URBAN ORGANICS:

A focus on collaboration of ideas and accessibility of quality information

This year, a network was established that is dedicated to encouraging increased food crop cultivation within the city limits. It is known as 'Otepoti Urban Organics', with Otepoti being the maori name for Dunedin. By networking those who are interested in urban gardening, the level of enjoyment, efficiency and productivity is increased for all involved.

As most of you will be aware, it has become apparent that our current systems of food production and distribution, which stem from the capitalist paradigm western / global culture operates within, may not be the most realistic, sensible or sustainable option for present and future generations of humans on this planet. Luckily, many groups and initiatives have already been established to begin catalysing the changes that are required in our society towards a more sustainable future. The Otepoti Urban Organics network is one of these.

The structure of this network is still being created, and we need input to help it have the highest level of practical results possible. The primary focuses of the network are as follows:
Providing a central contact point for food crop cultivation related topics in Dunedin City.
Increasing the level of cohesion between the many related groups and initiatives that are going on in Dunedin and beyond.

Developing high quality, dynamic resources to inform people the practical steps they need to take to create and maintain food gardens. With a strong focus on sustainability and permaculture concepts. This will likely be done at workshops and on the internet.
Assisting in taking these ideas through to practical reality. Facilitating the actual creation and maintainence of urban gardens by helping people access information, materials (such as soil / compost ingredients, seeds, seedlings etc). As well as one-on-one advice given on a voulintary basis (potentially at a persons house or other garden site) for those needing help to get started. (along similar lines to Jolyon's work). etc.

Some of the ways that I see this happening are as follows:
Using workshops, meetings, etc. as an opportunity to brainstorm and 'mind jam' ideas to create resources that can then be distributed to more people. In other words, make the benefits of a workshop extend beyond those who physically attend the workshop. Get input from everyone, with a focus on creating high quality information resources that can then be published on the internet (e.g. a 'Wikipedia' style format). Feedback is a crucial part of these resources. They will be continually developed, changed and modified as more people give their input, test the advice given, and give feedback.
Promoting the use of the resources that are created. e.g. getting a website actually used by people, and getting people actually making gardens. Lead by example (e.g. Living Campus project, Adams garden in North East Valley, Guerilla Gardening etc).
Promoting research into urban organics initiatives that are going on around the world, and discussion on the application / adaptation of those in NZ / Dunedin. People can summarise or review books and articles that they have read.

Educate people about the reasoning behind a switch to more local food production. Urban gardening not only serves the purpose of growing food, but also of increasing the level of awareness of where food comes from and how precarious our current situation (supermarket dependence) actually is.
For me, it seems that the key is the accessibilty of information. "Information" can include general and in-depth information on gardening techniques, information on where to source materials, seeds, equipment, help etc., and information on what groups / initiatives are operating in your area, upcoming events - workshops, meetings, forums, lectures etc.

At present, this type of information can be quite difficult to track down for an average member of the public wanting to begin growing their own food. Even many gardening books or websites provide rather vauge advice on cultivation of specific crops, to the extent that the novice gardener does not feel completely confident in setting up a garden. Also, many of the groups that are providing information or workshops etc. are not properly networked, resulting in some cases in several people or groups working on similar projects in isolation. If we all had a better idea of what was going on, and a clearer focus for everyone involved in urban organics type initiatives, then I imagine that a lot more could be achieved. The internet is a likely medium for this type of networking to happen on.

The informational resources that we aim to create through the network will include general and specific information on gardening techniques, that will be clear, well written and practical. They will range from initial creation of a garden plot, to composting, seed raising, and cultivation of specific crops etc. Because of the interactive nature of the development of these resources, the information will not just be the opinion of one person. As time goes on, the techniques and ideas will get tested by more and more people, more ideas will get brought up, and the information will get more and more solid. On each topic a range of techniques can be detailed. The website can include a questions section where people can ask about any food gardening related topic, and anyone can give answers. These answers can then be conglomerated into a new section of the related resource.

Urban gardens / geurilla gardens can be used as demonstration spaces to show people these techniques being applied. Seeing things like the (not yet existent) living campus gardens, or little veggie plots made in random sections of unused space around town, are a real inspiration to people. I have seen these types of things overseas and on the internet, and it really does work to help get people motivated to make a garden themselves.

WHAT WE NEED FROM HERE:
Feedback on all of the ideas mentioned here. New ideas, constructive criticism, etc.
People with specific skills to come forward and offer a helping hand. If you can help construct a website (with forum etc), design educational resources / leaflets etc., host a workshop, help make guerilla gardens, etc. please contact the email address below.
Information on sources for gardening materials, and people to collect materials (i.e. transport) for example if you know of a good source for manure, mulch, leaves, etc. to have at our urban garden honesty box stall, let me know!
SEED - I am trying to establish / build on seed supplies for Dunedin people. We want a focus on quality - it really is a waste of time to grow a poor strain of seed. So if you can help out with supplying seed stocks or have knowledge about seed saving, that would be great.
Anything else! If you think you can help out in any way possible, it would be much appreciated.

CONTACT DETAILS: Bart Acres
Phone (03) 476 6475, or cell phone 021 1488815
PO Box 7102, Dunedin
otepoti.urban.organics@gmail.com

Getting started ...

1) Drive less

The best way to reduce fuel use is to drive less:

a) Live closer to work;
b) carpool;
c) bicycle;
d) walk;
e) take public transit



2) Park and ride (bicycle)

If part of your commute is not biker friendly, travel to a point that is and then bike the rest of the way.

The "park and ride" concept can also be applied to carpooling and mixed private/public transit travel.



3) Attend a driving clinic

Hybrid owners groups are popping up in cities around the world - and non-hybrid owners are often welcome to attend regular meetings. Fuel efficient driving techniques are commonly discussed, and clinics are sometimes offered by experienced members.



4) Clean junk from your trunk

The additional weight you carry in your vehicle doesn't ride for free. It takes energy to move it around. Removing unnecessary stuff from your vehicle saves fuel.



5) Let the most efficient driver drive

More than one licenced driver in the vehicle? Let the most efficient driver drive! And take the opportunity to learn from his/her wisdom.



6) Join a fuel economy forum

Join an outstanding forum to learn ways to increase your fuel economy by talking to others who share your enthusiasm and goals.



7) Remove unused roof racks

If your vehicle come with a roof rack and you don't use it, remove it. Same holds true for bike racks. Doing so will reduce aerodynamic drag, resulting in better fuel economy.



8) Check tire inflation regularly

Make sure that your tire pressures are, at minimum, set to manufacturer specifications. The higher the pressure, the less rolling resistance.

Remember that pressure is affected by ambient temperature. As temperature drops, so does your tire pressure, so keep track as the seasons change.



9) Track your fuel consumption

One of the first steps in improving efficiency is tracking fuel consumption.

Get in the habit of saving all your fuel receipts, recording distance travelled and fuel economy (MPG). Keep a small notebook to record trip type and new techniques employed to monitor your progress.

While the slower pace of tank-to-tank feedback isn't ideal for feedback on driving technique, recording and montoring your "big picture" progress is great motivation.

See the Ecomodder Blog for more information on tracking fuel consumption.



10) Use a fuel consumption display

Feedback is absolutely critical to improving driving habits.

Tank-to-tank monitoring of your consumption is not good enough. You need instrumentation that lets you reset the readout at will so you can track individual trips, or even portions of trips you regularly travel.

Options for vehicles without factory installed fuel economy computers include the ScanGauge and SuperMID. Even the venerable vacuum gauge can help you improve efficiency when driving with load / target driving.




Route selection and trip timing ...

11) Take the road less traveled

Generally speaking, if you have the option of choosing lightly traveled roads over busier ones, you give yourself more flexibility to employ a wider range of fuel saving techniques than if you are surrounded by other vehicles.

You may even find that a somewhat longer, lightly travelled route may result in lower overall amount of fuel used than the shorter, busier route.



12) Leave early and don't rush

The enemy of efficient driving is finding yourself in a rush. Leave for your destination a little early so you don't feel pressure to drive faster, brake later and otherwise fall back into bad habits.

Driving efficiently can be much more relaxing than the typical person's driving style, but you need to allow a bit of extra time.



13) Crosswind barrier

Headwinds aren't the only winds that increase fuel consumption - cross winds can have a large negative effect as well. In crosswind conditions, choosing a route with a barrier (trees or buildings) along the edge will save fuel compared to a road in the open.



14) The 'corridor effect'

All else being equal, travelling at a constant speed on a freeway within a flow of traffic (in the same direction) is more efficient than going the same speed in isolation. The reason is aerodynamic: a flow of traffic generates a localized wind current in the direction of travel. You will benefit from this artificial breeze.



15) Note your transition points

If you regularly travel the same roads, make a conscious effort to note (memorize) the points along the way where transitions occur that maximize efficiency.

EG. memorize where you can initiate a coast to just make it to the next stop sign. Or note at what speed you can crest a hill so you're travelling just fast enough for the next transition after the descent.



16) Time your gas station trips

Plan to refuel your car during off-peak times to avoid lines and excessive idling.



17) Avoid drive-throughs

Avoid drive through windows. They lead to excessive idling.



18) Lane of least resistance

In multi-lane traffic, choose the "lane of least resistance" to avoid unnecessary and unpredictable braking/changes in speed.

EG. avoid lanes where buses are starting and stopping, or cars may be braking unpredictably to turn into driveways/parking lot entrances.



19) Avoid stops at bottom of hills

Avoid roads with stops at the bottom of hills (which force you to brake and waste the kinetic energy you just gained going downhill).



20) Take advantage of the wind

If possible, time trips to take advantage of strong tailwinds. Avoid setting out into strong headwinds/crosswinds.



21) Choose smooth road surfaces

Choose a route with a smooth, paved/concrete surface over gravel or rough, broken roads, all else being equal. Smoother surfaces offer reduced rolling resistance.



22) Avoid bad weather

Avoid driving in inclement weather if possible, as rain/snow/slush can dramatically increase rolling resistance.

The exception to this rule may be when high winds (tailwinds) can be used to your advantage.



23) Avoid peak traffic

If you have the option, avoid travel during peak traffic times. With the roads full of other drivers, you have fewer options for using driving techniques that the herd doesn't typically use or tolerate (e.g. reduced highway speeds, drawn out coasting up to stop signs, etc).



