Todays Guardian said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1704954,00.html
What do people think about this, would you like to see the UK going the same way if its feasable, i know i would!
Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy
- Thread starter tomtom
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
- Status
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1704954,00.html
What do people think about this, would you like to see the UK going the same way if its feasable, i know i would!
Bravo,shame we do not do the same thing we could then tell the Arabs/middle east they can keep their oil, but then there are 9 million Swedes and 62 millon folks in GB 
I read (perhaps from David Bellamy) that the wind turbines currently
cropping up all over the UK use more energy in their construction than
they will ever generate in their working lives. One of the major causes
of this is the amount of cement used in their construction. It would
be interesting if anyone could shed more light on this...?
Here are some interesting domestic (small scale) wind turbine sites:
http://www.windtrap.co.uk/Wind_Turbine_Kits/Home_System_Budget.htm
http://www.renewabledevices.com/ (this is a good one as it seems
to be a low noise turbine and a such wouldn't fall foul of planning regs).
cropping up all over the UK use more energy in their construction than
they will ever generate in their working lives. One of the major causes
of this is the amount of cement used in their construction. It would
be interesting if anyone could shed more light on this...?
Here are some interesting domestic (small scale) wind turbine sites:
http://www.windtrap.co.uk/Wind_Turbine_Kits/Home_System_Budget.htm
http://www.renewabledevices.com/ (this is a good one as it seems
to be a low noise turbine and a such wouldn't fall foul of planning regs).
Geothermal power...in a country which has no volcanic activity...
There was an experimental geothermal plant in Cornwall once, but it was closed down. I was told by a person who had studied energy generation it was working quite well too.
Most wind turbines I have seen seem to spend a lot of time static or idling.
There is a crucial difference between energy and power. the reason wind turbines are being put up is to suplement the power supply to the national grid, we need...rather, we USE a lot of power for applications like kettles, irons, bar heaters etc. The energy put into the building of wind turbines may be high, but could consist of various forms of energy, which are not useful in the same way that electrical power is.
I have also heard that the total amount of energy put into the construction a nuclear plant, and then it's maintaintance followed by it's decomission and waste disposal, outweighs the energy it generates over it's lifetime (of course, they are becoming more efficient so it is not necessarily still the case with modern technology), so the wind turbine argument is not that relevent, except that you do need a lot of them to generate large amounts of power. The reason nuclear plants were built was to supply the vast amounts of power (mega watts, sometimes even giga watts) they are able to produce.
And let's face it, it's just a political smokescreen, as otherwise the energy and materials used in their production would be used for another source of energy, which may then ALSO produce CO2 in it's useful life. Wind turbines alone are not nearly enough to counter-act the problem though, many forms of attack are necessary, and you have to be versatile, and use what is available. A lot of technology which may become useful exists already, but is expensive to fund research into when compared to methods which already work without need of further research, but WE all know that these methods are changing our environment, and perhaps would rather they didn't.
American satellites have recently helped produce a map of the world (well, most of it i think) which documents wind speeds effective for wind turbine power generation. The undeveloped world was previously thought to have only 1-2% of it's area suitable for wind farms, that has now been shown to be wrong, and the value is actually more like 13%, quite a huge difference. Effective wind speeds are deemed to be around an average of 20mph i think.
Geothermal energy can be sourced in most countries by drilling, the reason iceland makes use of it is because it is so readily available, it is expensive to drill these holes. Cornwall, as i'm sure most people know, is sat on top of an ancient igneous granite batholith, so probably is not so thick through the crust, and therefore easier to drill.
It is interesting that Sweden have just declared this, as i believe it is Finland which has fairly recently announced that they are building the first nuclear reactor in europe for 20 odd years, having given up any idea of avoiding their use.
It is interesting to note that sweden is reliant on hydroelectric power, this is very effective and dams produce very high wattages, but we shouldn't forget their effect on habitats and ecosystems in general (i don't know the specifics for sweden, it may be relatively eco-friendly), in china they have proved to be disastrous to wildlife and people along the yangtze.
