Fuel challenge musings
The British couple who are attempting to set a world record by driving around the world on only 50 tanks of fuel are finishing their New Zealand leg and arriving in Auckland this afternoon, to be greeted by the Prime Minister. They’ve been using a special fuel designed by Shell to be highly efficient (it’s not commercially available at the moment) as well as economical driving techniques to conserve their fuel, and so far, 50 of an estimated 70 days in, they have only filled up 15 times. You can read more about their project on their website.
I’m in two minds about this couple. On the one hand, encouraging people to use fuel more efficiently is an important aspect of reducing overall fuel consumption, slowing down the impact of peak oil, and reducing emissions. But a big part of fuel efficiency is only using your car when you really need to, and this trip is completely unnecessary, with the sole goal of setting a record! Even at maximum efficiency, they are producing emissions which just don’t need to be emitted, and sending the rather unhelpful message that round the world trips for the hell of it - by car, plane or otherwise - are a sustainable idea, which is less and less the case.
So, does raising awareness about fuel economy justify unnecessary fuel use? Maybe they had better plant some trees when they get home!
March 8th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
> Even at maximum efficiency, they are producing emissions which just don’t
> need to be emitted, and sending the rather unhelpful message that round
> the world trips for the hell of it - by car, plane or otherwise - are a
> sustainable idea, which is less and less the case.
So … what’s the Green party’s position on, say, my going on holiday to Rarotonga with my wife later this year? Should we be prohibited from doing so?
March 8th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
I’m just musing - not seeking to prohibit you and your wife from doing anything! My froggy thoughts don’t necessarily constitute the Green Party’s position.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Please bear with me while I explain my (admittedly caffeine-fuelled) reasoning …
1. The Green Party is opposed to activities they deem unsustainable, like e.g. the use of private cars instead of public transport.
2. A round trip to Australia, IIRC from today’s Herald, is equivalent to a year’s worth of driving a car, in terms of CO2 output.
3. So every trip I take to Australia is the equivalent of a car in full time use on the road for a year, and I *know* the Greens are trying to reduce the use of private cars by Government funding of public transport.
Hence my curiosity … if world trips (or international travel in general) are unsustainable by Green standards, what do they plan on doing about it? (Obviously my fervent hope is ‘nothing at all’, but somehow I doubt it …)
March 8th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
I am two minds about this one too - its good that Shell are attempting to develop fuel additives to improve fuel efficency, yet at the same time the way this is being promoted looks very like a ‘greenwashing’ drive by a major oil company.
I wonder if they have driven through the Niger Delta yet
March 8th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Dude, you NEED a holiday ! - therefore you fall inside the guidelines of the policy
respectfully
BJ
March 8th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
And then of course there is the question of the effort/fuel involved in getting this special fuel to all the places these guys needed it. But, getting some good publicity about the need to increase efficiency and conserve fuel goes a long way to countering the fuel consumed by this ‘challenge’ to my mind.
One thing about air travel of course is that it pays even less of the real costs - no taxes etc - so the price of airtravel is unfairly low. Surely one key thing for sustainability is to ensure that consumers know what the real costs of their lifestyle choices are. And if Duncan or anyone wants to ‘carbon neutralise’ their travel, there are organisations who will take your money and plant you some trees.
March 8th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
More seriously - What is needed for NZ is more efficient trans-oceanic transportation.
This isn’t going to come from nowhere though it will be triggered eventually by the rising cost of fuel. We gain advantage by planning and developing with this eventual state of affairs in mind. We will NOT have as many 747-400 flights and even less with cargo. We’re going to see more stuff shipped by surface (ton for ton more efficient) and potentially we are going to have some new modes like Lighter Than Air (LTA) ships being used to fill in the gap left when the big birds quit burning fuel by the ton.
respectfully
BJ
March 8th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
BJ LOL - but I did wonder where DB had got to ?
Anyway back on topic. The featured web site has no technical guff, such as:
- energy density of the special brew
- actual ingredients in the brew
- environmental impact of making the brew
- etc
As a comparison, everyone knows that diesel cars go much further on a litre of fuel (cf petrol). This is due to greater carbon content (hence higher energy density) which also results in more CO2 emissions per litre used.
One fact I recently learned is that diesel fuel takes 25% more crude feedstock to produce than petrol, thus cancelling out many of it’s other advantages.
I’d be interested in seeing what the actual facts are - I suspect it’s more greenwashing than anything else. I hope the whole crew have a great trip - apart from the fuel efficiency
side - these sorts of things may become the myths that we tell our children in the not-to-distant future.