24) Drive when it's warm out

If you have the flexibility, time your trips to coincide with warm temperatures (ie. middle of the day) rather than cold (night/early morning).

Cold tires and drive-train experience more rolling and mechanical resistance, and a cold engine is less efficient.




Sub/urban driving ...

25) Conserve momentum: stop sign 'stop and crawl'

When multiple vehicles ahead of you are progressing through a stop sign (or a right turn at a red light), this represents a mini 'stop and crawl' situation normally found in a bumper to bumper traffic jam.

Time your approach, to arrive at the stop sign as the last car ahead is departing.



26) Conserve momentum: take a shortcut

Sometimes options exist to go through corner parking lots, side streets, or alleyways to get around having to come to a stop at an intersection or behind another vehicle.

Of course the utmost care must be taken in parking lots as they present their own risks (pedestrians, vehicles reversing from parking spots, etc.)

Also, cutting through corner parking lots may be illegal in some areas.



27) Combining errands: do the longest leg first

When combining multiple trips into one journey, go to your farthest destination first, and work your way back. This ensures the vehicle is warmed up as much as possible before subjecting it to multiple starts and stops.



28) Minimize idling when stopped

If you're going to be stopped for more than a few seconds, shift to neutral and shut off your engine. This is one of the main reasons hybrid vehicles get such good fuel economy in urban driving.

Caveat 1: this assumes your vehicle is in good tune and will re-start immediately, every time.

Caveat 2: if you're a defensive driver, you're habitually evaluating the risk of a rear crash when slowing and when stopped. Obviously you will want to leave your engine on in those circumstances (for a quick rear crash avoidance manoeuver).



29) Traffic light timing - stale 'green', no pedestrian signal

In the absence of any other indication about how stale the light is (eg. if there's no pedestrian signal or waiting cross traffic), assume that the green light ahead is about to change. Adjust your approach speed accordingly (IF traffic permits - ie. you don't hold anyone up) to avoid a full-on brake application should the light change.



30) Combine errands

Avoid very short trips. If you have multiple stops, plan them to do all on the same trip. Fuel economy is enhanced once the engine is warmed up, so a longer "chain" of errands will result in better fuel economy than multiple short ones, particularly in cold weather.



31) Traffic light timing - red lights with sensors

When approaching a red light, slow down early if there's a car in front of you that can trip the sensor so you may not have to come to a complete stop.

CleanMPG.com cleverly nicknamed this technique "rabbit timing"



32) Traffic light timing - 'stale' green

When approaching an intersection with a green light you can watch the pedestrian signal crossing light to help determine when it will turn yellow.




Highway driving ...

33) Lights on for safety; lights off for MPG

In certain driving environments / conditions, the use of daytime running lights (DRLs) or manually switching on headlights during the day increases safety.

Depending on the vehicle, power demands of the lighting system ranges from a few watts to well over 100 watts, all of which is ultimately powered by gasoline. In the US, where DRL implementation is voluntary, automakers have an exemption from CAFE testing which permits vehicles' fuel economy to be tested with the lights switched off.

Switching off DRLs where their safety contribution is minimal (eg. driving on a divided, controlled access highway) will save a small amount of fuel.



34) Find/adopt a 'blocker' for slower motorway speeds

Some people are uncomfortable driving at speeds less than the average flow of traffic on multi-lane motorways.

One solution is to find another vehicle going the speed you want to travel (large, conspicuous vehicles work particularly well) and drive either ahead of or behind it. (Note: this is not a suggestion to draft.)



35) Close the sunroof at higher speeds

Some sunroof styles are better than others. The worst offenders are the kind which tilt and slide to the outside, on top of the roof. When open, these "roof-top spoilers" can significantly increase aerodynamic drag.



36) Drafting: cross wind

In rare circumstances, it is possible to effectively "draft" a larger vehicle in cross wind conditions without following directly behind it. When cross wind conditions cause the low pressure area trailing the lead vehicle to extend into adjacent lanes, you can take advantage of reduced drag legally and with reduced risk.

Note: 1) this is not describing side-by-side driving, but postioning that is offset to the rear. 2) While visibility directly ahead is increased, a significant chunk of the driving picture may still be blocked depending on the size of the lead vehicle.



37) Drafting: close behind (not recommended!)

1) At highway speeds there's no doubt that driving close behind a large vehicle dramatically reduces fuel consumption. 2) It's a stupid thing to do.

It's not recommended for many reasons, not the least of which is that it's illegal in most areas, and doing so sacrifices the foundation of safe and defensive driving: your ability to see well ahead.



38) Windows up

Drive with windows up at higher speeds to minimize aerodynamic drag. Use flow-through ventilation if possible.



39) Reduce speed

Aerodynamic drag increases exponentially with speed, so reduce highway cruising speed as much as practical and safe.

Generally, a vehicle's most efficient speed is just after its highest gear has engaged.

See the Ecomodder Blog for more information on tracking fuel consumption.



40) Constant throttle position cruising

Once up to speed, pick a throttle position and hold it.

Advantages: more efficient than using the cruise control (which varies throttle position frequently and wastes fuel on hills).

Disadvantages: less efficient than "driving with load" (DWL) / "target driving" (where the throttle is eased on inclines).



41) Cruise control - when to use it

Set the cruise control if you're the type of driver whose speed creeps up higher and higher the longer you're on the road, or if you have difficulty holding a steady speed (it wanders up and down).

But realize that cruise control is just a band aid for those behaviours. Generally it's less efficient than constant throttle driving, and much less efficient than "driving with load" / "target driving".



42) Cruise control - when not to use it

Only use cruise control on flat roads. On hilly roads, cruise responds to changes in grade - by feeding in more throttle on the uphill and releasing on the descent - in the exact opposite way an efficient driver would.




Braking tips ...

43) The most efficient way to slow down

When you *have* to slow down, here's an approximate heirarchy of methods, from best to worst.

1) coasting in neutral, engine off (ie. roll to a stop);
2) coasting in neutral, engine idling;
3) regenerative coasting (hybrid vehicles)
4) regenerative braking (hybrid vehicles)
5) coasting in "deceleration fuel cut-off" mode (in gear, above a certain engine RPM)
6) conventional friction braking (non-hybrid or hybrid)

Choosing the right method depends on traffic conditions (following vehicles) and how quickly you need to stop.



44) Conserve momentum: avoid stopping

Avoid coming to a complete stop whenever possible (and when safe and legal of course). It takes much less energy to accelerate a vehicle when it's already travelling just a few kilometers per hour than it does from a complete stop.



45) Hybrids: minimize regenerative braking

While regenerative braking in hybrid vehicles - capturing braking energy into the battery - is more efficient than braking with conventional friction brakes, it's still not as efficient as 'driving without brakes' (DWB).

So even if you drive a hybrid, you'll get better economy when you minimize use of the brake pedal.



46) "Drive without brakes" (DWB)

Minimize use of the brake pedal. Each time you press it, you're effectively converting gasoline into brake dust and heat.

Driving as if you have no brakes will cause you to do two things: 1) reduces 'excessive' acceleration, and, 2) extends the amount of time you spend coasting down to stops and turns.

Obviously you have to balance use of this technique against traffic conditions so as not to adversely affect other drivers.

See the Ecomodder Blog for more information on DWB.




Advanced techniques ...

47) Drive shoeless

Some hardcore hypermilers drive in sock or bare feet so they can modulate the accelerator to the finest degree (particularly important when "driving with load" / "target MPG driving" at cruise.

It shouldn't be that surprising. Race car drivers typically wear extremely thin-sole boots for similar reasons: for the highest level of tactile feedback from the vehicle, and to better finesse the pedals.



48) Conserve momentum: brake hard

It sounds like a contradiction, but there are rare times when braking hard can save fuel compared to coasting or light braking: it's a "damage control" technique when faced with an unpredictable/unanticipated stop or slow down ahead and not a lot of space.

An example: approaching a fresh red traffic light that had no other indicators to predict the change (no pedestrian signal and no cars waiting on the cross street). If you brake lightly/moderately, you will cover the entire distance to the intersection and have no option but coming to a full stop.

But if you brake quite hard initially, you can potentially scrub enough speed and buy enough time to coast the remaining distance to the intersection at a low speed. With judgement and some luck, you'll arrive at a fresh green light and avoid a full stop.

Obviously, rapid deceleration isn't a safe option if there is following traffic.



49) Make fuel economy a game/challenge

Competing against yourself (or others) to get the best possible fuel economy can do wonders for increasing motivation to learn more, refine your skills, and try harder.

Several web sites like EcoModder.com permit you to track and compare your fuel economy against other drivers, and some organize informal fuel economy challenges.

Hybrid festivals (e.g. hybridfest.com, greengrandprix.com) periodically run fuel efficiency rallies where you can hone your skills in competition with others in real time.



50) Use the 'racing line'

Knowing how to pick the "racing line" through a corner, when safe, can help to preserve momentum. Generally, the racing line is the path through a turn with the largest possible radius. It may permit a higher speed with more comfort (less body roll and g-forces), and less tire scrub.

Note this isn't advocating high speed turns, where the cost of increased tire wear may outstrip fuel savings. Even at low speeds, choosing the "racing line" has benefits.



51) Encourage a pass: the fake turn

Drivers who travel below the normal flow of traffic should facilitate drivers approaching from behind to go past safely, with a minimum of interruption.

"Faking" a turn by signalling and moving into a turning lane (even though you intend to continue straight on) is one option.

Note: judgement and care is demanded so you don't mislead any driver into making an unwanted move as a result of your "miscommunication". You must be prepared to actually make the turn if your actions create a situation that would make it the safest option.



52) Encourage a pass: hug right

Drivers who travel below the normal flow of traffic should facilitate drivers approaching from behind to go past, rather than force them to slow down.

One method of gaining the attention of the driver behind is to move your vehicle very obviously to the extreme right of the lane you're travelling in when it's safe for the following vehicle to pass.

Adding a turn signal to the move or the 4-way flashers may be even more effective.

Of course, pulling completely off the roadway onto the shoulder to let following traffic by is also worthwhile, if you have the option.



53) Hill tactic: don't waste potential energy

When facing a red traffic light, or some other predictable stop/start situation at the bottom of a hill, you're better off stopping near the top before you've accelerated to full speed. Wait, and time your release to make it through on green, and you avoid turning your potential energy into brake dust and heat. (Also known as 'smart braking'.)