Thanks for the article tomtom.
I have also heard that the total amount of energy put into the construction a nuclear plant, and then it's maintaintance followed by it's decomission and waste disposal, outweighs the energy it generates over it's lifetime (of course, they are becoming more efficient so it is not necessarily still the case with modern technology), so the wind turbine argument is not that relevent, except that you do need a lot of them to generate large amounts of power. The reason nuclear plants were built was to supply the vast amounts of power (mega watts, sometimes even giga watts) they are able to produce.
And let's face it, it's just a political smokescreen, as otherwise the energy and materials used in their production would be used for another source of energy, which may then ALSO produce CO2 in it's useful life. Wind turbines alone are not nearly enough to counter-act the problem though, many forms of attack are necessary, and you have to be versatile, and use what is available. A lot of technology which may become useful exists already, but is expensive to fund research into when compared to methods which already work without need of further research, but WE all know that these methods are changing our environment, and perhaps would rather they didn't.
American satellites have recently helped produce a map of the world (well, most of it i think) which documents wind speeds effective for wind turbine power generation. The undeveloped world was previously thought to have only 1-2% of it's area suitable for wind farms, that has now been shown to be wrong, and the value is actually more like 13%, quite a huge difference. Effective wind speeds are deemed to be around an average of 20mph i think.
Geothermal energy can be sourced in most countries by drilling, the reason iceland makes use of it is because it is so readily available, it is expensive to drill these holes. Cornwall, as i'm sure most people know, is sat on top of an ancient igneous granite batholith, so probably is not so thick through the crust, and therefore easier to drill.
It is interesting that Sweden have just declared this, as i believe it is Finland which has fairly recently announced that they are building the first nuclear reactor in europe for 20 odd years, having given up any idea of avoiding their use.
It is interesting to note that sweden is reliant on hydroelectric power, this is very effective and dams produce very high wattages, but we shouldn't forget their effect on habitats and ecosystems in general (i don't know the specifics for sweden, it may be relatively eco-friendly), in china they have proved to be disastrous to wildlife and people along the yangtze.
Thanks for the article tomtom.
Tengu said:
OK, so in Iceland, you only need to drill down 2500 metres or so, pump down water under pressure and you get back superheated steam at around 320°C.
In the UK, you might not get sich a big gain.
But what you can do, is drill down to where the soil or rock is a constant temperature of, let's say, 15° (a depth of around 2.5 to 3 metres should do) and use this to pre-warm water that is then heated by electricity to supply your house. And in summer, use this 15°C water to cool your house instead of using a conventional air-conditioning unit.
This way of cooling houses has been known for centuries, and is known as a "puits provençal" or "puits canadien" in a simple form that supplies air at a constant 15°C, whether the air outside be at 5°C or at 30°C.
K.
andyn
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I think that is great.
The only problem though is that any oil that Sweden doesn't use will just be purchased by some other country that still does. Thus defeating the purpose.
The only way these ideoligies will work is if everyone takes them on board.
Still...every step forward is a good one.
The only problem though is that any oil that Sweden doesn't use will just be purchased by some other country that still does. Thus defeating the purpose.
The only way these ideoligies will work is if everyone takes them on board.
Still...every step forward is a good one.
Andyn,
although you are right in saying that the oil Sweden doesnt use will be bought by others there is also the other side of the coin.
a diminishing suply will make the price go up,what im realy curious to know is when will we get at the point where the rising oilprice wil make the alternatives cheaper.
another thing to keep in mind is the "return on investment" (ROI)it might be smart to invest a certain amount of money now to spend less on the oil at a future,inflated, price.
as usual there will be many different schools of thought on when we are hitting the point in time where you should have switched.
from a personal point of view i hope they will switch as fast as possible and not only in sweden.
