January 12, 2005

• /raises fist Fuckin' rock on, Iceland you little beauties!!
• You would think that Iceland would be interested in hastening Global Warming.
• It'll be interesting to see if they can do it. Hydrogen as fuel still has a lot of hurdles ahead of it. This'll be a handy test case.
• Very cool. Scientific American Frontiers did an interesting program on new auto technology that included a bit about Iceland. Info here and here.
• yeah man...i guess it's what you get when actually have respect for nature and stuff.
• "You would think that Iceland would be interested in hastening Global Warming." Er, no. Because I think most of the inhabitants can't actually breathe underwater.
• Because I think most of the inhabitants can't actually breathe underwater. Stupid Icelanders
• Bigger and richer, yes, but Iceland is not exactly poor, either. Not dissing the Icelanders, you understand, but it's easy to run a green energy policy when you have a tiny population, hardly any roads, and enough superheated water shooting out of the ground to heat every building you care to put up at virtually no cost. Alright, I admit it - I never really got over the Cod War...
• It's strange, though, that Iceland is mostly green, and Greenland is mostly ice. Stupid Vjikings & their fuckin' Ljutefisk.
• Um... I think they should use Elf power... no, that's not good enough... The Elves told them to do... nah, rubbish... Er... Elvish... er... oh, sod it. Some joke about elves, anyway.
• It's not so much strange as clever PR. Iceland doesn't want anyone visiting, so they named themselves something forbidding, to keep the foolish away. Greenland, on the other hand, desperately wanted tourism money, hence the friendly name. Or so I've heard.
• I'm reminded of that Daily Onion story: DETROIT—Ford announced a Sept. 3 rollout date for its new Ford Foresight, a hydrogen-powered SUV that, if it reaches sales projections, will deplete the earth's supply of hydrogen by 2070. "America has asked for a car that does not use fossil fuels, and we've delivered," Ford CEO William Ford Jr. said Monday. "With an engine nearly 20 times as powerful as that of our gas-burning SUV, the 11-ton Foresight will be unaffected by the price-gouging whims of OPEC, as it uses water electrolysis to gather fuel from the oceans and the fresh mountain air." Ford acknowledged that, when hydrogen supplies are depleted, the usefulness of the Foresight, as well as life on earth as we know it, will end.
• You are damn right, Sandspider. It's all down to that dastardly Norwegian tourism promoter, Eiríkr Þorvaldsson, naming the island Greenland in AD 982, in order to encourage colonists. This was why the colonists later tied him to a post, stripped him naked, poured cold water over him & left him outside in the harshest of Greenland winters allowing Polar Bears & vicious Blood Pjenguins to gnaw at his gjenitals. But the name has lasted til this very day. As has Ljutefisk.
• Stupid sexy Vjikings...!
• I'm calling my private island paradise Hell Island That Smells of Sick to keep all you peasants away.
• Link's bad now. But if this is true, kudos to Iceland, bigtime.
• Elf Power is an okay band. Though I've seen them live, and it's unlikely that their paltry performance could power all of Iceland.
• /me reads Nostril's post... I wish we could still have þorn and eð in English. Þat would be great. I'd happily give up Q and K in exchange.
• I'm pretty sure Icelanders really, really don't want there to be any more global warming. Many models predict that warming will cause the gulf stream to move away from Iceland or stop altogether, causing it to get much, much colder there.
• The little nation is putting its money where its mouth is, unlike many other, far bigger/richer nations. (*cough* US *cough*) As much as I support alternative fuel initiatives, the US can hardly afford to completely abandon our oil dependency *just* yet. It's asinine to think otherwise, and it's just as asinine to accuse the US of being hypocritical or uninvolved in the shift from fossil fuels to alt. fuel resources, when in fact the US is one of the world leaders in alt. fuel research and programs. Rather, it's a little nicer to say, "Gee, it sure is good that Iceland is providing a solid alt. fuels testbed case for the rest of the world to watch and examine. Maybe that's what the future holds for the US as well, down the road." At least, I think so.
• "...the US can hardly afford to completely abandon our oil dependency *just* yet." of course the U.S. can't make any sort of similar move -- if it did, there would be no reason to still be committing atrocities in Iraq.