March 8th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
BJ,
LOL! Yes, yes I do need a holiday … for those who haven’t been to Rarotonga, it is beautiful, & I strongly recommend it. The only reason my wife & I didn’t up stumps and move there is we figured we’d get bored, eventually. We did however spend a lot of time discussing the possibility.
You’re right that the cost of fuel will trigger changes in choices w.r.t. transport. My question is … why does the Government need to be involved?
Privatise the roads, introduce tolls (based on RFIDs most likely, no waiting at toll booths) and road users pay for the roads - and no-one else.
Privatise the airlines, quit subsidising Air NZ and spending millions of taxpayers money on airports, and guess what - airline users pay for airlines, airports etc. - and no-one else.
Keep on like this (privatise, and quit subsidising) and people will be faced with the real cost of their chosen form of transport, be it car, plane, ship, foot, bike, whatever. And even better & fairer, those who *don’t* use it won’t have to pay.
Then, they can make their own choices as fuel prices fluctuate, road owners increase or decrease tolls, or perhaps even if public transport trusts (funded of course by private donations) give away el-cheapo bicycles for CBD commuters …
March 8th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
I think part of the reason behind the trip is to test the fuel additive in a range of conditions in a normal family car. But also obviously a big part of it is publicity for the oil company and it is a bit unnessary bringing all the crew, fuel additive, world record observers all the way around the world.
March 8th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
So you can question this, but it was ok for Sue Kedgley in 2001 to be driven to Palmerston North so she could ride the Capital Connection train to Wellington to protest about the withdrawal of the Bay Express?
The Duke of Wellington once spoke out against railways because they would allow the common people “to move about needlessly” - I see the same attitude coming through here.
March 9th, 2006 at 12:45 am
Privatise the roads! LOL! So will there be competition between road providers? Where is NZ do you think that two roads going to the same place is possible? You’re in a libertarian fantasy land mate.
March 9th, 2006 at 2:46 am
There doesn’t need to be competition - although in some cases there are options - Nelson-Christchurch, Wellington-Hawke’s Bay, Wellington-Auckland, Tauranga-Auckland, Rotorua-Tauranga. France’s motorway system is privately owned and there is competition from rail, coastal shipping and aviation. Local roads could be owned by body corporates of adjoining property owners - just need imagination
March 9th, 2006 at 9:17 am
I haven’t seen the Herald article, but someone sprang the Herald factoids on me last night so I had to do the maths:
- I couldn’t find fuel usage stats, so working from the planes specs..
- a fully laden 747-200 carries 231 passengers, 7315km max on a load of 43625 litres of fuel. A 747-400 manages 416 passengers for 13, 480km on 216,820 litres (that’s a helluva lot of gas…)
- that works out to .022 litres per km per passenger for the -200, and .04 for the -400
- for Auckland-Sydney return (4292km return, and fudging up a little to allow for takeoff + landing), that’s between 100 and 180 litres per person, depending upon which aircraft you fly in
- so Duncan you’ll use the equivalent of about 2-3 tanks of gas for the round trip.. more like a couple of months driving than a year’s worth
March 9th, 2006 at 11:01 am
btw - can anybody provide info on where biodiesel is currently obtainable in NZ? I read a while back of someone (in Wellington, I think) who was offering a vehicle conversion kit to use cooking oil.. he had a stock of oil for sale as well.. but I can’t turn up references to it anywhere now…
thx,
Andrew
March 9th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
So, it’s bikes for Jeanette and the Parliamentary crew, to get home at weekends, then?
Or just let prices work their magic?
But don’t forget about cussed humans - BJC’s reverie about coastal transport may make sense in terms of fuel consumed per tonne-km of freight. But just try to get any shipper with more than two brain cells, interested in endless negotiations with port companies, unions, RMA activists, crews, regulators and so on ad infinitum, to deliver to other than the established ports.
As witness, the proposal to up stakes from Picton and run the ferries from Clifford Bay. Multiply this for each new port needed to cover the long, strung-out coastline we inhabit. Ain’t gonna happen without the removal of many of the current obstacles.
After all, you’ve got to get there, from here.
March 9th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Oh, and LTA? In last weeks howling sou-westerlies? Potential availability is about the same as for wind power - around 33%. Not good enough if you expect your groceries to be actually on the shelf next week.
Thinking aloud, isn’t there an inverse correlation between wind power potential, and LTA feasibility?
March 9th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
There doesn’t need to be competition so we’d be happy with another gouging private monopoly. Telecom is already a lesson to kiwis.