Porc
although you are right in saying that the oil Sweden doesnt use will be bought by others there is also the other side of the coin.
a diminishing suply will make the price go up,what im realy curious to know is when will we get at the point where the rising oilprice wil make the alternatives cheaper.
another thing to keep in mind is the "return on investment" (ROI)it might be smart to invest a certain amount of money now to spend less on the oil at a future,inflated, price.
as usual there will be many different schools of thought on when we are hitting the point in time where you should have switched.
from a personal point of view i hope they will switch as fast as possible and not only in sweden.
Porc
Of course sooner or later we will all become oil free economies whether we like it or not.
So long as there is accesible oil it will be used, if not by us then by the so-called developing countries.
Anyone who thinks that we will stop using oil is kidding themselves I'm afraid.
So long as there is accesible oil it will be used, if not by us then by the so-called developing countries.
Anyone who thinks that we will stop using oil is kidding themselves I'm afraid.
andyn
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Totally agree...and the sooner the better
But i think we can all think of at least one country/continant that has proudly said that they are not interested in cutting down the use of fossil fuels in the past.
If governments want this world to become a place that is going to last, then there is going to need to be a lot of assistance given to other countries. What about the countries that make their money from the sale of oil and gas? Can they afford to change to renewable engery? No. So how can we expect them from stop wanting to sell it?
So unfortunatley I do not think we will see the change fast enough. I certainly dont expect to see anything amazing happen in my generation, and im relatively still a nipper.
But i think we can all think of at least one country/continant that has proudly said that they are not interested in cutting down the use of fossil fuels in the past.
If governments want this world to become a place that is going to last, then there is going to need to be a lot of assistance given to other countries. What about the countries that make their money from the sale of oil and gas? Can they afford to change to renewable engery? No. So how can we expect them from stop wanting to sell it?
So unfortunatley I do not think we will see the change fast enough. I certainly dont expect to see anything amazing happen in my generation, and im relatively still a nipper.
Too little, too late. I don't really see how a relatively average country (in coins per head) as Sweden can afford a such enormous undertaking. And for us bushcrafters, more renewables means more hydroelectric power (a real meanie if you ask me), wind and solar parks. I assume you all know where those installations are going to be built. In the remnants of our beloved wilderness of course.
Some economies are becoming virtually oil free already (Bangladesh f.i.). That is not because of alternative energysources, but because the oil is becoming too expensive.
So who will be next?
Torjus Gaaren
Some economies are becoming virtually oil free already (Bangladesh f.i.). That is not because of alternative energysources, but because the oil is becoming too expensive.
So who will be next?
Torjus Gaaren
Bushtuckerman,
In today's world energy means one thing - fossil fuel energy - in particular oil,
coal and gas.
Energy and power are directly linked. 'Energy' is a measure
of being able to do mechanical work. Power is the amount of work done (or energy
expended) over a given time unit. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it
can only be changed from one form to another.
Therefore without energy, you can't have power. Kettles are classed as high power
because they use a lot of electrical energy to do their work in short time.
We can derive 'power' from all kinds of energy sources. I can't see how you can
say that some of the energy forms that go into building wind turbines are not useful in the way that electricity is. Electricty is nothing more than a useful
by-product of 'burning' energy (fuel).
All electricty is generated more or less the same way. A coil of wire is wrapped
around an iron core and is surrounded by magnets. As the coil turns the magnets induce an electrical current in the wire coil. The usual way to turn the coil is by boiling water and using pressurized steam to do it. The way we boil the
water is to stick it in a large container which is heated by a fire. The fire these
days is fuelled by coal, gas or nuclear i.e they generate heat which boils the water. The conversion of fossil fuels into electricty is not 100% efficient. Some
energy is wasted due to the process (e.g. friction) and some is wasted as
excess heat and light.
A wind turbine turns the generator as the wind turns the rotor blades. Hydro
power turns the generator as water flows past it etc.
We are told that 'green' power is more environmentally friendly, mainly
because CO2 is minimised or eliminated during the actual generating process.
However, if in the lifetime of a wind turbine, 1million tonnes of CO2 is saved, but
2million tonnes is created in the manufacture and building of a wind turbine, it's
a producer of CO2 and not quite the miracle it is being sold to us as. Add in
the environmental damage caused by cement production and wind turbines
are not quite as greem as they are made out to be.