54) Engine off coasting

Engine-off coasting (EOC) is one of the largest contributors to increased efficiency of hybrid vehicles, many of which automatically shut down the engine when the accelerator is released and the vehicle is coasting.

EOC can be accomplished in non-hybrids as well simply by shifting to neutral and switching the key from "Run" to "Acc" (being careful not to switch to "Off" and cause the steering to lock). As soon as the engine stops, return the key to the "Run" position so the odometer continues to count distance travelled and you're ready for a re-start.

This technique is best suited to cars with manual steering and manual transmissions. (Dramatically increased steering effort may be required in some cars with power assist. Also, most vehicles with automatic transmissions are not designed to travel with the engine shut off; the transmission may be damaged).

In non-hybrids, EOC is considered an advanced technique and should not be attempted until the skill developed away from traffic. In addition, coasting with the engine off is illegal in some areas.



55) Drive with load (DWL)

AKA "target driving". Put most simply, this technique is accomplished by choosing a "target" rate of fuel consumption and ensuring you don't fall below it on hills (or in very strong winds, or any conditions which cause load to vary for a given speed).

In other words, you will back off the accelerator and lose speed (possibly also down-shifting) as you climb, and gain that speed back on the descent.

It's far more efficient than pressing the accelerator more and more to maintain speed on the way up a hill and then releasing it down the other side.

DWL is how an efficiency minded person can greatly outperform cruise control in hilly terrain.

Obviously the ability to use this technique without adversely affecting other drivers depends on the traffic situation.

As well, fuel economy instrumentation is required to DWL/target drive to the maximum extent, though it can also be done using a vacuum gauge, and to a much lesser extent by the seat of the pants.



56) Heavy traffic: play the accordion

If faced with worst-case "stop & crawl" traffic conditions, leave as much space ahead of you as possible and continually "accordion" that space to keep your vehicle moving near a constant speed while the cars in front of you stop & start.

Yes, some people will cut into the space you create ahead of you. Deal with it.

Note that this may aggravate following drivers who can't absorb the big picture, and that must be taken into account.



57) Pulse and glide (P&G)

Use pulse and glide (or "burn and coast") rather than maintaining a constant speed, where practical.

Pulse and glide explained



58) Push it - 1

If you only have to move your car a very short distance - eg. out of the garage - consider rolling it rather than starting it up to move it.



59) Push it - 2

If you're starting out on an incline, give your car a shove to get it rolling as far as possible before starting the engine.




Parking (and departing) ...

60) Start up: wait for the opportunity to move

Don't start the engine until there's actually an opportunity to start driving: eg. a gap in traffic when exiting a driveway or parking space.

You can plan even further ahead: don't turn the key until you know you can time the next traffic light down the street.



61) Parking tactics: orbit to bleed momentum

If you find you have too much momentum after reaching your preferred parking spot, continue coasting further down the row or "orbiting" a spot until you can roll to a stop in position without touching the brakes.

(The extent to which you might continue 'orbiting' depends on whether your engine is on/off and whether you're driving a manual or automatic. Also, it depends on traffic in the lot, obviously.)



62) Parking tactics: gravity assist

Slopes can be useful in manouvering into a parking place. One which I regularly back into (it can't be driven through) has a small slope across from it. I kill the engine approaching the slope, and engine-off coast backwards into the spot.

Gravity can be a hindrance in parking as well. Avoid driving down into a parking "hole" which you must drive out of later. Even if you EOC into the hole, you'll face a net efficiency loss when you drive your cold vehicle up and out later.



63) Parking tactics: avoid parallel parking

For on-street parking, the better spot is one with enough room to pull in/out rather than multiple reverse/forward manoeuvering (parallel parking).



64) Parking tactics: reverse in

If you have no pull-through spots to choose from, reverse in when arriving, instead of driving in when warm and backing out/turning around when the vehicle is cold and fuel economy is at its worst.

Also note that reversing into a flow of traffic is riskier (and therefore much slower and less efficient) because you may not have a clear view until your vehicle's back end is well out of the space.



65) Parking tactics: pick the periphery

Choosing a spot in the "periphery" of a busy lot will be more efficient than navigating the rows of traffic/pedestrians to get as close as possible to the building or destination.



66) Parking tactics: pull-through spot

Drive into a "pull through" spot, rather than a spot that requires reverse/forward manoeuvering.



67) Start up: not until you're adjusted

Don't start the vehicle until you're settled in: seat, seatbelt & mirrors adjusted; passengers settled in as well.



68) Multiple vehicles: choose the one that's warmed up

In a multi-vehicle household, if you have the choice of using similar vehicles, choose the one that was driven most recently if it's still warm.



69) Multiple vehicles: choose the most efficient one in the 'fleet'

If you have a multi-vehicle household or workplace, choose the most efficient vehicle from the fleet that will accomplish the task at hand.




Transmission tips ...

70) Automatic transmission: key off, then Park

Save a few drops of fuel by modifying your shutdown procedure: when parking, turn off the key *before* shifting to Park and setting the parking brake.



71) Manual transmission: cruise in high gear

When cruising at a constant speed, shift to the highest gear you can use without lugging the engine.



72) Automatic transmission: highest gear/lowest RPM for posted speed

When cruising, drive the the speed that allows the lowest RPM for the speed zone you are in.

EG. if the posted speed is 30 and your car shifts into 3rd at 35, you may be able to achieve the 3rd gear shift, then reduce and hold 30 without causing a downshift.



73) Automatic transmission: torque converter (TC) lockup

Drive at the speed that allows the TC (torque converter) to lock up. This is often around 40-45 mph. Speeds just above this typically return the higest cruising fuel economy.



74) Automatic transmission: neutral when stopped

Shift automatic transmissions to neutral when stopped (assuming you're going to leave the engine running). Remaining in drive wastes fuel as the engine continues to try to creep the car forward while being held back by the brakes.



75) Automatic transmission: upshift coaxing

Some automatic transmissions can be coaxed to upshift sooner when accelerating by briefly releasing some throttle pressure, then re-applying to continue accelerating.



76) Automatic transmission: use OD (overdrive)

If your transmission has an "OD" (overdrive) button or position, leave it engaged to ensure the transmission will shift into its highest gear as soon as possible.



77) Automatic transmission: use economy mode

If your automatic transmission has a "power/economy" button, leave it in economy mode. This usually results in earlier upshifts and later downshifts, saving fuel.




Winter / foul weather ...

78) Wait for the snow plow

Driving through fresh snow increases rolling resistance moderately to dramatically, depending on the depth/type of snow. Better fuel economy will result when you wait for the plows (or for other vehicles to pack the snow down) before setting out.

Similarly, getting stranded in a ditch or snow drift because you set out in bad weather is a surefire way to waste fuel if you need to idle the car to stay warm while waiting for help.



79) Winter: avoid wheel spin on ice/snow

If you drive in ice/snow, avoid wheelspin when traction is low. Changing to dedicated snow/ice tires that offer better traction may save fuel.

Wheelspin is especially inefficient if your vehicle is equipped with brake assisted traction control.



80) Follow the leader in rain or snow

In weather conditions that leave a lot of precipitation on the road - heavy rain or snow - drive in the tiretracks of the vehicle in front to reduce rolling resistance.

An exception to this tip may be on "rutted" surfaces where water tends to pool in the ruts. In that case, driving on the ridges between the ruts offers less resistance.



81) Winter: clean off snow & ice

Completely clear snow & ice off your vehicle before driving. It will minimize your use of energy hungry accessories (defrosters), remove an aerodynamic penalty (increased frontal area), and reduce weight (a layer of ice and snow over an entire vehicle can weigh a surprising amount).



82) Winter parking: clean out the garage

If you have one, clean out your garage so you can park your car inside during the cold months of the year. The faster warm up will return better fuel economy.



83) Winter: use heated parking

If you've got the choice, heated parking will improve fuel economy. The potential downside is that it may increase the rate of corrosion if you drive where roads are salted.



84) Avoid heater use until the engine has reached operating temperature

Engines runs rich until a minimum temperature threshold is reached. Running the heater blower before that has happened will slightly increase warm-up time and increase fuel consumption.



85) Avoid 'warm up' idling

Don't idle your engine to warm it on a cold day. An idling engine gets zero miles per gallon.

Start to drive - under light loads - as soon as the engine is running smoothly (usually immediately). It's a more efficient way to warm the engine and entire drivetrain, including tires.




Hot weather ...

86) Cycle the A/C if you have to use it

If you have to use the air conditioner, set the air flow to recirculate and manually turn the A/C on and off as needed. For greater efficiency, switch it on when under light engine loads or deceleration fuel cut off and off when under moderate/heavy loads. (Note: some newer vehicles do this automatically.)



87) Summer: park in the shade

Parking in the shade will keep the inside of your vehicle cooler, which can help you minimize use of air conditioning.



88) Use a beaded seat cover

They work surprisingly well as an alternative to (or defer the use of) air conditioning, by letting air flow behind & beneath you. They keep you from sticking to your seat, and your clothes from sticking to you.

Other non-A/C options include ice vests and DIY ice water A/C units.



89) Minimize air conditioning use

Air conditioning requires a lot of power. Use it sparingly.

Driving at city speeds, you'll save fuel by using your flow through vents and opening windows.

At highway speeds, whether A/C is more or less efficient than opening windows will depend on the speed, your vehicle's aerodynamics and A/C design.



90) Trip timing: avoid the hottest times of day to reduce A/C use

If you live where the weather is very hot, avoid driving if possible during the peak temperatures of the day when use of the air conditioner is "required."




Just generally good driving tips ...

91) Maintain a space cushion

When driving on a multi-lane roadway, try to maintain a "space cushion" around you.

IE. avoid driving for any length of time beside a vehicle in the next lane. The more options you leave open for making a prompt lane change if one is needed, the safer and more efficient you'll be (if it means avoiding an unnecessary slowdown).



92) Maintain appropriate following distance

Avoid driving so close behind another vehicle that you are forced to *immediately* brake if it begins slowing down. Important at all times, but particularly in sub/urban driving where traffic changes speed more often.

Leave enough space that you have time to choose other options (perhaps a lane change).

In addition, the greater your following distance, the better your forward visibility will be, which enables you to look well ahead and anticipate changes in the driving environment.



93) Be smooth

Smooth use of the accelerator, steering, transmission and brakes is not only more comfortable for you and your passengers, it's also a little more efficient (less scrubbing of tires, energy lost through suspension movement). It's also better for the longevity of the vehicle and in general a sign of a skilled driver.



