I'm back in Iceland, and although it might seem strange if you are familiar with my previous adventure here in the dead of winter I'm happy to report that July is definitely a better month for visiting than December. No howling winds or pounding rain. Fleece is still the garment of choice but the sun never goes down. I'm here at an annual cradle to cradle conference (well more like a gathering) with eco architect Bill McDonough who first came to Iceland with Benny Goodman thirty five years ago. (Bill put himself through architecture school working as Goodman's chauffeur and the two became good friends.) McDonough is now the leading authority on cradle-to-cradle design in which there is no end to a product's usefulness, everything is continually recycled, eliminating the concept of waste entirely.
The conference schedule in Iceland sure takes some getting used to. Salmon fly fishing by day, lunch at three, dinner at ten, discussion begins at eleven...pm! Ideas really sound good around then. You don't know what a long summer day is until you've spent one in Iceland! Hitting the hay at three in the morning requires an eye mask and heavy drapes.
The most impressive fact about Iceland is that they went from a completely fossil fuel dependent nation to a completely coal independent nation. Not a single chunk of coal is burned for electricity there. Instead, they power their booming economy with renewable geothermal and hydropower (and they heat around 90% of their buildings with geothermal too). (Iceland has no nuclear plants either.) It can be done. They proved it!
But even though Iceland is energy independent, they are seeing firsthand the effects of global warming. Two weeks ago a couple polar bears, sitting atop two separate icebergs drifted all the way from Greenland to Iceland. The first bear was spotted by a ten-year-old girl walking along the beach, and because of its proximity to a farm, it was shot immediately. The second bear, because of the public outcry to the first shooting, had a slight reprieve. An expert was brought in from Denmark to try to figure out how to save it, but ultimately that bear was shot soon after as well.
I heard about this rare occurrence of polar bears drifting to Iceland from the fly fishing guide Hallur Lund (a mechanical engineer during the off season) who thinks global warming is the reason the polar bears ended up in the wrong place. "They would never swim from Greenland to Iceland. No way," Hallur said. If two polar bears hit this tiny little island I wonder how many end up floating past, never bumping into a shore and end up drowning. You could say the two who landed were the lucky ones; at least they found land.
i wanted to add this in your other blog on the trash in airports, but for some odd reason i cannot reply there.. lol so here is this from huffington post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/trash-power-dumping-energ_n_112953.html
like i said and glad people are thinking of solutions. i just finished watching the six degrees dvd documentary from national geographic, and i have SO many ideas to help but not sure who to say this stuff too........... hmmmmm
p.s. heard gunshots...
"...I must continue to question why U.S. taxpayers continue to subsidize mature energy companies, in mature energy markets with mature energy technologies at literally tens of billions of dollars per year? These tax subsidies .... distort the market against the newer energy technologies, and sustain pollution and energy imports -- more than any other industrialized country. This needs to stop and Congress needs some backbone to increase these clean energy incentives for 10 years."
The point is that there is no free market, but that U.S. government outlays and tax breaks are heavily influenced in favor of already established technologies and companies. Just making the playing field level for alternative energy industries would greatly spur their development, but government investment in them could produce a drastic explosion of growth in these new technologies.
Furthermore, The Geysers facilities produce more electricity than all of the facilities in Iceland combined.
Geothermal is a resource that currently provides only about 0.4% of all of the electrical needs of the United States, but it could reasonably produce more. This resource is so underutilised, that it hardly matters how much it could be used, only that it could be used much, much more than what it is now.
It is a common misconception that geothermal development requires magma on the surface of the earth. It does not, it only needs magma near enough to the surface as to be able to heat water. This circumstance is actually rather common on our planet.
As many have made here, the argument that the US is not a leader is alternative power is deceptive. Per capita, that is correct. There are many countries that, per capita, use more alternative energy than the US. But in overall alternative power produced/used in the world, the US is, by far, the leader in producing/using alternative energy. The US is the #1 producer of Geothermal Energy in the world. Technologically, the US invests significantly more into the development of alternative fuels and technologies than any other country in the world. In actuality, the US is the leader in the development and use of alternative energy.
It is difficult to prove an argument when one is comparing a country of < 1 million to a country of >200 million.
Why is the U.S. lagging? Why is Germany of all places leading in Solar. WE should be leading in solar. Likewise wind, geothermal, methane, hydro, etc. We're slackers when it comes to alternative energy.
As for the bears, so very sad. Yes, the lucky ones were shot. I wonder how many other poor bears ended up drowning or starving in the middle of the ocean, wondering what happened.
There is some plausible points to the idea that man contributes to global warming but there is also some strong counter-arguments that this is not the case. The debate is not over. This is a very complicated issue. Pulling the heart strings by talking about polar bears at the end of the day does not add a thing the highly technical/scientific debate that should be taking presidence in the arena of debate.
Americans say they are a forward thinking people, but man we love to fight change, even when it is clear that the change is not only necessary but a moral imperative. Instead of saying "well we're bigger and don't have that particular resource so there's nothing to learn there," how about "well, we don't have quite the geothermal resources, but we sure do have areas that get a lot of wind. Could we do this with wind power?" While dams have been the technology of choice for centuries to capture hydroelectric power, there are companies developing underwater propellers that use currents and tides to capture energy and generate electricity, negativing the need to dam up a single river and allow us to take advantage of our thousands of coastal miles in additions to inland rivers.
