for one, a hydrogen-powered economy can end up using more total energy because all of that hydrogen needs to be transported around to filling stations.

Ahhhhhh, GAS is trucked all across the continent to filling stations already!

How does changing whats in the tanker require MORE energy?

Sorry, that makes NO sense at all.

Michael

Hi Michael -- Sorry, I should've been clearer. It's mostly because gas seems to be more "compact" than hydrogen.

From what I remember of Romm's book, the calculation goes like this: suppose you load compressed hydrogen into canisters and put them on the back of tractor trailers: you'd need about fifteen of these trucks to serve the same number of vehicles as one gasoline tanker does today. So you're using a *lot* more energy to ship all that hydrogen around.

Aside from the very real challenges of alternative fuels (I've heard the same about hydrogen...the technology definitely needs some work at the moment), this is some of the best news I've heard recently.

Everyone (including most EU nations) seems to be waiting for the other guy to take the lead on the whole peak oil/climate change issue, and kudo's to the Swedes for stepping up to the plate.

Yep, it's definitely to cost a big chunk of change, but the price of not addressing the issue is catastrophic.

Wow, 2020 is pretty agressive. I visited Iceland last year and I know Iceland plans to be oil free by 2050. Sweden, of course, has more resources available than Iceland. Part of Iceland's move towards being oil-free (I believe) is independence. Iceland is a small island and they want to rely on outsiders as little as possible. Not because they dislike outsiders, but because they want to be self-reliant.

Hydrogen is just one solution. But Sweden's resolution is to be admired. As a much bigger and more powerful country, the U.S. has many more resources available than Sweden and Iceland. But we're greedy and consumptive and unwilling to really look at alternative energy. Maybe we can learn something from Sweden and Iceland.

Kudos to Sweden , if more counties would step up to the plate and at least make an attempt at addressing the looming sunami coming towards us , we would all be better off . I have given up hope for the US , ( I'm Canadian ) they will go kicking and screaming into the future . I know a lot of Canadians that feel the same way I do but the hype of the tarsands is so rampant that it is hard to yell over the roar . I hope North America wakes up before it's too late , but I don't have a lot of faith in that .

So what you're saying is that for the price of an invasion and occupation of a Middle East Country, we could have converted 40% of our vehicles to hydrogen already?

No not hydrogen: the Swedish plan is to use cellulosic ethanol as liquid transport fuel. There is already a plant in Örnsköldsvik making ethanol from pine trees. E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) has been available at the pumps for years. And keep in mind the Swedes ride busses and trains more often than cars.

I am curious to see what Norway will do, which went from being a third world country to one of the richest countries in the world because of oil.

what about TDP technology?
thermal depolymerization process. this was reported on CNN last year. a company called CHANGING WORLD TECHNOLOGIES. let me know the skinny

God bless the Swedes for their farsightedness. What a wonderful people and country. Maybe they will show that it can be done. Bush,the oil industry and the Republicans will never allow that in the USA. Since the voters gave them ownership of America they will control what happens in our, actually their country.
Hydrogen fuels will be 10-20yrs away so the Japanese and California will move ahead on hybrid-electric vehicles while the rest of us cause Bush,Cheney and the other oil barons to become ever more wealthy than they already are. After all the Bush family needs more wealth, no matter the cost to America.
George, Laura and their children and Dick and Lynn Cheney and their children and Karl and Darby Rove need more money so America let's just open up our wallets and pay them.

The desire becomes more and more action for change that will bring the paradigm shift. Good for Sweden and thanks for the report. Denmark's wind generation aggressive initiative is too very impressive.
Ethanol is more likely to be the main source of liquid energy transport fuel. Any one, any nation can make ethanol. Henry Ford originally designed his Model T car so that it could be run on ethanol, so that a farmer could power a threshing machine in the field run on ethanol made right on the sight from agricultural waste. No need for a wasteful distribution network.
Brazil manufactured and sold cars to run on ethanol to assert independance over gas and oil dominance but that displeased the USA and big businessand we know what happened in Brazil.
A simple modification of the combustion engine carburetor and you can run it on ethanol.
I'm a Canadian, a country located mostly north of the 49th parallel where the great majority of the population lives in cities and we use a lot of bus, streetcar, and train transportation and could easily use more.
Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world with probably the primary position of any country in natural resources and our potential for going to alternate safe sources of energy is very very great despite our massive reserves in gas and oil that might dissuade us to move away from oil and gas.
We are a small population protected on three borders from any threats to our nation sanctity by oceans so you might think we could be very independent and easily able to follow Sweden, Denmark, Iceland in going toward alternate sources of energy given our knowledge and fear of the ecological, environmental dangers inherent in the continued use of gas and oil.
Why we do not take any meaning initiative concerning moving on from oil and gas can be explained simply by looking at who is on our fourth and southern border. Our great concern is always how to avoid "deep intigration with the USA" which the vaste majority of Canadians object to; but we have to deal with the fact that so much of our major industry and business sector is a susbsidary of a US parent company and our wealth is being exported outside of Canada and there is minimal tax paid for this type of trade.

I rejoice at your story and I would recommend other such articles such as in issues 2535 and 2483 in the New Scientist.

Just imagine what could be possible if the US would pay countries with natural resources of use a reasonable price for the resources instead of stealing them in military invasions.

Just imagine what could have been accomplished if the US tax payers $500 billions had been not been wasted to destroy a whole (Iraq) nation so bad it will never ever recover to steal it's natural resource and deny it any benefit from it whatsoever.

Imagine how much research and development could have been done on alternative energy sources alone for that $500 Billion. That wasted potential boggles the mind.

Didn't I just read about some oil company just declaring a first quarter profit of over $100 billion. Obscene and how much tax did they pay?

Cold fusion is either probable or near so. If I knew how to make that useful do you think I would either report it or try to patent it?

Only if I wanted to commit suicide because those boys would not want their golden goose of oil and gas made redundant.

Thanks for reporting this encouraging great intention to get committed to clean energy source by the small nation of Sweden.

Keep it up.

RE: Albert Grant's comment.

Please, please someone pick up that parallel and turn it into an article. that point needs to be bigger than a couple lines in the comment section...

Hydrogen would cost more energy because we obtain it by electrocuting water.

Even though Sweden has a good headstart with respect to nuclear (35% total in energy mix) and hydro (26% total), what are they going to fuel their vehicles with? Per capita, Sweden imports just as much oil as the US imports. If Sweden were to replace their gasoline with ethanol, they would need to produce about 382,500 bbl ethanol fuel per day, that's more than the entire US produced per day in 2004 and the US is 30 times larger (population wise) than Sweden is.

Oh yeah, hydrogen is a little unrealistic...storage issues, cost issues. The only time it makes sense to make it is in off peak hours but if doing this...why not just go with a plug-in electric vehicle? They're more efficient.

We all need to follow the Swedish lead and go oil free ourselves. The beauty of this is that the United States has more natural resources than anywhere else in the world.

I give a big thumbs up to Sweden. This is one thing the US needs to take note on and follow suit.

I agree...we need to seriously get rid of our dependency on oil...