94) Use your horn defensively

Defensive drivers will tap their horns to ensure they have the attention of other motorists or pedestrians in close quarters and potentially risky situations.

Being proactive will save fuel if it means you can avoid having to brake or stop unnecessarily.



95) Look well ahead & anticipate

Your ability to drive efficiently depends on being able to anticipate changes in the driving environment. The way to do this is by constantly scanning well ahead in your intended path.

In city driving you should know what's happening at least 10-15 seconds ahead. On the freeway, at least 30 seconds visual lead time is appropriate.



96) Drive the posted speed

Drive the posted speed limit or the minimum allowed, when safe to do so.




Miscellaneous ...

97) Don't keep up with the Joneses

It easy to be competitive when driving. Resist knee-jerk retaliation to other drivers' aggressive actions. Don't let other drivers lead you astray from your driving style.



98) Minimize use of low range

Many 4 wheel drive / AWD vehicles also come with high and low transmission ranges. Low range increases engine RPM and fuel consumption for a given gear/road speed combination compared to high.



99) Minimize use of 4 wheel drive

The added friction of drive components in four wheel drive mode increases fuel consumption, especially when the center differential is locked and the vehicle is turning.



100) If you have to carry items outside the vehicle...

Carry them on the back of the vehicle, instead of on the roof. Long, skinny items can even be carried beneath some vehicles (with ample ground clearance).

This is more important the faster and further you intend to go.



101) Minimize accessory loads

Minimize use of electrical and mechanical accessory loads when safe and/or practical (lights, defrost, blower, electric heated seats, dvd players/screens, heated mirrors, etc).



102) Use a block heater

Pre-warm your engine with an electric block heater. Engines are most efficient at full operating temperature, and the block heater helps it get there sooner. About 2 hours is the maximum time needed to pre-warm a small engine.



103) Drive like you ride a bike

For you cyclists looking for a way to wrap your head around the subject of efficient motoring: drive like you bike.

Meaning, if you think about spending energy as wisely in your car as you do when you ride, you should automatically become aware of several of the major tips on this list, such as:

a) Ensuring your tires are properly inflated & vehicle is in good mechanical condition, for reduced rolling & mechanical resistance.

b) Smart braking: you'll spend more distance coasting up to stops (you don't pedal madly towards stop signs and then jam on the binders, do you?)

c) You'll "drive with load" on hills (you don't usually power up hills trying to maintain your previous cruising speed, do you?)

d) You'll reduce speed (because cyclists are highly attuned to the relationship between aerodynamic drag and the energy consumed to travel at high speed).



104) Avoid towing

Trailer towing delivers the triple whammy of increased weight, higher aerodynamic drag, and a third (or fourth) set of tires for more rolling resistance.

Carry loads in the vehicle if possible.

If not, minimize towing speeds and adjust your technique to account for the extra momentum the trailer and its load will add.



105) Listen to slower music

Leave the speed metal at home. Fast paced music can make a driver more impatient, more agressive and likely to speed. At the same time, slower paced music is more relaxing and tends to promote a more sensible driving style while also reducing stress.

Please note that this has been reproduced from a PDF; references at the bottom of each page appear throughout the text. We are seeking a more web friendly version.

The original hard copy 32-page booklet can be ordered.. The price of the booklet is $6 including postage. A 40% discount is available for orders for 5 or more copies. It can be obtained from Sean Millar at 18 Lloyd Ave, Mt Albert, Auckland 1025.

A Brief Introduction To Climate Change And Peak Oil For New Zealanders By Sean Millar & Adrienne Puckey

Copying Permitted
This publication may be copied and distributed freely, in whole or in part, in print and/or electronic media.
Please cite source when quoting in other publications.
Copies of this publication in PDF format may be freely downloaded from the Sustainable Energy Forum’s website at
http://www.sef.org.nz/views/ccpo_text.pdf
http://www.sef.org.nz/views/ccpo_covers.pdf

Sean Millar & Adrienne Puckey — An Introduction to Climate Change & Peak Oil for New Zealanders
© copyright Sean Millar & Adrienne Puckey
seanmillar@clear.net.nz
adriennepuckey@clear.net.nz
published 2008 (first edition)
by Sean Millar
18 Lloyd Avenue, Mt Albert
Auckland 1025, New Zealand
ISBN 978-908726-60-8
By
Sean Millar &
Adrienne Puckey

Sean Millar & Adrienne Puckey — An Introduction to Climate Change & Peak Oil for New Zealanders


Foreword

This work is born out of an increasing concern for the future of our families, our country, and our world. At a detailed level, the subject-matter is complex and interconnected, and knowledge of the issues is evolving rapidly. However, at a big picture level, the basic facts are simple and stable. If we carry on with our present levels of fossil fuel use, the number of people the planet is able to support, will be significantly reduced.
It is a brutal message, and one that we, ourselves, are struggling to come to terms with. The contrast with the widely-accepted ethos of ever-rising living standards could hardly be more stark. Born in New Zealand in 1946 and 1948, we are from the baby boom generation, and have enjoyed post-war prosperity, cheap education, and plentiful employment.

Individually and together we have led carbon-intensive lives. Both were raised on parental income generated directly by New Zealand’s high-emitting dairy industry. As adults, we have worked in industries responsible for considerable emissions. We have driven huge distances and have travelled frequently by air.

Sean has an MA (Hons) from the University of Auckland, specialising in transport geography, and diplomas in Teaching, Business and Industrial Administration and Counselling. He has worked in the transport industry, publishing and university administration, and has written and published on various aspects of transport and travel.
Adrienne is a Chartered Accountant who has spent 26 years in the paper, forestry and timber industries in New Zealand, UK, and Australia, and on projects in Canada and Norway. She has an MBA from the University of Auckland, has recently completed a PhD on the history of Mäori and Päkehä political economic relations, and is currently post-doctoral research fellow in the Mira Szászy Research Centre of the University of Auckland’s Business School.

We are married to each other, have five adult children and five grandchildren, between us. For a long time we remained largely oblivious to the impending collision between our way of life and the constraints of the planet we inhabit. What little we knew seemed so remote and abstract that it barely intruded into our consciousness as we jetted around the world.

Our first awakening occurred in 2002, when we heard a radio interview with Canadian environmentalist, David Suzuki. We bought the book he was promoting, Naked Ape to Superspecies. It turned out to be a real eye opener. But, our weddedness to a high-carbon lifestyle initially meant that we took little practical action.

Our second awakening came in September 2004 when a small item in the New Zealand Herald reported a parliamentary question directed at Treasurer, Dr Michael Cullen, by Green Co-leader, Ms Jeanette Fitzsimons. She asked whether the Budget’s assumptions for the future price of oil took into account “peak oil”. What was “peak oil”? We turned to the internet, and were ill-prepared for the shock that followed. Global oil production was expected to peak in the next few years, with major implications for pricing and availability. References to peak oil were also frequently linked to climate change.

With a newly-heightened awareness of the issues, we began trying to consume less, and more thoughtfully. We moved closer to the places we visit most. We cut down on flying. Adrienne built up her skills in sustainable gardening, joined the Accountants’ Sustainability special interest group and the Auckland Anglican Diocesan Climate Change Action Group. Sean used his knowledge to advocate improvements in rail-based public transport in Auckland.
This booklet comes out of a decision to employ our skills and knowledge in making information about climate change and peak oil more widely available. Our intention is to eventually produce a series of booklets aimed at different groups. The current version is written for people comfortable with fairly complex language, including policymakers, officials, and managers.

Like the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community, and all major governments, we believe the debate about the causes of climate change is over, and therefore have not given it any space. Information about the science of climate change is readily available from a wide variety of sources.

Any single publication devoted to the complex and interconnected issues of climate change and peak oil is inevitably a summary. We have tried to keep this distillation of our research as compact as possible. For readers wishing to explore more widely, we provide some starting points in the appendices.


Acknowledgments

Our thanks go to all who provided encouragement and took the time to comment on various drafts as they were produced. We would like to make special mention of the contributions of Ron Allan, Alan Edie, Susan Healy, David and Pat Holm, Tim Jones, David Parsons and Janet Poole.

Sean Millar & Adrienne Puckey
Mt Albert, Auckland
May 2008


Climate Change
Global temperatures have a long history of changing. They have been unsuitable for sustaining large human populations in the past, and could well be again in the future.
The present rate of climate change is much faster than in the pre-industrial era, because human activities are releasing unprecedented quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Fossil fuel use is responsible for the majority of these.
In 2005, the most recent year for which the United States Energy Information Administration has published figures, total world consumption of primary energy was 463 quadrillion (1015) British thermal units (Btu). Of this, 86.3% was provided by fossil fuels, 6.3% by hydro generation, 5.9% by nuclear energy, and a mere 1.5% by everything else including biofuels, wind, solar, wood, etc. Included in the fossil fuel component is 36.6% provided by oil.1

The sheer size of the fossil fuel component of our energy usage is daunting. Unchecked, the emissions caused by their use will change the climate in ways that will be disastrous for ongoing human habitation.

Already, more extreme weather events, costing thousands of lives annually, are being attributed to climate change. Sea level rises are expected to accelerate and threaten many of the world’s most densely-populated and agriculturally productive low-lying regions. Possibly the greatest threat is the prospect of ecosystem collapses caused by change happening at a faster rate than the organisms we depend on for food can adapt to.


Feedback Loops and Non-linearity

The likelihood that human-induced emissions will trigger dangerous feedback loops is of increasing concern. Known mechanisms include: oceanic warming, rainforest die-off, the melting of frozen methane, and the albedo effect. Alone, or in combination, they have the potential to accelerate climate change beyond a point where human intervention can halt it.

Oceans presently absorb about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas emissions via various life-forms, particularly phytoplankton. In a recent major study, NASA scientists demonstrated that, as the climate warms, phytoplankton growth rates decrease, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed. This happens because warming causes stratification of the ocean waters, creating an effective barrier between the surface layer inhabited by the phytoplankton, and the nutrients below. The result is that carbon dioxide is accumulating even more rapidly in the atmosphere.2

Rainforests are thought not to be able to withstand more than minor temperature changes. Warming could cause extensive die-off of tropical rainforests, such as the Amazon, releasing massive amounts of stored carbon, and causing even more warming.