Cement production is one of the most environmentally damaging we have.
It creates a lot of pollution and it needs to be tranported to site over many
miles using oil powered machines(cement trucks). The spinning blades
are thought to attract birds which then sucks them into the blades thus
killing them.
The only way to avoid a global energy crisis is population reduction. If we
don't do this, we'll have to set aside a few hundred million barrels of oil
to produce fertlizer otherwise we will all starve!!!
In today's world energy means one thing - fossil fuel energy - in particular oil,
coal and gas.
Energy and power are directly linked. 'Energy' is a measure
of being able to do mechanical work. Power is the amount of work done (or energy
expended) over a given time unit. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it
can only be changed from one form to another.
Therefore without energy, you can't have power. Kettles are classed as high power
because they use a lot of electrical energy to do their work in short time.
We can derive 'power' from all kinds of energy sources. I can't see how you can
say that some of the energy forms that go into building wind turbines are not useful in the way that electricity is. Electricty is nothing more than a useful
by-product of 'burning' energy (fuel).
All electricty is generated more or less the same way. A coil of wire is wrapped
around an iron core and is surrounded by magnets. As the coil turns the magnets induce an electrical current in the wire coil. The usual way to turn the coil is by boiling water and using pressurized steam to do it. The way we boil the
water is to stick it in a large container which is heated by a fire. The fire these
days is fuelled by coal, gas or nuclear i.e they generate heat which boils the water. The conversion of fossil fuels into electricty is not 100% efficient. Some
energy is wasted due to the process (e.g. friction) and some is wasted as
excess heat and light.
A wind turbine turns the generator as the wind turns the rotor blades. Hydro
power turns the generator as water flows past it etc.
We are told that 'green' power is more environmentally friendly, mainly
because CO2 is minimised or eliminated during the actual generating process.
However, if in the lifetime of a wind turbine, 1million tonnes of CO2 is saved, but
2million tonnes is created in the manufacture and building of a wind turbine, it's
a producer of CO2 and not quite the miracle it is being sold to us as. Add in
the environmental damage caused by cement production and wind turbines
are not quite as greem as they are made out to be.
Cement production is one of the most environmentally damaging we have.
It creates a lot of pollution and it needs to be tranported to site over many
miles using oil powered machines(cement trucks). The spinning blades
are thought to attract birds which then sucks them into the blades thus
killing them.
The only way to avoid a global energy crisis is population reduction. If we
don't do this, we'll have to set aside a few hundred million barrels of oil
to produce fertlizer otherwise we will all starve!!!
Its interesting that all our talk or renewables focus on wind power on a large scale. We really need to reduce (or at least stabilise) or energy consumption. Then look at small scale power generation, solar, wind, biofuel, anything.
I have heard government ministers refer to nuclear power as a form of renewable power. ( can anyone explain this)
Also we in the uk are on an Island. How many hundreds of miles of coastline are out there, with the potenital for tidal and wave power? I keep hearing research scientists on the radio complaining that there is no funding availible in the uk for studys in to the effectiveness and impact of using the sea as a source of power.
I did come accross one website greenheating.com 0r .co.uk which seems to be run by someone who is very enthusiastic about his subject but doesen't come accross as user/reader friendly.
Anyone got any comments.
I have heard government ministers refer to nuclear power as a form of renewable power. ( can anyone explain this)
Also we in the uk are on an Island. How many hundreds of miles of coastline are out there, with the potenital for tidal and wave power? I keep hearing research scientists on the radio complaining that there is no funding availible in the uk for studys in to the effectiveness and impact of using the sea as a source of power.
I did come accross one website greenheating.com 0r .co.uk
which seems to be run by someone who is very enthusiastic about his subject but doesen't come accross as user/reader friendly.Anyone got any comments.
I am not sure that 'nuclear' is renewable.
There are two types of nuclear technolgy, fusion and fission.