• "..it's just as asinine to accuse the US of being hypocritical or uninvolved in the shift from fossil fuels to alt. fuel resources, when in fact the US is one of the world leaders in alt. fuel research and programs." The US is indeed one of the world leaders in alternative fuel research, but it's not *the* top one, in fact it's a little low on the list. Both Canada & Japan outstrip the US in terms of alternative fuel research. The US has more capital to plough into such projects, but has little to show for it. There is no major incentive for US corporations to explore this route in serious fashion, & economic leaders seem to show zero comprehension of the potentials for alternative fuels. In any case, research is one thing, but application is another, a field in which the US has a pitiful record; there are no serious applications of alternative fuel in the US outside of subsidised & glorified PR projects, so far as I am aware. I'm sure there's a few wind power generators sitting on an Iowa hill somewhere, but they amount to a gnat fart in a storm compared to fossil fuel usage. Even the nuclear plant industry outstrips them, with technology half a century out of date. The US economy is totally dependant upon fossil fuels, namely oil, & this economic requirement has been the major driving factor in US foreign policy activities over all other considerations for decades. Subsidising & protecting oil supplies has been the central issue in nearly all US military & major corporate activity in foreign nations since WWII, & continues to be. There is no sign that alternative fuel research factors into future economic plans for the US in any way, certainly not under the current blinkered administration.
• Iceland is mostly green, and Greenland is mostly ice That reminds me D2: The Mighty Ducks for some reason...
• I believe what's happening now is that China is taking the lead in terms of alternative energy R&D. IMO what needs to happen is some in the West needs to step up and propose an Apollo project for alternative energy -- "ten years, and we'll rid ourselves of our addiction to fossil fuels" instead of "ten years and we'll put a man on the moon." Two messages can be used to sell this concept: 1.) We can't let China dominate the global energy market, so we can't let it beat us (the democratic West) in the alternative energy race, and 2.) If we get rid of our reliance on oil, the terrorist threat to our economy will decrease. I think the Democratics in the U.S. would be well advised to think about some kind of bold strategy along these lines, if they want to have any shot at regaining power in the near-term.
• [should have been on preview: Nostril, where's your list of global alt-fuel research leaders come from? I thought I'd read that China was out front these days, but maybe not. Must break out google fu.]
• I didn't do an amazing amount of research, only enough to see that US is not among the top movers & shakers in alternative fuel technology. It wouldn't surprise me at all if China is up there.
• I couldn't find anything to back up my claim about China. (D'oh!) In any case, world energy consumption is only rising, and China's is rising faster than anyone else's; whoever "wins" the race (or various races) to lead in alternative energy(-ies) will win big stakes. That can be a sub-message to the "increase national security by decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels" rallying cry I proposed.
• Well, we are doing a little bit. Wind power is doing particularily well in the pacific northwest. It seems like there are a few more miles of windmills every time I drive by. This is not to say that the US has any real doubts about where power (in both the political and physics senses) really comes from... just that it would take even less foresight that our current administration has to ignore some forms of alternative energy's very obvious potential.
• My sim city runs amazingly well on alternative power. If only those pesky aliens would stop coming around to suck up the solar power plants.
• of course the U.S. can't make any sort of similar move -- if it did, there would be no reason to still be committing atrocities in Iraq. I think that's the most amazing insight I've heard about the war in Iraq. In fact, it seems to sum up our entire foreign policy strategy there. Wow!
• Nostril, you're right. The US isn't the at the top, though we probably should be given our capital and scientific power. In any case, research is one thing, but application is another A chicken or the egg scenario exists here. Without one, the other is but a high ideal. And as you say, it's difficult to convince corporations to invest in serious research when the economic advantages for doing so are not immediately apparent, esp. to those who watch their bottom lines. I think, if alt. fuel research is going to go anywhere, it will be at the hands of private researchers and initiatives similar to the strides made by small groups of hobbyists and researchers in the field of space exploration. Private enterprise always has been and always will be the driving force in introducing new, advanced, and ultimately trend-setting changes in this country.