Frozen methane has been kept out of circulation, in large quantities, both in the tundra and on the seabed. Should rising temperatures cause gasification, there is no way of controlling its release into the atmosphere. Consequently, temperature rises would accelerate.

The albedo effect results from a reduction in the ice cover. Water and land are darker than ice, and therefore reflect less heat from the sun, warming the planet further.
Other — a recently-discovered feedback loop is the lubricating effect additional melt-water has on the movement of glaciers and ice sheets, a phenomenon which contributes to the albedo effect. There are likely to be additional feedback loops, as yet undiscovered.

Until recently, climate models have assumed that change would happen at a steady rate. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that feedback loops can cause quick step-like events known as non-linearities. Why are non-linearities important? The more lineal (consistent) the rate of change, the better our chances of adapting. Non-linearities significantly reduce the possibility of successful adaptation.


Overview

Temperatures will not stay at their present levels, no matter what we do. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that there is so much CO2 and other greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere that even if concentrations held at current levels, the effects of global warming would continue for centuries.3 There is wide agreement that the increase needs to be contained to around 2oC above pre-industrial levels if the worst consequences are to be avoided.

The IPCC estimated that a 50-85% reduction in emissions would be required by 2050 to stabilise temperature increases in the 2.0-2.4oC range. This prediction was tempered with the reservation that “the emission reductions required to meet a particular stabilisation level... might be underestimated due to missing carbon cycle feedbacks”.4 The IPCC further commented that “delayed emissions reductions constrain the opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts.”5

Challenging though the IPCC’s findings are, new research indicates that they are not challenging enough. In a paper published in 2007, James Hansen of the United States National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA), and his co-authors, concluded their article under the subheading Planet Earth today: imminent peril. Their focus was on a non-linear climate change process known as an albedo-flip trigger mechanism, which seems likely to cause much larger and more rapid sea level rises than has previously been estimated. They demonstrated that the level at which greenhouse gases should be considered ‘dangerous’ is lower than had been assumed. In other words, action is even more urgent than IPCC reports, published a few months earlier (but based on older research) had suggested. 6
Discussing Hansen’s paper, British journalist George Monbiot said:
We are not talking any more about measures which require a little bit of tweaking here and there... We’re talking about measures that require global revolutionary change. ... Bold and revolutionary proposals in my book Heat7 don’t go nearly far enough. We need to start thinking on a different scale altogether.... small is no longer beautiful. We have to start thinking on the biggest possible terms. We have very little time to act. We have very little time in which to bring about the largest economical and political change the world has ever seen.8

In April 2008, Hansen co-authored a new paper that went even further.

Humanity’s task of moderating climate change is urgent. Ocean and ice sheet inertias provide a buffer delaying full response by centuries, but there is a danger that human-made forcings could drive the system beyond tipping points such that change proceeds out of our control...

Paleoclimate evidence and ongoing global changes imply that today’s CO2 , about 385 ppm, is already too high to maintain the climate to which humanity, wildlife, and the rest of the biosphere is adapted...

We suggest an initial objective of 350 ppm... Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions for just another decade, practically eliminates the near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level of catastrophic effects.9

Hansen’s team are not alone in their findings. Using a quite different methodology, another major paper has demonstrated similar findings, leading to the conclusion that:
... avoiding future human induced climate warming may require policies that seek not only to reduce CO2 emissions, but to eliminate them entirely.10
Our current economic system is based on emitting ever-larger quantities of carbon, well beyond the level natural systems can absorb. Halting this process before unstoppable feedback loops kick in, is a huge challenge. If we fail, the planet’s capacity to support human populations will be significantly reduced. Unless we implement drastic changes quickly, major shortages of food, and other climate-related crises, will occur, probably within the life-spans of many people already living.


Peak Oil

Among the world’s carbon-based fossil fuels, oil has two outstanding characteristics —very high energy density and ease of transport. Nothing else can completely substitute for it.
Oil is not only used for fuel, but also for an enormous range of plastics and other synthetics, which form part of almost every consumer product we use today. It is critical to the world’s food production, being used right through the supply chain from tilling, to packaging and delivery. The so-called “green revolution” which has enabled the rapid growth of human population in recent decades, largely owes its success to the use of oil (and natural gas), in mechanisation, and the production of fertilisers and pesticides.

Oil’s attractive attributes have resulted in its rapid exploitation. Remaining resources are becoming increasingly difficult to extract. At some point, probably within a few years, oil production will peak, then begin to decline.
Why will production peak?

When plotted against time, the oil production of a country generally resembles a bell-shaped curve, with the peak at the point where approximately half of the resource has been extracted. This phenomenon was first postulated in the mid-1950s by M K Hubbert, a senior geologist with Shell Oil in the United States.

Although one of the most respected petro-geologists of his era, this particular idea of his was received with considerable scepticism amongst his profession. No country had yet peaked, making it impossible to test his model against real-world data. Hubbert’s vindication came in the early 1970s, when the world’s then largest producer, the lower 48 states of the United States, peaked just when his model had predicted it would.

Why the bell-shaped curve pattern? It takes time to find fields and put in production infrastructure, hence the initial upslope of the curve. But oil reservoirs consist of porous rock, and it takes energy to force the oil to the production wells. Initially, this energy comes from the natural pressure of gas associated with the oil.
Gas pressures drop as extraction proceeds. While this drop can be compensated for by pumping in fluids or gas, the process is increasingly energy-intensive, and eventually production per well begins to fall.11

At a national level, the upslope represents a period when new wells can be added to compensate for the declining output of existing wells. But, the point is eventually reached where it is impossible to add sufficient new wells to off-set these declines. That is the point of peak production. The production curve then enters an irreversible downslope, typically at around the stage where approximately half of the original reserves have been extracted.

Production in the lower 48 states of the United States is now well down the downslope. Other large producers that have already peaked and are progressing down their decline curves include Norway, the United Kingdom, Canada and Mexico.
Following the peak of production, the annual rate of decline in output in the lower 48 states was approximately 4%. This has widely been assumed to be a predictor of the global post-peak rate of decline. However, there are indications that the eventual global decline rate may be higher. The UK’s oil output, for instance, has been declining at around 8% per annum.

One of the differences between the UK and the lower 48 states of the US is the use of modern high technology in extraction, which appears to result in faster depletion (see later discussion). The lower 48 states peaked before the introduction of these techniques, whereas they were widely applied from an early stage in the UK’s much newer North Sea fields.

If 4% is taken as a global indicator then, compounded over a 10 year period, a decline of 33.5% in world production could be expected in the first decade after peak. A 6% decline rate (the average of the lower 48 states and the UK) would produce a decline of 46% in the first decade following the peak. For a world used to ever-increasing energy availability, these declines would be very difficult to deal with.


When is the peak likely to be?

The timing of the peak is influenced by a range of factors, often divided into the categories below ground (geological) and above ground (e.g. political, economic, infrastructure). The main driver is the geology, but above ground factors could move the peak a few years one way or the other. For instance, a major global economic recession could delay the peak, as could the speedy achievement of peace in Iraq, which has the world’s largest untapped production capacity.
Attempts to calculate the timing of the peak are not only hampered by inevitable unknowns, such as the global economy and the future of Iraq, but also by the secrecy surrounding important geological data.

Undaunted, various researchers are working to make the best possible use of data that is available. The outcome is a range of opinions.

Leading the case for the optimistic viewpoint is the influential private US consultancy, Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), which puts the peak decades away.

Originally similarly positioned, but now increasingly more cautious, is the International Energy Agency (IEA). Dr Faith Birol, the Agency’s Chief Economist recently had this to say: We are on the brink of a new energy order. Over the next few decades, our reserves of oil will start to run out and it is imperative that governments in both producing and consuming nations should prepare for that time. We should not cling to crude down to the last drop — we should leave oil before it leaves us. That means new approaches will have to be found soon.12

Less optimistic are a variety of independent experts, including Colin Campbell (petro-geologist and founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas), Matthew Simmons (Chairman of Simmons & Company International, a Houston-based investment bank specialising in financing oil exploration and extraction) and Chris Skrebowski (Editor of the UK Petroleum Review). They, and others like them, are generally of the view that world oil production is already at, or within, a few years of peak output.
Statements from the major oil companies have, in the past, generally tended to be optimistic. Recently, a more sober tone has begun to emerge from some. In October 2007, Christophe de Margerie, CEO of the major French oil company Total said: One hundred million barrels per day13 is now in my view an optimistic case… It is not just my view: it is the industry view, or the view of those who try to speak clearly, honestly, and not just try to please people… We have been, all of us, too optimistic about the geology.14
A retired vice president of the world’s largest oil producer, Saudi Aramco, has had this to say:
The worst thing that could happen is to continue to confuse ourselves and the public with too much spin about unlimited energy supplies at cheap prices, alternative fuels on a global scale, or energy independence in a matter of years. That kind of thinking simply dilutes the focus, defers the tough solutions that are needed today, and sets us all up for more future shocks and economic disruptions15
Political leaders have generally been reluctant to speak out on peak oil, but there have been some exceptions, most notably our own Prime Minister:
…we’re probably not too far short of peak production, if we’re not already there.16
The comment was made in response to a reporter’s question at a regular Prime Ministerial press conference. Interestingly, none of the mainstream news media reported the matter, and the Prime Minister does not seem to have pursued it any further herself in public.

The difference between the optimists and the pessimists lies mainly in their assessments of the future potential of as-yet-undiscovered capacity. Discoveries peaked in the 1960s, and have been falling reasonably consistently ever since. In 1980s, discoveries fell below the rate of production. These long-standing trends don’t bode well for the prospect of ongoing increases in production.
Of course new fields are being discovered, but they are smaller than the aging giants that dominate the world’s production today. Many are also situated in conditions where extraction is costly and difficult. The celebratory publicity given to the Jack-2 test well in 2006 is indicative of the situation we are in. Jack-2 is situated in conditions which will test the outer limits of production technology.

Rather than indicating continued abundance in oil supply, such measures may be viewed more accurately as indicating the great lengths oil producers must go to in order to find more oil to meet the world’s insatiable demand. The “low-hanging fruit” is gone and so is the era of the cheap oil. Ultimately, this is the meaning of the Jack-2 test well.17

Thus, while new capacity is constantly being brought on-stream, since 2005 it has only just kept pace with the decline in the output of older fields. Significantly, the present period of high oil prices hasn’t resulted in increased net production.