And as for the choices between Chch and Nelson:
2 main roads by car or bus. (It’s too far to walk, I’ve biked it before -an enjoyable 4 days)
In France for a similar journey you’d have a choice of:
Motorway (Autoroute)
N Road (Route Nationale)
Bus
Train (either TGV for main cities or regional for smaller towns)
March 9th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Waymad - I was discussing freight to and from NZ, not along the coast. The simplest things seem to become misunderstandings somehow. As long as we are moving things about on NZ soil I’d be looking for an electric rail based system wherever practical.
LTA could give an intermediate speed of transit between NZ and other countries, not as slow as a ship, nor as fast as a plane, but regular enough and fast enough and CHEAP enough to fit into the mix as fuel becomes too dear for anyone to fly a Jumbo unless they really REALLY need to. I really wouldn’t want to push LTA around NZ proper. On the long hauls though, it can often USE the wind, and the routes become complicated as the wind patterns become a larger factor in determining arrival times.
Such a little misunderstanding and we’re off in entirely different directions.
Duncan - the government builds infrastructure because nobody else can be responsible for doing it right. This is our country, not J.R.Bigbucks country. If JR wants to build a road he’s got to obtain a stretch of easements and owned property contiguous and covering his planned route, make sure he’s not f’ing up the environment or bulldozing Maori land, adhere to safety requirements on the job and somehow make a profit off the enterprise, which implies tolls. Looks like a magnificent way to go broke REALLY fast, but if we make it any easier someone gets hurt and maybe gets hurt badly along the way. Worse, if JR gets into strife and just walks away, or takes the cash and runs… the point I am makeing is that there is a reason for givernment and if you try to privatize anyway, that reason will be in your face faster than you can say oops. Failed in CA, would fail even worse here.
The other problem of course, is that there is only so much land available that is suitable for building roads. Too many mountains. Put in a private road and the public route is damaged, and vice-versa. You wind up with “no competition” guarantees in the contracts too.
respectfully
BJ
March 10th, 2006 at 12:15 am
“Local roads could be owned by body corporates of adjoining property owners - just need imagination”
Sounds an awful lot like 18th century England. Turnpikes were operated by the landowners, and huge tolls were levied to cross their land. People used to camp out by the toll booths in the hope that they would be allowed across for free- they were known as ‘pikies’ heh.
In general, granting monopoly powers to private owners of essential infrastructure is a BAD idea, and open to abuse. Far more effective is just to levy a fuel tax- this has the desired incentives of reducing fuel consumption and encouraging fuel saving technologies.
Given New Zealand’s disastrous record on privatisation this would be a far better option.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
uk_kiwi, there are two problems with fuel tax. One, is that it doesn’t reflect the wear and tear heavier vehicles impose on road surfaces, weight goes up, fuel consumption not so much -which is why we have road user charges for heavy vehicles. Secondly, and more importantly - it doesn’t reflect demand and supply. The greatest economic and environmental problem of road transport is congestion - so at peak times people wanting to use a scarce resource (road space) should pay for the privilege - as in London, Singapore and Stockholm.
The Greens support it, and free marketeers support it - and if introduced you’d hardly need to ever build new roads!
March 10th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
yeah but congestion charges are possible without privatisation
March 10th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I wondered what urgent business Jeanette was attending to last week when I sat behind her on a flight to Auckland. But no doubt it is ok for her to travel because her work is “important”. Don’t tell me she was off to the energy efficiency awards….. If she was, why didn’t she use videoconferencing?
Do the Greens have a travel policy that defines urgent travel and encourages other methods of communication first and actual travel last. Or as we taxpayers end up footing the bill does that not matter? Until you start living like you lecture, you’ll just be another bunch of busybodies.
Huskynut - re biodiesel, he was in the Hutt News last year. You could call them for details. Be careful as if he is using raw waste vege oil there can be some significant downsides for your vehicle. I would pay a lot of attention to his filtering and esterification processes otherwise you could end up with a worn out engine very quickly. Ask if he tests his fuel in line with the new biodiesel standards and what the results are (and for quality certificates).
March 10th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Arguments about “a trip to Raratonga” etc etc etc
American tourists arrive in Milford Sound in many large opulent tourist buses daily at about 11am in time to take a launch trip (with posh lunch) out into the Sound, a short walk around a boardwalk for the more physically minded, and back into the bus to Te Anau (a staging point) by 2pm at the latest. This is part of their three day trip to “see” Aotearoa NZ then it’s back to work in New York or wherever, having taken a week off work.
That is the face of our tourist industry, and presumably the tourist industries of many parts of the world: catering for peolpe who are income rich and time poor. They have the money to “afford” to sqander the fossil fuel reserves of the planet … as can the business community sending executives across the world for short conferences or meetings … and the global market devotees who see “progress” in the constant importing of junk to supply our increasing need to “shop” as a form of recreation …
“When I was young (!!)” people saved their money, left their jobs and took a ship (which also carried cargo) to Europe or wherever for their “Big OE” (overseas experience). Most of a community’s needs were produced locally. Consumer goods were designed to last (and were able to be repaired.)