More drilling inandof itself is not helpful- most refineries in America operate at full or almost full capacity. Instead of spending the capital to make more refineries and more drills, why not as another user said take advantage of tax breaks for renewable energy and begin making those technologies viable? We will have to someday take advantage of renewable resources - why wait for $10/gallon gas?
None of this could not of happened unless the internet age was here people would of been threaten and even worse perhaps killed to keep this off the market.
Please check on new energies, solar and others this is now not 3, 4 , 5 years down the road.
What the hell is wrong with the canidates and there consultants do they have NO clue to what is going on and how fast everything is moving.
We wil have a new economy beyond most people dreams and the planet will be much better off because of it , but it is not the long future . It is here now.
Personally, I'll hold out for one of the cheaper models you mentioned. Maybe they'll drop the price to a reasonable 75K. That's something everyone can afford in this economy.
Hint: It is not the consultants and candidates who have no clue.
"in 50 years the nation could achieve a capacity of 100,000 megawatts – enough to supply about 25 million homes – at an eventual cost of just $40 million a year. That would represent about 6% of the current US electricity supply"
source: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn11010-us-urged-to-boost-its-geothermal-power-capacity.html
Iceland's total Geothermal power equals about 0.2% of US power generation. Iceland's total POTENTIAL geothermal power represents about 1.2% of current US generation.
source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=US and http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=IC
Please inlighten us on all the other things we CAN'T POSSIBLY DO in the next 10 to 20 years.
"I think I can't! I think I can't! I think I can't!" The poor little tug-boat that couldn't.
And, imagine what Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Edison would think of today's revolution in industry. Would they bemoan the difficulties, or be thrilled at the challenges?
Tremendous strides are being taken, whether naysayers say it is impossible or not. The investments in geothermal, wind and solar for next year are on track to exceed those of any previous year, if the Republican minority in the Senate is not successful in stopping the efforts.
The bibliography of that document leads to myriad other resources. Both the pdf and many of its underlying references discuss the costs and lead times associated with construction.
Why do you suppose that major engineering projects can be constructed overnight? Major power systems take YEARS and great capital expenditures to accomplish.
One thing I doubt seriously can be accomplished in the next ten to twenty years: We will not be able to convince you that a gropup of engineers from MIT know more about poweer plant engineering and construction than you do.
If wind gives us 25%,
and solar gives us 20%
and hydro gives us 15%,
then we will have drastically reduced our dependence on imported petroleum and the burning of coal.
While we are working on building the plants to implement already available technologies for renewables, who is to say that scientists and engineers can't work on newer and more revolutionary ways to make our electricity?
And how are any of these technologies going to replace oil? 67% of oil use in the United States is consumed in transportation systems. source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_m.htm None of them are portable.
Here' a revolutionary thought: Get the government's incompetent, greedy and meddling hands out of the energy markets and let free enterprise provide actual COST EFFECTIVE energy supplies. This government mandated and subsidized corn ethanol program has been an unmitigated disaster and should be immediately abandoned. The rest of the government's idiotic energy production subsidies are no more cost effective or successful.
Who go to eat the bear meat and keep the bear skin?
If the shooter gets to keep what he kills, SIGN ME UP!
I could use a good ton of meat and a nice rug!
It's unfortunate that the American people have to suffer before they start to demand that things get changed for the better but, suffer they must. When the American people suffer, a need is created. The people with the money recognize the suffering as a market and begin to pour their money into relieving the suffering knowing that their investment will be returned. Not many people want to suffer.
Iceland is an example of what can be done. America has plenty of wind, sun, rain, and technological capability. We just need to take the tax rebates and pour them in.
(http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html
It can only be that the investment in current oil production is so huge and the profits so great that geothermal energy development is stifled by those in power. I am surprised that so many asre ignorant of the feasibility of geothermal. Scientists engaged in geothermal studies have published but seem to have been ignored.
Earthquakes
eventual cooling the earth core.
If the core solidifies, the magnetic field goes away, and everything on earth dies.
Wind and solar are the cheapest, fastest way to eliminate Nukes, coal oil and geothermal.
See my profile for details and links.
2) CO2 is assisting in record crops due to the amount in the atmosphere.
3) The Sun spots are inactive causing the Earth to cool DESPITE the fear mongering Global Warming nutcases.
4) Hurricanes were predicted in 2005 to be overwelmingly large and destructive, not to mention numerous. Turns out they weren't numerous (until the NOAA "adjusted" their figures to claim storms that had 70 mph winds for "at least" 30 minutes...instead of the prior 12 hours as before) they weren't destructive at all, and then only barely matched the average season for the last 200 years (Hansen REALLY hated that fact coming out didn't he?).
5) Every single weather prediction the Global Warming fanatics have made for the last 100 years has proven false. Including Ice Age, then Burn Age, then Ice Age, and now Burn Age again.
6) The VAST MAJORITY OF WEATHER SCIENTIST have said that the Global Warming freaks are not accurate. In other words, BULL__it is all they are spouting.
Now, I am going to go fill up the Diesel Truck (100 gallons), fill up the wife's SUV (40 gallons), and go fishing in my 30 foot boat (150 gallons) this weekend...have fun whining about Global Warming!
Unless you are rich and can really afford $1500 for transportation for one weekend.