The recent and unexpectedly rapid melting of the Arctic ice cap, due to climate change, offers a possible increase in capacity. However, unresolved issues over ownership of the Arctic seabed, and extreme working conditions, are likely to inhibit early exploration. Large-scale exploitation seems, almost certainly, to be some way off.

At present, the independent experts’ figures are tracking a lot closer to observed reality than those of CERA and other optimists. Despite the Prime Minister’s statement referred to earlier, the official current New Zealand Energy Strategy (published in October 2007) briefly considers the issue of peak oil, but then uncritically accepts the optimistic IEA prognoses of 2006, which the Agency itself is actively reconsidering (see the quote from Dr Faith Birol on the previous page). The document sums up the government’s official position in the following way:
So, while there will, at some point, be peak ‘cheap’ oil from conventional sources, the world has plentiful sources of fossil-based oil.18

Our government is not alone in its uncritical acceptance of outdated IEA prognoses. British columnist George Monbiot recently had this to say about his own government’s position:
Nine months ago I asked the British government to send me its assessments of global oil supply. The results astonished me; there weren’t any. Instead it relied exclusively on one external source; a book published by the International Energy Agency… Last week I tried again and got the same response… Perhaps it hasn’t noticed that the IEA is now backtracking…19

It is possible to make too much of the differences between the alternative points of view. Higher prices to producers are stimulating rapid increases in domestic consumption in oil producing countries, leading to the likelihood that oil exports will peak before production.20 For an import-dependent country such as New Zealand, the timing of peak exports is every bit as important as the timing of peak production. The New Zealand Energy Strategy (see reference above) makes no mention of this issue.

Further, the prospect of an imminent peak is likely to give oil producers an incentive to keep production in check now so as to benefit from much higher prices later on, optimising future income for their country. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah recently put his position this way:
I keep no secret from you that when there were some new finds, I told them, ‘no, leave it in the ground, with grace from god, our children need it’.21

Whether peak exports and/or production occurs in three years’ time or thirty, a decline in the global availability of oil will happen within the lifetimes of many people alive today.

How does peak oil fit with climate change? Oil production will still remain relatively high immediately after the peak. Thus, oil’s ongoing use will continue to contribute adversely to climate change, even after peak production has passed. Some approaches to alleviating the reduced availability of oil can also ameliorate climate change, for instance greater use of public transport instead of cars. Unfortunately, other approaches, such as substituting coal for oil, will accelerate climate change.

As the world’s economy depends on ever-increasing oil supplies, peak oil is likely to have a significant economic impact, precluding implementation of such costly mitigations as carbon capture and storage technologies, and improved public transport infrastructure.
Oil has been integral to our way of life. Almost every activity we undertake has an oil component to it. The post-peak era will be very difficult to deal with.


Relevance to New Zealand

Overview

Far from being as clean and green as we like to portray ourselves, on a per capita basis New Zealanders are amongst the world’s greatest contributors to oil depletion and climate change. We have an economy based substantially on earnings from farming ruminant animals, long-distance transport of exports, and flying long-haul inbound tourists. We are also major end-users of carbon-intensive products and activities.

New Zealand has long been one of the most energy-intensive countries in the OECD, but worse still, our relative performance has been declining. (Energy intensity is a measure of energy used per unit of production). In 1980 our energy intensity was 65% worse than that of the UK, and 10% worse than that of the United States. As a measure of how far off track New Zealand’s performance has been, by 2005 these figures had deteriorated to 150% and 52% worse respectively.22


New Zealand’s advantages

Despite our high and increasing greenhouse gas emissions, present indications are that New Zealand will be one of the least severely affected in the early stages of climate change. Our mid-latitude location, surrounded by ocean, is a significant asset, as is the relatively high overall elevation of our land surface. And, having a low population relative to productive land area, we could cope with a fall-off in global food production better than many.
For electricity, we have a substantial hydro-generation infrastructure. We have developed geothermal and wind power resources, and have the potential to do more, especially with wind, for which we are one of the best-resourced countries in the world. Tidal and wave generation offer potential, albeit that suitable technology has yet to be proven in operation. Our angle to the sun and sunshine hours also provide the opportunity to expand the use of solar energy.


New Zealand’s disadvantages

Fossil Fuel Resources. For a country whose standard of living is so heavily dependent on oil, we produce worryingly little ourselves. Peak oil is likely to hit New Zealand hard.

In recent decades, we have been self-sufficient in natural gas, but we have already passed our own peak of gas production, and will have to find alternatives in the coming years.

It appears that we have large reserves of coal. However, Huntly, our one major coal-fired power station, is now partly fuelled by imported Indonesian coal because of unexpected technical and extraction difficulties with local coal from one of our largest fields.

Our biggest fossil fuel resource is lignite, a low grade coal that is highly polluting to burn. This is located in Southland, a long way from our main energy markets.
Farming. New Zealand’s economy is dependent on pastoral farming, which is responsible for almost half of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The gaseous output of the digestive systems of sheep and cattle alone account for over 30% of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions.23 These animals belong to a class of animal known as ruminants. From a climate change perspective, the problem with ruminants is that their distinctive digestive systems turns carbon dioxide (originally taken in by the grass they eat) into methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas.

No single issue demands more research in New Zealand. Possible approaches to dealing with ruminant emissions include improving the animals’ digestive efficiency, changing their diets, manipulating their digestive microbiology, or selectively breeding low methane producing animals.24 However, given the nature of the animals’ digestive systems, and the type of food they require, it is unrealistic to expect more than minor improvements.
The most certain way of reducing New Zealand’s methane emissions significantly is to reduce cattle and sheep populations, which could be done by converting to non-ruminant farming, eg forestry, poultry, pigs and horses. However, our infrastructure is geared towards cattle and sheep, as are our export markets. And, these animals currently provide the majority of New Zealand’s overseas earnings.

One possibility being suggested is to shift some of the burden of agricultural emissions onto other sectors of the economy by setting proportionately higher target levels of reduction for such sectors. Not only is this opposed by the sectors concerned, but the sheer scale of agricultural emissions makes it effectively impossible for any combination of other sectors to fulfil this role to any significant extent.

The ruminant issue has yet to fully register in the global market place. However, with information, perceptions and attitudes changing almost monthly, it would be unwise to count on this continuing. For instance, the Los Angeles Times ran an article on 15 October 2007 headed ‘Killer Cow Emissions’, suggesting consumers do their bit by cutting back on red meat.

If global consumers jump onto a ‘ruminants are bad’ bandwagon, it might well then be too late to implement a managed transition to more sustainable forms of farming. We cannot aspire to being carbon neutral without tackling these issues.

Distance. Compared with most other countries, New Zealand is a long way from its major markets. The vast majority of our exports are carried by sea. Although, per tonne kilometre of cargo carried, shipping is less carbon-intensive than air transport, total CO2 emissions from global shipping are double those of aviation, and are increasing at an alarming rate. The International Maritime Organisation predicts that ships’ emissions could increase by 72% by 2020. 25
At present, CO2 emissions from international ships and aircraft do not come under the Kyoto Protocol. Rectification of this anomaly will have serious implications for New Zealand. Individual consumers in Europe are already starting to take an interest in “travel miles” and “food miles”. Research in the UK shows that 66% of consumers say they want to know the carbon footprint of the products they buy.26
While we claim that some of our products are more carbon-efficient over the complete production cycle, we risk falling into the trap of comparing two sets of unsustainable systems. Ultimately, Europeans are more likely to believe that their orchardists can adopt sustainable practices more readily than that New Zealand can ship apples sustainably to the other side of the world. It would be wise to have a ‘Plan B’ for agriculture.

And it is not just with agriculture that we face problems. Our second major foreign exchange earner is tourism. Tourists mainly arrive by long-haul flights, which are inherently highly carbon emitting, and depend on the ready availability of cheap oil. An Australian aviation expert has calculated that one person’s emissions from a return Sydney-London air trip were equivalent to five-to-seven years of average car travel.27

Recent research by Inga Smith and Craig Rodger at the University of Otago showed that, in 2005, the carbon emissions from inbound international visitor’s return air flights was nearly 7.9 million tonnes, roughly the same as for all the country’s fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation, and about 10% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The researchers evaluated potential offset measures, but found them infeasible. Installing wind turbines as offsets, would cost $10 billion. Using regenerating bush to offset the emissions would require an area equivalent to 15 Stewart Islands.28 (Although not part of the study, similar calculations could be applied to New Zealanders travelling overseas, and if incorporated, would significantly increase these figures).

Increasingly, the environmental consequences of flying are being discussed in the British media, and elsewhere in Europe. Recently, the leading article in one of Britain’s most influential newspapers was headed:
It is plain and simple… this aviation boom threatens the world’s future.29

The issue could hardly have been put more starkly. Aviation could become the new tobacco!
It is possible that peak oil could eclipse the climate change awareness impact on tourism. Aviation is entirely dependent on oil, currently having no fuel alternatives. Although biofuels have been trialled, their widespread use in aviation faces enormous difficulties (see later discussion on biofuels).

Tourism is a discretionary activity that will come under pressure from emissions reduction measures, oil supply reductions and consequent economic disruptions. Without doubt, New Zealand also needs to be working on a ‘Plan B’ for tourism.


Summary — New Zealand

Due to our heavy dependence on imported oil, and our high levels of personal indebtedness, New Zealand is likely to be one of the more severely affected countries in the early stages of declining oil production.
By contrast, we are likely to be one of the least directly affected countries in the early stages of climate change. Indirect effects are a different matter.
Should the international community decide to tackle emissions decisively, it is unlikely that our continued lack of effective action would be looked upon kindly.
Our reputation as a country with a clean and green environment is priceless. Failure to protect it by inaction on sustainability would pose a considerable economic risk to New Zealand.30

There are no easy answers. Business as usual is not an option. The more preparation we make in advance, the better situated we will be. We are entering an era that requires enormous political courage from our leaders.


Maintaining Consumption

Faced with an impending decline in oil production, and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, can we maintain our present energy-intensive lifestyles? The short answer is no. However, there is a range of approaches, substitutes and technologies that, in combination, could offer a degree of substitution for oil, and/or amelioration of climate change.
Substituting for oil presents major challenges because there is simply no other fuel with all of its attributes. And, as much as oil use contributes to climate change, some of its possible substitutes are even worse offenders.