Gradually Air travel took over. (For my first trip in 1965 I bought a “round the world” ticket with multiple choices of stopovers that was valid and changeable for a full year.)
We gradually “moved on” from there, so the changes and their implications were not questioned.
(I won’t even start on the global market devotees who see “progress” in the constant importing of junk to supply Kiwis increasing need to “shop” as a form of recreation … )
Now, with the current qusstions about oil, we have a need to seriously rethink our ways of doing things, locally and internationally. Luckily we still have the knowledge and knowhow to move back a few steps … but it will be a complicated process.
So seriously, let’s stop the “one-upping” and the reciting of individual mantra(s) and let’s discuss the real issues here.
eredwen
March 10th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
ereweden
wouldn’t we be squandering the fossil fuel resource more by leaving it in the ground?
March 10th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
insider:
My answer to your spurious question is: “No, left in the ground it would be there for future use.”
eredwen
March 10th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
I don’t think we need to introduce policies to curb air travel to reduce emissions and combat global warming because high oil prices are going to do it for us.
The history of air travel shows that it was initially a tiny business for the well off that gradually increased - it will be down the bell curve heading back for that real soon now.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
eredwen
Why is it a spurious question? Just because you didn’t like it?
How much will be needed in the future? How much should the future leave for their future? What if using it now creates a better future for our future? Do we still leave it then?
It’s your answer that is the spurious one - we have no idea what our descendents will or won’t need. In fact they may condemn us for not making the most of what we have. We don’t need vast oak forests to use for the masts of sailing ships, but using your logic, our ancestors may never have sailed the world for fear of using up all the oaks…
March 10th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
nice try insider
March 10th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
stuey
I hope you are right.
George Monbiot’s latest is worth reading:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/02/28/we-are-all-killers/
March 10th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Insider - spurious because it is obvious and meaningless, AND she answered it anyway. She is far kinder to you than you deserve.
Why do greens use airplanes? Because while we prepare for tomorrow as best we can, we must abide by the laws of physics and the customs of the present. When the cost of airfare rises to the point where the awards “ceremonies” (and many other things as well) are done via videoconference, and we’ve built the trains and rail up to handle our rapid transport needs economically we will be among the first to avail ourselves. Rail that good isn’t built in an afternoon, and the conferencing habit dies hard.
How much (of the oil left in the ground) will be needed by the next generation… and how much should THEY leave? Gee… that’s a real HARD one… I have it! HOW MUCH OF WHAT YOU HAVE SHOULD YOU LEAVE YOUR CHILDREN???
ALL YOU CAN!
See? It isn’t so hard if you actually think about others, and society at least as much as you think about yourself… From the tone of your posts that’d be a really new and novel idea for you, but consider it.
As for “using up all the Oaks” I suggest you read “Collapse” by Jared Diamond, with particular attention to what happened on Easter Island… or examine the heavily wooded mountains of Crete .
we have no idea what our descendents will or won’t need. In fact they may condemn us for not making the most of what we have
If you really believe this is remotely possible, you don’t merit any further answers from anyone on this board.
BJ
[Who knows the single possible way for that to be true, and knows that it is not]
March 11th, 2006 at 12:05 am
Stuey - Even before the fuel price does in Air Travel, the global recession it triggers will do in Air Travel.
I still think the LTA ship from Auckland to LA is going to happen, and it will make the trip faster than any fast ship, and more efficiently than any plane that uses aerodynamics for lift. Yeah… it’ll take 50 hours instead of 17… but Monbiot is right about the damage the planes are doing.
The alternatives however, are not yet built. I am surprised that he thinks the train is no more efficient. I have to question his conclusion there, but it may have to do with sample data on current HS rail, which was never aimed at efficiency at all, only raw speed. Hard to make High Speed rail all-electric so it wasn’t done. Not impossible.
We WILL slow down some, we will videoconference and telecommute more, but I think that Monbiot overstates the implied death of high speed transits. They won’t be quite as fast and easily scheduled, but they won’t be THAT slow.
respectfully
BJ
March 11th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Insider …our ancestors may never have sailed the world for fear of using up all the oaks
Can you see any obvious differences between oak trees and FOSSIL fuels ? Hint - for starters one takes 300 years to grow and the other takes ~50 million.
Maybe some of our ancestors had a bit more foresight than you know about. E.g. New Forest in UK was planted eaxctly for that reason.