean a more competitive market, which will translate into innovation in both the end product and fabrication technologies.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:15 PM on February 8, 2006
"I suspect that the real (and only) solution is not to find an alternative way to continue mankind's growth and technological advancement, but to curtail it and even regress significantly."
JekPorkins, I'm in complete agreement with you. I think that's exactly what's going to happen. Hopefully we'll figure out a way to do it gracefully - perhaps people will find a real sense of community somehow and work together. In some places that will happen, and in others, like Kenya right now where they're slaughtering each other over fresh water, it won't.
We don't have to get rid of all the tech stuff, we'd just have to eliminate non-productive tech stuff. The Internet is vital to communications, for instance, so it's worth keeping, but individual personal cars and a lot of our other gadgets are completely non-productive and thus will likely go bye-bye.
In addition, what goods that are manufactured need to be designed to last 10, 15, 20 years instead of 2 or 3. My mom has an Electrolux vacuum cleaner that she bought in 1963, before I was born, and it still works perfectly - it's never needed any repair at all. Anyone think a new Hoover will last that long? I have one that's 5 years old and I only use it about once a month, and it's showing signs of failure.
And in addition, on preview, your point KJS about some of our items becoming more and more energy-efficient and simpler to manufacture is valid. Look at flat-panel monitors vs. CRTs, a good example of far less material use and far greater energy efficiency all around. OLEDs will probably do the same thing for another order of magnitude, while all the various processor designs coming up, including quantum computing, will result in similar gains.
However, the scale of manufacturing of all this stuff will probably be quite a bit smaller, as the products will need to be used for essential services first. Cell phones might become a lot less common, and personal music players too. Unfortunately smaller scale means greater cost per unit...
Y'know, I'm thinking the only way we're going to maybe survive this and continue to grow as a species is to divert the entire NASA Space Shuttle budget (and maybe some of that defense missile development money too, hmm?) over to the Space Elevator, and get ourselves cheap access to space fast enough to put up huge photovoltaic satellites to send power down via microwave beam, and continue to bootstrap that process from there, building more Elevators and more solar satellites. Sounds crazy but it's doable.
Otherwise it will be a contraction and a die-off, either slow and reasoned or fast and bloody, depending on how scared we monkeys get.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:02 PM on February 8, 2006
JekPorkins, I'm in complete agreement with you. I think that's exactly what's going to happen. Hopefully we'll figure out a way to do it gracefully - perhaps people will find a real sense of community somehow and work together. In some places that will happen, and in others, like Kenya right now where they're slaughtering each other over fresh water, it won't.
We don't have to get rid of all the tech stuff, we'd just have to eliminate non-productive tech stuff. The Internet is vital to communications, for instance, so it's worth keeping, but individual personal cars and a lot of our other gadgets are completely non-productive and thus will likely go bye-bye.
In addition, what goods that are manufactured need to be designed to last 10, 15, 20 years instead of 2 or 3. My mom has an Electrolux vacuum cleaner that she bought in 1963, before I was born, and it still works perfectly - it's never needed any repair at all. Anyone think a new Hoover will last that long? I have one that's 5 years old and I only use it about once a month, and it's showing signs of failure.
And in addition, on preview, your point KJS about some of our items becoming more and more energy-efficient and simpler to manufacture is valid. Look at flat-panel monitors vs. CRTs, a good example of far less material use and far greater energy efficiency all around. OLEDs will probably do the same thing for another order of magnitude, while all the various processor designs coming up, including quantum computing, will result in similar gains.
However, the scale of manufacturing of all this stuff will probably be quite a bit smaller, as the products will need to be used for essential services first. Cell phones might become a lot less common, and personal music players too. Unfortunately smaller scale means greater cost per unit...
Y'know, I'm thinking the only way we're going to maybe survive this and continue to grow as a species is to divert the entire NASA Space Shuttle budget (and maybe some of that defense missile development money too, hmm?) over to the Space Elevator, and get ourselves cheap access to space fast enough to put up huge photovoltaic satellites to send power down via microwave beam, and continue to bootstrap that process from there, building more Elevators and more solar satellites. Sounds crazy but it's doable.
Otherwise it will be a contraction and a die-off, either slow and reasoned or fast and bloody, depending on how scared we monkeys get.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:02 PM on February 8, 2006
Frankly I don't give a damn whether they actually can do it or not by 2020. It beats doing nothing and counting on magic wand technologies to come along at just the right moment.
As for the idea that declining supplies of fossil fuels will increase the disparity between rich and poor, I'm not sure I agree. Isn't it possible that the trend will actually be away from centralized energy distribution - which we have now, with a few megacompanies controlling the means of production - and towards local self-sufficiency in energy ( I'm thinking neighborhood-scale micro-pellet fission reactors of the type that China is toying with mass producing. Isn't it just as likely that alternative energies will encourage economic and political self-reliance at the local level?
posted by slatternus at 7:35 PM on February 8, 2006
As for the idea that declining supplies of fossil fuels will increase the disparity between rich and poor, I'm not sure I agree. Isn't it possible that the trend will actually be away from centralized energy distribution - which we have now, with a few megacompanies controlling the means of production - and towards local self-sufficiency in energy ( I'm thinking neighborhood-scale micro-pellet fission reactors of the type that China is toying with mass producing. Isn't it just as likely that alternative energies will encourage economic and political self-reliance at the local level?
posted by slatternus at 7:35 PM on February 8, 2006
That's certainly a possibility and one of the brighter ones. Even before going to "garbage can" pebble-bed nukes, there are other ways that various localities can generate local energy, like small scale hydroelectric for places with rivers nearby, possibly tidal power on the coast, wind, solar, or even local biofuels. This would be even more effective if communities re-urbanize.