We have divided the attempts to maintain consumption into three categories:- adaptation, substitutes, and other technologies. Adaptations are ways of working around constraints by doing things differently. Substitutes are alternative energy sources that might be used to replace oil and/or mitigate climate change. Other technologies are non-energy approaches to energy supply and/or climate change challenges.


Adaptation

Because climate change and peak oil are happening at a faster rate than ameliorative measures can be introduced, adaptation will be an inevitable part of our response. Adaptive strategies involve doing things differently.
It could be argued that the easiest way to deal with climate change would be to get used to it, or even to exploit it. At least initially, climate change might provide some advantages in some regions, including in New Zealand. Potentially, new crops might be able to be grown. The costs of warming houses in winter might reduce.

An example of adaptation comes from the Netherlands. After abnormally severe river flooding necessitated a massive, unwieldy evacuation in 1995, Dutch officials rethought their whole approach to flood protection. Rather than building ever higher barriers against the North Sea storms, hydraulic engineers designed a scheme to purposely breach the dikes during critical flood conditions, releasing waters into areas where flooding would cause least damage. The initiatives were called “Living with Water”, and were just the latest manifestation of the country’s long tradition of living with the water that surrounds it.31

Extreme weather events have always been part of human history, and adaptive measures have been taken, with varying degrees of success. One traditional adaptation was to migrate to less densely populated areas – an option that is now less available because populations worldwide have increased dramatically, and national border controls are more stringent.

There are limits to adaptation. For inhabitants of countries that become flooded or drought stricken, and which cannot afford major public works, the only adaptations available might be death or migration! Even in less affected countries, such as New Zealand, the eventual likely scale and costs could go well beyond those that might reasonably be accommodated by the “learning to live with it” approach.
Thus, although adaptation will undoubtedly play a role, the search is on for more direct means of maintaining consumption.


Energy Alternatives

Fossil Fuels

All fossil fuels are derived from ancient biomass that has been transformed geologically, by heat and pressure. The processes involved are extremely slow, taking many millions of years. We are currently drawing on reserves so much faster than any possible replenishment. For all practical purposes, these reserves are finite.

Because oil is the most attractive of all the fossil fuels, it has been extracted with particular industriousness. Oil production will therefore peak ahead of other fossil fuels, which are increasingly in contention as potential oil substitutes.

Conventional natural gas consists of methane and other gaseous hydrocarbons. It produces the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of all the fossil fuels per unit of energy, and is easily transported by pipeline.

But, ships and terminals are significantly more costly to build and operate than those used for oil. Increasing demand from existing uses of gas (such as for generating electricity and manufacturing fertilisers) limits its availability as an oil substitute. And, it’s gaseous characteristics mean it is not directly substitutable for oil in many applications.

New Zealand’s gas output peaked in 2001. Worldwide, conventional natural gas production is expected to peak one to two decades after oil. Much of the remaining untapped capacity is located in Russia and Iran, two countries with which the West has problematic relationships. Gas fields decline more quickly than oil fields, so the post-peak era is likely to be particularly challenging.

Unconventional natural gas has similar qualities as a fuel to conventional natural gas. The difference lies in its location, which is in difficult conditions, often requiring yet-to-be commercialised production technologies. Relatively little is known about the size of exploitable reserves, although there is every reason to believe that they are fairly large.

Previously, the ready availability to cheap-to-reach conventional natural gas meant that there was little incentive to explore resources and develop technologies. But, depleting or inadequate conventional gas resources is providing an incentive for accelerating development in a number of countries. In the United States, so-called “tight gas” is increasingly contributing to overall gas production. In New Zealand, Solid Energy is exploring the commercial viability of extracting coal seam gas.32 Japan is actively researching technologies to exploit methane hydrates, (a frozen form of unconventional gas dealt with in the following section).

Because it emits considerably less carbon dioxide per unit of energy than coal, unconventional gas could help mitigate climate change if employed as a coal substitute. However, its use as an additional source of energy, would have the opposite effect. The potentially huge scale of the reserves gives considerable cause for concern in this regard.
Methane hydrates are a frozen form of unconventional natural gas. Occurring in areas of permafrost, and on the seabed, they are known to be extremely difficult to exploit, and have thus been little studied to date. With only the sketchiest of data to draw on, estimates of global reserves vary hugely. A 2002 report from the Soloviev Institute for Geology and Mineral Resources in Russia estimated them to be similar to the remaining conventional reserves of natural gas.33 But, the United States Geological Service has estimated that methane hydrates may contain more organic carbon than all the world’s coal, oil and conventional natural gas combined.34

As the energy market tightens, there is increasing incentive to solve the technical challenges standing in the way of exploiting this resource. Lacking significant quantities of more conventional fossil fuels, Japan recently managed to extract “industrial quantities” over a six day period.35 If commercially successful, exploitation will inevitably lead to a large increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Any exploitation of methane hydrates carries risks of large-scale uncontrolled release, something which is generally not a problem with other fossil fuels. As methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, such releases would be potentially disastrous.

Tar (oil) sands / heavy oil – large quantities of these resources exist, principally in Canada and Venezuela. Extraction of tar sands is already occurring on a commercial scale in Canada. The source material is mined, and requires significant processing to convert it into the liquid end product. Mining and processing are both highly energy (natural gas) intensive. Processing also requires enormous quantities of water. There are doubts about whether enough natural gas and water is available to sustain long-term substantial increases in output.

The high resource inputs result in high greenhouse gas emissions. A massive scaling up in output would have serious consequences for climate change.

An experimental technology, currently under trial, burns oil sands in situ to provide the primary energy source. If successful, this would overcome the constraints of natural gas supplies, but at the cost of even greater greenhouse gas emissions.

Oil shale is a rock containing a form of organic matter known as kerogen. Some shale is burned directly as a fuel in electricity generation, but coal is much better suited to this application. The big appeal of shale is that kerogen can be converted to oil.

Globally, the gross energy contained in shale is thought to exceed that of oil. However, the net energy available after extraction and processing is quite a different matter. Conversion requires considerable amounts of energy. And, despite decades of effort, no way has yet been found to achieve large-scale conversion at commercially viable rates of net energy return.

In recent years, Shell Oil has been the leading investor in the field. But, in 2007, the company announced a significant scaling back of its efforts, signalling that commercialisation was, at best, quite some way off.36 There is thus little sign that the small-scale and spasmodic nature of the industry is likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Coal is plentiful, and is also relatively cheap to produce. Coal’s main use worldwide is in electricity generation. The sheer global scale of coal-fired electricity generation makes the electricity sector one of the worst greenhouse gas emitters. Despite wide acceptance of the need to reduce usage, global hard coal consumption in 2006 increased by an extraordinary 8.8% over the previous year. In the 25 years to 2006, it increased 92%.37

Unfortunately, per unit of energy produced, coal emits more than double the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by oil. While capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations is widely discussed, large-scale implementation is, at best, some way off (see the later section on sequestration).

Converting coal to an oil substitute is an established technology, originally developed by Germany during World War II. It was re-established in South Africa during the apartheid era, and is still used there. Massive scaling up is technically feasible, but the process is costly, and gross emissions are very much higher than for oil-based products.

Underground gasification of coal is a new technology currently under development, with a pilot plant already operating successfully in Australia. If commercialised, this technology would open up the exploitation of huge deposits that have previously been too costly to extract. Such an outcome would have extremely serious consequences for climate change.

Recent analyses indicate that coal reserves could be much less than the oft-stated “hundreds of years”.38 Even so, confirmed reserves are still more than large enough to put stabilisation of greenhouse gas levels beyond reach.
Eighty percent of New Zealand’s estimated coal reserves are in a low quality form known as lignite. Located in Southland, they are a long way from our main energy markets. Because of their low energy density, and high levels of contaminants, increased use of lignite would have severe ecological consequences.

So far, lignite has not been greatly used in New Zealand. But, this resource is now being actively promoted for large-scale electricity generation and/or liquids conversion.


Biofuels

Biofuels are derived from recently-grown biomass. Although, they generally don’t perform quite as well as oil-based fuels, from a peak oil perspective, they have the attraction of providing the most easily-used substitutes for oil-based products.

From a climate change perspective, their theoretical attraction is that they return recently-captured carbon to the atmosphere, leaving the net amount of carbon in the atmosphere essentially unaltered. (The use of fossil fuels, by contrast, adds previously long-stored carbon to the atmosphere, thus increasing atmospheric carbon.)
In practice, biofuels are never carbon free, requiring fossil fuels for production and storage. But, their main weakness is that they will require large quantities of space to grow if their use is to be scaled up significantly. Securing this space involves displacing something else, either food crops or natural ecosystems.

Globally, there is increasing unease about the possible impact of large-scale biofuel production on food supplies. In October 2007, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, demanded an international five-year ban on producing biofuels, calling them a crime against humanity.39 Two months later, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation warned that the soaring cost of food was threatening the survival of millions of people in poor countries. Food prices had risen an unprecedented 40% partly due to climate change, as well as demand for biofuels.40

Global food supply difficulties are putting enormous pressure on politicians to review their previous preference for biofuels.41 In April 2008, the European Commission showed signs of backing away from its 10% biofuel requirement, one of the most important components in its campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The New Zealand government is under similar pressure. Previously, New Zealand’s Energy and Efficiency Conservation Authority estimated that, by 2012, we could produce up to 3.4% of our petrol from non-food producing land.42 This percentage then became the required level of sourcing under the government’s proposed legislation.

The target is likely to be a stretch. Generally the type of land envisaged doesn’t support growth well, and the terrain is often remote or difficult to access, requiring high fossil fuel inputs for transport, machinery and fertilisers. In addition, the target, which would take four years to achieve, represents less than the recent annual rate of increase in New Zealand’s petrol consumption (which has been running at around 5% p.a.).