• I'd agree with f8x on the comparison with the space race - alternative energy (until the need for it becomes immediate and urgent, when the oil runs out) will be advanced by similar means. That could be private enterprise (either particularly forward-thinking companies, or ones doing it for the eco-friendly PR), or it could be wealthy hobbyists. But it could also come from a bold national statement of intent, as Kennedy did with the moon shot. A bit of high-profile investment, a deliberate drive to stimulate both academic and industrial research... and the bonuses in terms of jobs, spin-off technologies and competitive edge would be tangible far sooner than the energy and environmental plusses. Iceland may find the transition easier than almost any other country, but I'd imagine they'll be reaping all sorts of benefits from it. Of course, increased threats of terrorism, war and political unrest in the Middle East could also start driving innovation in the field. So, that's something good to take from the recent unpleasantness, perhaps.
• Private enterprise always has been and always will be the driving force in introducing new, advanced, and ultimately trend-setting changes in this country. The aforementioned Apollo project -- hell, space exploration in general -- is a pretty strong refutation of this statement. At least till the current point in time, there's no way you can say that private enterprises and not governments have been the "driving force" in advances in space exploration. flashboy has got it right: Sometimes a nudge from leaders in places of power can get things done that the allegedly all-powerful markets would not get done until much later on if at all. That we're running out of oil, and that our dependence on oil makes it easier for anti-West terrorists to threaten our well-being, are important enough issues to merit some of this kind of effort.
• With regard to a number of renewable energy technologies, the basic research has been long done. Wind turbines for example, aren't going to be getting much more efficient whatever you do with them. What is needed is the stimulation of a market which will increase the capacity of wind turbines put into operation thus pushing down prices to the point where they are competitive. This needs to be combined with an assessment of the other barriers which militate against the increased use of more distributed generating sources on networks (for example connection costs vs network use of system charges, adequate compensation for system benefits as well as costs) and other institutional barriers such as planning regulations. Installations of wind turbines in Germany is approaching 20GW, while nearly 20% of electricity in Denmark is expected to have been supplied from wind in 2004. Denmark and Sweden are also leading efforts to utilise biofuels. Perhaps surprisingly, recent efforts in renewables in the US have been spearheaded in Texas, where a Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was introduced in 1999 (under one Governor G.W. Bush) has helped to stimulate over 1GW of capacity. The RPS was backed by a federal tax credit, and generally it seems to have taken both the combination of an RPS and a tax credit to stimulate interest but there is evidence that later rounds have seen projects become sufficiently economic to require the tax credit alone. One key problem has been that the federal tax credit is often subject to political pressures and isn't always renewed immediately which can undermine efforts. Whilst about a dozen or so states have RPS mechanisms what is really needed is a nationally led RPS mechanism, preferably backed by a federal tax credit of some kind to provide initial stability to investment in the sector. Private enterprise always has been and always will be the driving force in introducing new, advanced, and ultimately trend-setting changes in this country. But what do you do when the overall goal of policy isn't purely to provide an economic good at the least cost? Here we have a clear societal demand for electricity, with consumers wanting that electricity at least cost. However, there is also a clear environmental imperative which has potential impacts on all, consumer and non-consumer alike. how do you build environmental goals into a mechanism (the market) which has economic motivators as its raison detre? There are multiple solutions. More liberal economies such as the US and the UK tend to favour an RPS as it provides a stimulus within the scope of an artificially stimulated marketplace which aims to service the environmental aspect but allows competition to minimise costs (that's the theory anyway). What would you suggest as an alternative?
• Well clearly, just having a societal need in place isn't enough (see: Rwanda, Sudan, etc); I didn't mean to imply that economics alone would drive the market. However, I think, at least here in the US, it will be the major influencing factor. That and the love of the industry. While space exploration has its romantic side (and its draw is easy to see), I don't see the same thing with alternative fuel research. It's like the kid who brings firecrackers to school vs. the one who brings his underpants collection. One of 'em is going to get all the attention.