Definitely one of the things that I think municipalities should think about and start planning for, along with trying to restart localized agriculture.
posted by zoogleplex at 8:47 PM on February 8, 2006
Definitely one of the things that I think municipalities should think about and start planning for, along with trying to restart localized agriculture.
posted by zoogleplex at 8:47 PM on February 8, 2006
I did some calculations when this was posted on digg.com
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/country-proile-173.html
http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/Mod1/Whatis/energyresourcetables.htm
In 1999, Sweden consumed 594 TWh of energy - 34% non-renewable fossil, 38% non-renewable nuclear, and 28% renewable. With 0.08% growth in annual energy consumption, Sweden is expected to be consuming 604 TWh annually by 2020.
In the last 4 years, Swedish renewable energy production increased by a total of 4.5 TWh or roughly 1.1 TWh per year. Mona Sahlin is projecting an additional 10.5 TWh between now and 2016, roughly the same 1.1 TWh production growth per year. Thus projected renewable energy production by 2020 is 23.1 TWh annually.
Using the previous energy consumption source breakdown, Sweden has a non-renewable fossil fuel energy "gap" of 199 TWh by 2020 (33% of 604 TWh). By 2020, the projected renewable energy production is 23.1 TWh.
To realistically achieve its goal, Sweden will need to use some combination of increasing renewable energy and non-renewable nuclear energy production, reducing total energy consumption, and/or importing large amounts of non-fossil fuel energy to cover the difference of 175.9 TWh. And it has 14 years to do it.
posted by junesix at 8:14 AM on February 9, 2006
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/country-proile-173.html
http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/Mod1/Whatis/energyresourcetables.htm
In 1999, Sweden consumed 594 TWh of energy - 34% non-renewable fossil, 38% non-renewable nuclear, and 28% renewable. With 0.08% growth in annual energy consumption, Sweden is expected to be consuming 604 TWh annually by 2020.
In the last 4 years, Swedish renewable energy production increased by a total of 4.5 TWh or roughly 1.1 TWh per year. Mona Sahlin is projecting an additional 10.5 TWh between now and 2016, roughly the same 1.1 TWh production growth per year. Thus projected renewable energy production by 2020 is 23.1 TWh annually.
Using the previous energy consumption source breakdown, Sweden has a non-renewable fossil fuel energy "gap" of 199 TWh by 2020 (33% of 604 TWh). By 2020, the projected renewable energy production is 23.1 TWh.
To realistically achieve its goal, Sweden will need to use some combination of increasing renewable energy and non-renewable nuclear energy production, reducing total energy consumption, and/or importing large amounts of non-fossil fuel energy to cover the difference of 175.9 TWh. And it has 14 years to do it.
posted by junesix at 8:14 AM on February 9, 2006
Any country that could create the 100 MPG car in the 70's could probably show the rest of the world some 'techno magic' for breaking away from oil-dependence.
Here is a description of Volvo's LCP 2000 (first prototype unveiled in 1983):
Volvo [LCP 2000] claims 56 miles per gallon city, 81 mpg on long trips, and a combined figure of 65 mpg; certainly cause for applause. The best mileage occurs at 40 mph. At that common urban pace, you could expect an astounding 100 mpg! Moreover, the high-efficiency diesel will accept a diet chosen from a wide range of fuels. The press demonstration car ran on rapeseed oil!
Whole Earth Review article on LCP 2000
posted by Surfurrus at 11:02 AM on February 9, 2006
Here is a description of Volvo's LCP 2000 (first prototype unveiled in 1983):
Volvo [LCP 2000] claims 56 miles per gallon city, 81 mpg on long trips, and a combined figure of 65 mpg; certainly cause for applause. The best mileage occurs at 40 mph. At that common urban pace, you could expect an astounding 100 mpg! Moreover, the high-efficiency diesel will accept a diet chosen from a wide range of fuels. The press demonstration car ran on rapeseed oil!
Whole Earth Review article on LCP 2000
posted by Surfurrus at 11:02 AM on February 9, 2006
Now if only I could break my addiction for Swedish chocolate.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:59 AM on February 9, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:59 AM on February 9, 2006
Their main problem seems that a Volvo in avarage stays at the first owner for 12 years and easily runs for 4-6 years after that. If there is no gasoline in Sweden in 2020 that means that a lot of used cars will run dry..
posted by hanslicht at 3:07 PM on February 9, 2006
posted by hanslicht at 3:07 PM on February 9, 2006
« Older Open-source music library app | 90 Degrees Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by edgeways at 11:19 AM on February 8, 2006