As global concerns about food security increased, it became clear that New Zealand’s biofuel requirements could add to the problem. In April 2008, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment called for the government’s current bill to be scrapped.43 She is not alone in her concerns.
The problem is the land producing biofuels is competing with that for food production and there simply isn’t sufficient land globally to do both. It’s not a good look for New Zealanders to be filling their cars with biofuels while the world’s poorest starve.44

It isn’t just the impact that biofuel production has on food supplies that is drawing criticism. Biofuels’ actual effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is also being widely queried. A recent study, led by a scientist at the US Nature Conservancy, and published in Science found that ...when peat lands in Indonesia are converted into palm-oil plantations,,, it would take 423 years to pay off the carbon debt. ... when forested land in the Amazon is cut down to convert into soybean fields... it would take 319 years of making biodiesel to pay off the carbon debt caused by chopping down the trees in the first place.45
A recent heading to Dave Hansford’s weekly “Ecologic” column summed the biofuel situation up in a nutshell:
The road to hell: Biofuels seemed like a good idea at the time.46

Grain ethanol production is already well-established, but production is only commercially viable with substantial farm subsidies.
Superficially, grain ethanol offers lower carbon emissions than oil. However, production requires significant use of oil and gas (in farm machinery, pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, transport and processing plants). Energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is poor, even negative in some circumstances.

Grain is fundamental to sustaining human life. Producing ethanol from grain puts pressure on food supplies.
Filling a Range Rover with subsidised ethanol would take as much grain as would feed an African family for a year. Rich countries’ fuel substitution programmes often consume more energy than they save [doing] the opposite of what was intended. 47

Scaling grain ethanol as a substitute for oil is a recipe for a humanitarian disaster.
Sugar ethanol can be produced either from cane or beet. Cane-sourced ethanol is already in common use as an oil substitute in Brazil. It is commercially viable, and low carbon emitting.

There is a worrying potential for cane ethanol to displace food crops and/or tropical rainforest. Tropical rainforests are major carbon sinks. Deforestation releases huge quantities of captured carbon.

New Zealand does not have a suitable climate for growing sugar cane, and does not produce beet.
Cellulosic ethanol is produced from woody biomass. A lot of work is going into developing suitable processes, but commercialisation is hampered by the difficulty of achieving a positive net energy yield.

The matter of what constitutes waste is also an issue. If left in situ, a lot of so-called waste is recycled by natural processes to reinforce soil fertility. Ongoing removal reduces the long-term productivity of the land.
Given the amount of wood waste generated in New Zealand, cellulosic ethanol may have some potential. On a global scale, however, even if the outstanding issues can be successfully resolved, it seems unlikely that cellulosic ethanol will be able to be scaled up to play more than a minor role as an oil substitute.

Whey-based ethanol uses a by-product derived from cows’ milk. Dairy farming is a major source of carbon emissions. Thus the environmental merits of using fuel derived from this source are highly questionable.

A 10% whey ethanol petrol blend was launched in New Zealand by Gull in 2007. Although the supplier, Fonterra, is one of the world’s largest milk processors, it announced that it had insufficient uncommitted product to supply other petrol outlets. It seems unlikely that whey-based ethanol will be able to be scaled up much further.

Biodiesel technology is already well established. Unusually for an oil substitute, it is cost-effective (ignoring externalities), and there are no significant technical obstacles to its everyday use.

The downside of biodiesel lies in the consequences of growing its two main feedstocks, palm oil and rapeseed. Palm oil is grown on former tropical rainforest and associated peat lands. Clearing these is one of the world’s worst contributors to greenhouse gas and particulates emissions, and to biodiversity reduction.

Rapeseed was traditionally used to produce cooking oil, margarine, and cattle feed. Not only is a food source being diverted to fuel use, but rapeseed farming causes worse water pollution than most other crops.48

New Zealand has some small-scale potential biodiesel feedstocks, most notably tallow. However, tallow is in demand for other more profitable purposes. Furthermore, tallow is produced from ruminant animals, an environmentally unfriendly source, which will need to be scaled down if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Algae seems to have some potential as a more environmentally-friendly source of biodiesel. To date, the technology has not advanced beyond small-scale trials due to processes failing when scaled-up. While a New Zealand firm has recently claimed a major secret technological breakthrough, this has been greeted with a generally sceptical response.49

Even if a real breakthrough in algal technology is made, just like plant-based biofuels, production will be dependent on sunlight as the energy source. That means space being allocated to it, space that is presently occupied by something else.

In summary, it seems unwise to count on biodiesel playing more than a minor role in oil substitution.
Biomass gasification covers a range of proposed technologies which aim to turn biomass into gas, which can then be converted to liquids, if desired. The appeal of this approach lies in the possibility of using waste as the feedstock, eg chaff. A small number of demonstration projects are under development, the most advanced being in Germany.50 At present, capital costs are too high to be commercially viable. The availability of suitable quantities of feedstock is likely to limit scalability. While further research is warranted, it seems unlikely that biomass gasification will play more than a minor role in ameliorating peak oil or climate change.

Thermal depolymerisation and other biofuels - several other biofuel technologies are under investigation. However, there is a pattern of hype followed by a reality check as each new ‘answer’ to the oil problem runs into significant difficulties. Several years ago, thermal depolymerisation (TDP) was heralded as being able to take any organic material and turn it into oil. TDP was going to deal with the world’s waste, supplement dwindling oil supplies, slow down global warming, and make oil for $8-12 a barrel. Costs turned out to be very much higher than forecast, unforeseen complications arose, and small technical problems turned out to be big when the process was scaled up.


Non-fossil Electricity Generation

Coal and natural gas are the main sources of energy for electricity generation globally. The only presently massively scalable substitute is nuclear fission.
In October 2007, the New Zealand government announced that state-owned electricity companies would be directed to source all new generating capacity from renewable sources.51 There is some hope that this ambition might be achievable in New Zealand, but there is little indication that it is possible in many other countries without radical transformation of their economies.
Although it is presently used in this role only to a very limited extent, electricity has potential as an oil substitute via a range of technologies including electric trains, trams, trolleybuses, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and the manufacture of hydrogen fuel (dealt with in more detail later in this chapter).

Hydro-generation is a long-established renewable technology, which provides a relatively small percentage of worldwide generating capacity, but a much larger, although falling, percentage in New Zealand.

Twenty years ago, hydro power accounted for more than 70 percent of the total electricity generated. As the population and the economy have grown, hydro power’s share has declined to approximately 60 percent of total electricity generated today.52

Although capital costs can be high, running costs are low, and compare well with fossil-fuelled alternatives. Despite the advantages of hydro-generation, future expansion is limited by the availability of suitable new sites, and by other environmental considerations. Mini-hydro schemes are easier to implement than large-scale schemes, but there is little chance that they will become numerous enough to have a significant impact.

Until recently, hydro-generation has been held out as a climate-friendly alternative, but overseas research has raised important queries. Emissions of significant quantities of the potent greenhouse gas methane have been attributed to decaying biomass on the lake floors of dams.53 More work needs to be done before the scale and relevance of this issue is better understood.

Near-surface geothermal generation is an established low-carbon technology. Although New Zealand is a leader in this field, commercially viable sources are limited here, and even more so globally. Currently, geothermal contributes around 6% of New Zealand’s generating capacity, but this share is unlikely increase significantly in future.
Deep-level geothermal is a theoretical concept only. If the heat of the earth’s core could be tapped, its potential as a non-carbon energy source would be almost unlimited. However, exploitation presents major technical, energy input and cost issues, and these appear to be a very long way from resolution.

Wind energy is one of the few true bright lights on the horizon. Apart from the carbon emitted in constructing and installing turbines, this is a nil-carbon technology. It is currently in operation, and is steadily being improved. Furthermore, it is commercially viable, under present conditions, and returns positive net energy on energy invested.

Nevertheless, output is intermittent, suitable sites are limited, and there is often local resistance to visual intrusion. Also, density is low, meaning that facilities cover much greater areas than is required for fossil-fuelled generation.

Although global scalability is limited, wind generation is expected to play a steadily-increasing role in New Zealand, which is one of the best-situated countries in the world for wind.

Solar (general) — the sun daily delivers 20,000 times more energy to the earth than we currently use in the form of fossil fuels.54 However, as an electricity source or oil substitute, energy from the sun has some major inherent problems, such as intermittency, and the technology required to capture it. Also, generating facilities cover much greater areas than is required for their fossil-fuelled equivalents.

Although it is possible to envisage solar technology eventually making a large contribution, there is no immediate sign of a breakthrough of the scale necessary to have a significant impact on the problems of climate change and peak oil in the near future.

Solar photovoltaic technology converts light from the sun directly into electricity, without any intermediate thermal phase. The technology is already widely in use, but only in small-scale applications where connections to a grid, or other source, are inconvenient.

Current photovoltaic technology employs silicon, a common element, but one that is costly to purify to the extent necessary. These costs have proved stubbornly difficult to reduce to a level low enough to make mass generation commercially viable.

Photovoltaic technology continues to be an area of intense research activity. Even so, progress seems likely to be incremental, rather than dramatic. There is no apparent immediate prospect of a leap of the magnitude necessary for photovoltaic generation to play a significant role in displacing fossil fuels in electricity generation in the near term. New Zealand is well positioned to take advantage of photovoltaic generation, if ever such a breakthrough were to be achieved.

Solar thermal energy harnesses energy from the sun as heat (eg directly as in water heating, or indirectly as in electricity generation).

Solar hot water has domestic and light industrial applications. Solar thermal energy can also be used in building design. Small-scale technologies have been progressing steadily, and are widely used in many countries, including New Zealand.

Water heating is a major energy use, and therefore a valuable target for further development. Hot water cylinders offer the added advantage of helping smooth solar’s inevitable intermittency.

Solar energy potentially offers large carbon emission reductions for New Zealand, but government attempts to advance its use have been little more than half-hearted. In the absence of priced-in externalities for other electricity sources, subsidies are needed to facilitate widespread use of solar water heating.

Subsidies could include funding larger-scale more cost-efficient production, and a larger and better-trained workforce of installers.
Internationally, much research effort is focused on solar thermal-to-electricity generation. Several techniques are being trialled.

Wave & tidal energies seem to offer considerable potential. The sources are huge, widely available, and operation should be practically carbon-free. There is no shortage of ideas but, despite much research, only minor commercial deployment has occurred with tidal, and none with wave generation.

New Zealand has many potential sites, two of which — Cook Strait and the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour— have received recent attention. Both are costly and difficult places to undertake major engineering projects.
It seems unwise to count on wave and tidal generation being available on a scale sufficient to have a significant early impact on greenhouse gas emissions and oil shortages over the next few decades.

Osmotic power utilises the osmotic pressure difference between fresh water and sea water. Power plants would be located at the mouths of rivers. A pilot plant started operating in Norway in 2003. Commercialisation will require sig

UK agency Futerra has released it's Greenwash Guide: Ho