Sweden will be the first oil-free country in the world by 2020

boracay · #1 09-01-2007, 02:53 PM

without building new nuclear power stations

The Swedish government wants to cut-off completely the nation's dependency on fossil energy and switch to clean, renewable energy. That means that Sweden will become the first country in the world to stop using oil. Cars in Sweden will be environmentally friendly and homes will be heated by renewable energies such as biomass or geothermal sources.

surely cannot be achieved everywhere, but it's a model to follow.

Sweden is not the only country which wants to switch from fossil fuels to renewables, but it has one of the tightest deadlines. Iceland hopes to power all its cars with hydrogen by 2050 while Brazil aims for 80% of its transport fleet to be powered by ethanol derived from sugar beet. Brazil aims to double its ethanol production by 2013.

The UK has a target of 2010 for fuel companies to sell at least 5% of fuel from renewable sources – 20 times the level of biofuels sold in the UK today.link

Nielsio · #2 09-01-2007, 03:13 PM

Say it ain't so......

warrantofice · #3 09-01-2007, 03:34 PM

Hydrogen cars? i don't really feel like disproving this but just understand that we are really really far off from this being an alternative. Look on MIT World http://mitworld.mit.edu/
and you can find out why it sucks. Oh and beat sugar is not going to solve the world energy crisis. This whole ethonal kick is okay, but not great and just kinda delaying the inevitable. Go Sweden though, sounds like their doing something good over there. I don't know why people have it out for nuclear power, especially new nuclear power. But oh well, thats my 2 cents.

Copernicus · #4 09-01-2007, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why people have it out for nuclear power, especially new nuclear power. But oh well, thats my 2 cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the MMGW fanatics cut their teeth protesting nuclear power.

NewTeaBag · #5 09-01-2007, 04:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why people have it out for nuclear power, especially new nuclear power. But oh well, thats my 2 cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the MMGW fanatics cut their teeth protesting nuclear power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd change that to uninformed ENVIRO fanatics. I believe MMGW theory holds strong argument (but I'm no fanatic by any means).

Though tis now quite ironic that many of the same crowd that setback the nuclear power industry by decades have now picked up a new crusade, MMGW, for which the only major, mainstream, available on a commercial level is the very same "nuclear" power.

Additional irony: Ahem! Wasn't it Clinton/Gore's administration that pretty much put the kaibash on the planning/construction of the safe mega nuclear waste holding facility at Yucca mountain? Setting it back by at least a decade?

LOL Gore and his save the world from warming crusade. Perhaps the "Inconvenient Truth" is that nuclear power IS the way forward.

pvn · #6 09-01-2007, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Swedish government wants to cut-off completely the nation's dependency on fossil energy and switch to clean, renewable energy. That means that Sweden will become the first country in the world to stop using oil. Cars in Sweden will be environmentally friendly and homes will be heated by renewable energies such as biomass or geothermal sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does "cars will be environmentally friendly" mean?

I'll take the over for as much action as I can find.

Kaj · #7 09-01-2007, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Additional irony: Ahem! Wasn't it Clinton/Gore's administration that pretty much put the kaibash on the planning/construction of the safe mega nuclear waste holding facility at Yucca mountain? Setting it back by at least a decade?

[/ QUOTE ]

The people of the state objected. The governor of the state objected. If you want a nuclear waste site so bad, why don't you volunteer your town? Why should Nevadans store the waste for nuclear power used for your state?

NewTeaBag · #8 09-01-2007, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Additional irony: Ahem! Wasn't it Clinton/Gore's administration that pretty much put the kaibash on the planning/construction of the safe mega nuclear waste holding facility at Yucca mountain? Setting it back by at least a decade?

[/ QUOTE ]

The people of the state objected. The governor of the state objected. If you want a nuclear waste site so bad, why don't you volunteer your town? Why should Nevadans store the waste for nuclear power used for your state?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has to go somewhere.
Given choices of
-Center of Major metropolis
-Center of major farmland
-Center of mountain in middle of desert watseland are the options

Methinks it be rational that the last option makes the most sense.

NIMBY is hardly a useful argument in this case. Especially when the public's conception of the actual risks and science behind the project are almost wholly coloured by the decades old "HELL NO nuclear = BADBADBADBADBADBAD" produced by the media and to great extent uninformed ENVIRO activists.

OTOH, perhaps the whole Iraq diversion is just a cover for constructing the depository on the Iranian border (Providing minimal chance of contaminating the oil reserves) [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

PS: OTOH bit is Tongue in Cheek, pls to not be wasting your time with lengthy counter response. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

warrantofice · #9 09-01-2007, 05:36 PM

I don't know about that argument. I think that just as the middle east happens to have won the geographic lottery for holding the majority of the worlds oil supply's, Nevada happens to be perfectly suited for storing nuclear waste (alright so god didn't make nevada specifically for this purpose) but it has very low population density, its very dry and good seismic stability and relatively protected against terrorists(if you need another reason). I'm sure that its not really on the top of anybodies list to have a nuclear dump in the town. But i think i would prefer it to a coal burning power plant or a garbage dump. Look at all the maximum security prisons in the United States, i'm sure at first that people were affraid to have those facilities housing deranged rapist in their backyard but when they came to realize how secure they were and that it would supply plenty of jobs for a dieing small town, they jump at the opportunity. I understand that a nuclear catastrophe is on a different scale as an excaped rapist but the point is both have a very low chance of excaping.

Kaj · #10 09-01-2007, 05:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
...i'm sure at first that people were affraid to have those facilities housing deranged rapist in their backyard but when they came to realize how secure they were and that it would supply plenty of jobs for a dieing small town, they jump at the opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then let a state's people mull it over and jump at the opportunity if they so desire rather than be forced to house the waste of 48 other states against their will.