• "I'm sure there's a few wind power generators sitting on an Iowa hill somewhere, but they amount to a gnat fart in a storm compared to fossil fuel usage." Texas is the #2 state in the US in alternative energy production. Several very large wind farms contribute a large portion of this power generation. As this link says, Texas now generates about 1,000 megawatts from wind farms. The state's total generating capacity is about 77,000 megawatts. Wind power, then, is about 1.3% of Texas's power generation. But the legislature wants 2,000 by the end of the decade; and the article has someone quoted as saying that 10,000 is realistic. Just to reality check your exageration. Also, it's damn easy for Iceland to go to a hydrogen energy distribution economy for a variety of reasons, mostly that they have enormous amounts of readily available geothermal sources. Also, in case it's not clear to everyone, hydrogen is a distribution technology, not a production technology. The energy still has to be produced somehow. And in the US, that will still be primarily fossil fuels. (Also, ironically, as is sometimes pointed out, some of that energy will be produced in fossil fuel burning plants that will be more polluting than the gas-fueled automobiles that hydrogen would replace.)
• The foreign policy strategy of the U.S. is entirely dependent upon subjugating or murdering their targets, f8x, but if you'd rather pretend that your government and military have purer, more benign goals and loftier ideals, feel free to do so.
• Okay, coppermac, I'm delusional. Whatever keeps your bell ringing, buddy.
• Glad to see you've finally noticed your delusion, f8x. It's the first step to recovery.
• Ah, but if I'm delusional, how do I know that what you're saying isn't a construct of my psychosis? Or for that matter, you yourself? See, the game is to go as long as you can labouring under your own particular delusion. So, you keep yours, I'll keep mine, and never the twain shall meet.
• The foreign policy strategy of the U.S. is entirely dependent upon subjugating or murdering their targets Yes, I agree absolutely, coppermac, the greatest problem with the Bush administration is their crudely reductionist and simplistic conceptualisation of complex geopolitical issues... oh, hang, on... sorry, what were we talking about? Something to do with alternative energy, right?
• What the fuck does any of this have to do with Iceland? (sheesh)
• I hope our parties do meet, f8x. With knives in our hands.
• Complex geopolitical issues like the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq? Good grief, wake up.
• Fine, they don't want oil then I don't have to use ice.
• Well clearly, just having a societal need in place isn't enough (see: Rwanda, Sudan, etc); I didn't mean to imply that economics alone would drive the market. However, I think, at least here in the US, it will be the major influencing factor. Well obviously the economics are the major factor anywhere, the point is, how government can act to provide support to technologies in the early stages of development to assist them in overcoming the chokehold that fossil fuels have on the marketplace as a result of historical subsidy, political advantage and superior capital. Ie, how can government act to enable renewables to overcome the initial economic barriers to their development? (The societal desire for cheap electricity is the basis for investors to act to produce electricity as a good, clearly, the desire alone is not enough, the formation of the market requires that the good can be produced at a price that sufficient customers can meet in order for the project to be economic and for the investor to accrue sufficient profit.) Clearly, valuation of the comparative environmental benefits (or rather, comparative lack of disbenefits) of renewables is one way forward, but this has to be recognised by government and adopted through legislation and regulation if it is to affect the marketplace. Love of the industry is really neither here nor there once the technology is past a certain stage. Currently, wind energy is past that stage (this may seem counter intuitive given the huge amount of money in the space sector, but space exploration is a far from mature industry while wind turbine manufacture is approaching maturity). Renewables attention is more likely to stem from international political pressure to resolve environmental problems, though attention so far has been focussed more in Europe and Japan than in N. America. The wind turbine sector was initially serviced by a combination of the environmentally motivated and those with sufficient engineering skills but while advocacy of the use of the technology is still important in changing policy, the industry itself is now much more focussed on the economic outcomes.
• With knives in our hands. Thank you for your constructive, well-reasoned, and healthy contributions to MonkeyFilter.
• That's it! No more posts about Iceland! They just get everybody all riled up.
• Rocket to the rescue!
• You're welcome, lower-class tool.
• I forgot to add "clever" and "witty" as well.
• Private enterprise always has been and always will be the driving force in introducing new, advanced, and ultimately trend-setting changes in this country. In general, yes. Notable exceptions: telephone, Internet, etc.