Fission is currently used to generate electricity. This is the splitting of the atom
which releases huge amounts of energy.
Fusion is the holy grail of nuclear technology. If we could suss nuclear fusion
we could have energy for a long time. Fusion is the opposite of fission -
it joins atoms (rather than splits them) and releases energy as it does so. The
problem is that we know how to do it but we don't know how to control and
harness the energy release. The hydrogen bomb is a good example!
However, uranium is the susbtance of preference as only certain substances
(or isotopes) can sustain the chain reaction process.
I read somewhere that we are depleting our reserves of uranium just like
we are depleting our reserves of oil, gas etc. and that uranium deposits could
run out even before oil deposits do. I'm not sure how true this is. Maybe
someone else knows a bit more.
From what I can gather, the problem with wave power is how to convert vertical
action (sea swell) into a continous motion to drive a generator and to do so
in an efficient (cost effective) way.
There is currently a campaign to get everyone to switch off at the plug all
electronic equipment each night. Apparently, the LEDs on equipment in the average house consumes a barrel of oil per year!! Multiply that by the number
of households and it adds up.
There are two types of nuclear technolgy, fusion and fission.
Fission is currently used to generate electricity. This is the splitting of the atom
which releases huge amounts of energy.
Fusion is the holy grail of nuclear technology. If we could suss nuclear fusion
we could have energy for a long time. Fusion is the opposite of fission -
it joins atoms (rather than splits them) and releases energy as it does so. The
problem is that we know how to do it but we don't know how to control and
harness the energy release. The hydrogen bomb is a good example!
However, uranium is the susbtance of preference as only certain substances
(or isotopes) can sustain the chain reaction process.
I read somewhere that we are depleting our reserves of uranium just like
we are depleting our reserves of oil, gas etc. and that uranium deposits could
run out even before oil deposits do. I'm not sure how true this is. Maybe
someone else knows a bit more.
From what I can gather, the problem with wave power is how to convert vertical
action (sea swell) into a continous motion to drive a generator and to do so
in an efficient (cost effective) way.
There is currently a campaign to get everyone to switch off at the plug all
electronic equipment each night. Apparently, the LEDs on equipment in the average house consumes a barrel of oil per year!! Multiply that by the number
of households and it adds up.
I would be quite happy to see wind turbines all around our green and pleasant land. They're certainly more attractive than pylons, and we accept those as necessary. As has been said before, the energy potential from renewable sources in Britain could fuel all of Europe if it was used to its fullest potential. I don't think that would be wise, but if we concentrated on building and converting energy efficient houses and using small scale turbines and solar panels on a local level, there wouldn't be as much need for massive wind farms and solar parks either.
Oh, and David Bellemy, I wouldn't take much heed of what he says. Did anyone ever see that debate he had on the Channel 4 news with George Monbiot?
Pappa
Oh, and David Bellemy, I wouldn't take much heed of what he says. Did anyone ever see that debate he had on the Channel 4 news with George Monbiot?
Pappa
I wouldn't take any notice of anything Monbiot says.
Windfarms are an ideal solution provided we are happy to put up with brown outs due to the unreliability of supply. I suspect however that when your tv goes out because the wind load is exceed by demand many people will not be happy.
Windfarms are an ideal solution provided we are happy to put up with brown outs due to the unreliability of supply. I suspect however that when your tv goes out because the wind load is exceed by demand many people will not be happy.
Agreed...Monbiot has always been beneath contempt. Bellamy is
respected, though now controversial, in his field of expertise. His opinion
is broad and well balanced. I would be inclined to believe someone like
Bellamy who seeks nothing other than what is best for nature over
someone like Monbiot whose existence is just to pass controversial
comments anything that seems to take his fancy.
respected, though now controversial, in his field of expertise. His opinion
is broad and well balanced. I would be inclined to believe someone like
Bellamy who seeks nothing other than what is best for nature over
someone like Monbiot whose existence is just to pass controversial
comments anything that seems to take his fancy.
- Status
Similar threads
